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

Archived DRN Cases

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

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Current disputes

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Khojaly Massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Grandmaster (talk · contribs)
• Urartu TH (talk · contribs)
• Divot (talk · contribs)
• Antelope Hunter (talk · contribs)
• Ninetoyadome (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have a disagreement with Urartu TH about the inclusion of Human Rights Watch death toll estimates into the infobox. HRW, which conducted a thorough investigation of the tragedy, writes: "While it is widely accepted that 200 Azeris were murdered, as many as 500-1,000 may have died". Urartu TH believes that the infobox should contain only the lower estimate of 200, as the higher numbers in his opinion are not realistic. In my opinion, we cannot censor the source like that, as it is not up to us to engage in WP:OR and decide what is and what is not a reliable estimate. I believe that we should stick to whatever HRW says, with proper attribution of citations, in accordance with WP:VERIFY, i.e. the infobox should say "200 - possibly up to 500 - 1,000" in the part that cites HRW. Grandmaster 15:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another point here is, that if we include into infobox only the lower estimates of HRW, this would create a false impression that HRW does not consider higher estimates to be plausible. That is certainly not the case. Grandmaster 23:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion at talk of the article

How do you think we can help?

By providing opinions

Summary of dispute by Urartu TH

User Grandmaster has been attempting to change the casualties portion of the infobox on the Khojaly massacre article. This user is in dispute with myself, Divot and Antelope Hunter in this matter. We wish to keep the status quo as it represents what has been the consensus for some time. Grandmaster is attempting to add a controversial figure (500-1000 casualties) which is mentioned only ONCE in a footnote on page 24 of (http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/a/azerbjn/azerbaij94d.pdf). This speculative and highly dubious figure is already noted in the body of the article.

The figure is clearly an offhand comment and its inclusion in the infobox meets neither Wikipedia standards of WP:UNDUE nor WP:NPOV. The upper-end figure of 1000 that Grandmaster wishes to include is one that not even the government of Azerbaijan (a biased party in regards to the issue of the article) uses; they themselves claim 613 casualties. The "footnote figure" is found no where else in any document and is merely the speculative musings of one HRW scribe in one single footnote. It should not be given the same weight as casualty figures we know to be true, such as the 161+ casualty or the 200 casualty figures. The article involves a highly controversial and sensitive topic along with articles about all the other massacres during the Karabakh war on both sides.--Urartu TH (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Divot

1. According Azerbaijani government - 613 people
2. Accordin Tom de Waal - 485 people
3. According HRW - 161+ people
4. In the comment HRW wrote "While it is widely accepted that 200 hundred Azeris were murdered, as many as 500-1,000 may have died"

The last comment have a blunder. "200 hundred Azeris" means 20.000 Azeris. Again, 1000 is an obvious exaggeration, no one source use this figure.

So, according Neutral point of view (Balancing aspects) we can use in principle this figure in the topic, but, of course, not in the Infobox, where we must use reliable figures, not dubious speculations, like 20000 or "possibly up to 500 - 1,000" victims. Divot (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Antelope Hunter

As already stated, the number 1000 is speculative and not even the Azerbaijani government claims such a high number. It falls under WP:Due and should be kept out of the article. --Antelope Hunter (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Ninetoyadome

I actually have no opinion on this matter, you guys can make a decision if you like. Ninetoyadome (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khojaly Massacre

We'll wait another day to see if Ninetoyadome would like to also make an opening statement and then we can proceed with discussion. Thanks for your patience, for remaining civil and avoiding personal comments. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ninetoyadome has said he/she is neutral on this issue and would like to leave it to others to decide. How would the remaining participants like to proceed?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Grandmaster has received answers to his inquiry in regards to this dipuste. There is clearly a consensus in leaving the status quo intact and NOT including the speculative figure Grandmaster was attempting to add into the article; to reiterate, it is in violation of WP:UNDUE amongst other rules.--Urartu TH (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't received any answers yet, and no, there's no consensus. Of the involved editors, 1 neutral, 2 support inclusion of the whole range of HRW estimates, and 3 against. That is far from consensus, plus consensus is not formed on the basis of voting anyway. And I do not see what WP:UNDUE has to do with this at all. At this point, I'm not so much interested in the opinions of the previously involved users, as we already know what each of us thinks. I would rather like to see the opinions of third party editors, a fresh look. Something like an RFC or 3o. Grandmaster 23:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brandmeister was not involved in the discussions about the speculative figure before the DRN. Therefore, of the four editors that were involved besides yourself, 3 are against and 1 is abstaining. This is enough of a consensus.--Urartu TH (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The massacre is in my watchlist and in response to my post at the talkpage it seems like Urartu TH has nothing against having HRW's upper bound of 1,000 in the article's body. I'm fine with it. Brandmeister^talk 08:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I guess we have a full consensus now against. I personally also think it should be removed from the body, but I suppose that's another matter since this is about the infobox.--Urartu TH (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I may contribute my humble opinion, regarding the infobox, the 500-1000 estimate is not reliable enough. It does not matter whether editors find the estimate reliable. HRW says "may have died". "May" indicates that it is plausible but not reliable. As a side note, it would help the readers if the link to the report were in the reference. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

WP makes its decisions based on 'rough consensus', not votes. However, sometimes a straw poll is useful to clarify which way participants are leaning. With this in mind I'd like to ask User:Grandmaster, User:Urartu TH, User:Brandmeister, User:Divot, and User: Antelope Hunter etc. to vote on Grandmaster's proposal for the infobox only.

• Current text: Deaths 161+, or 200 (Human Rights Watch) 613 (Azerbaijan claim)
• Proposed text: Deaths 200 (possibly up to 500 or 1,000 per Human Rights Watch) 613 (Azerbaijan claim)

Please vote below. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As mentioned by most editors, the 500-1000 figure is extremely speculative and unsubstantiated; plus it's already mentioned in the body of the article.--Urartu TH (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. With the same success we can give speculative "20,000 victims" from the same comment. Instead of this I propose to give de Waal's 485 victims. Divot (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Censoring the source is not something that we can do according to the rules. And I think we cannot ignore the rules even if a certain number of editors is in favor of doing that. I would still like to see third opinions, if that is possible. Grandmaster 10:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support either As long as HRW's 1,000 estimate is mentioned in the article's body and Azerbaijani estimate in the infobox, I'm fine with it, but I don't mind putting that HRW estimate in the infobox either. Brandmeister^talk 11:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. as Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship (WP:VALID). The same source by GM clearly says: "it is widely accepted that 200 hundred Azeris were murdered". Footnotes are secondary additions to the main research/report. The reliable results of any research must be represented in the main text with further explanations. A footnote is not a "thorough investigation". Lkahd (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Speculative and unsupported claim. Per Urartu TH. --Antelope Hunter (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks to all those who participated in the straw poll. I think its valuable for everyone, no matter what your position on this issue, to have an overview of where all the participants stand on the issue at the time of the poll.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to approach this issue

According to WP:INFOBOX, an info box is described as "A quick and convenient summary of the key facts about a subject, in a consistent format and layout". To my eye, the current text in the infobox is too long, is ambiguous and uses the word claim which creates bias. Given the fact that there are several sources with different figures, wouldn't it be better to say in the infobox:

• Deaths: sources vary

and then let the reader make his own assessment when he/she reads the article? Or even better, why not leave the Death category out of the infobox altogether? Is this a possible compromise?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The infobox should only give substantiated and reliable information that is at least roughly corroborated/agreed upon by experts; it should not include any wild claims, especially those only found in one single document on a FOOTNOTE. I believe the "footnote figure" of 500-1000 should also be removed from the body of the article. The community has already spoken about this in the straw poll--the decision was entirely in Opposition besides Grandmaster.--Urartu TH (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree The infobox should contain at least the definite number provided by Azerbaijan, perhaps also other definite numbers by reliable sources (as in the current version, which I do not oppose). However, I oppose the removal of HRW estimates from the article body, suggested by Uratu TH above. Brandmeister^talk 14:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Brandmeister. The infobox should provide some numbers. The problem with presenting only the lower estimates of HRW for me is that it may create a false impression that HRW considers higher death toll estimates to be unreliable, which is clearly not the case. Also, to the attention of Urartu TH, straw polls are unbinding. And whether the number is in the footnote or not is immaterial. The rules say nothing about exclusion of information contained in footnotes. As long as it is in the source, we cannot ignore it, and removing it from the article altogether of course is not an option. Maybe a compromise way of putting HRW estimates into infobox would be 200+? Grandmaster 20:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the HRW figure of 200+ is unreliable as well since it stems from a clear typographical/grammatical error: the document states "200 hundred Azeris..." We cannot know why this error was made and if they did in fact mean "200". The only reliable HRW figure is 161+. Azerbaijan's claim of 613--which is not based on any source or scientific methodology--should be included in the body of the article as they were a party in the battle of Khojaly. I propose going back to what the infobox used to look like, namely "Deaths: HRW 161+". As far as the figure in the footnote, we should clearly note in the body that it is entirely speculative.--Urartu TH (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, none of that is acceptable due to the clear violation of all rules, in particular, WP:V, WP:OR, etc. And also, it is time to stop speculating around the obvious publisher typo in the footnote. On the same page just a few lines above HRW writes: "More than 200 civilians were killed in the attack, the largest massacre to date in the conflict". [2] So clearly, HRW means that more than 200 Azeri civilians were killed, and the figure of 200+ is not debatable. Grandmaster 18:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The error in the document can be interpreted as affecting WP:V. In any case, the 613 and 500-1000 figures are both unsubstantiated and don't meet WP:UNDUE as agreed upon by a near full consensus above. Let's stop the POV; all of the massacres during the Karabakh conflict are sensitive issues.--Urartu TH (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Common ground?

OK, the idea of saying 'sources vary' seems to be unpopular :-) Looking at the results of the straw poll does anyone see any areas of common ground? Any place where we might be able to achieve some compromise through discussion? Any suggestions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"There are varying estimates of how many Azerbaijanis were killed in or near Khojali. Probably the most reliable figure is that of the official Azerbaijani parliamentary investigation, which put the death toll at 485" - Tom de Waal. "Black Garden : Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War", P. 171. Divot (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the figure by de Waal should also be included in the infobox. I said that at the talk of the article as well. Grandmaster 18:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom de Waal is a respected investigative journalist and writer. His agreement with the Azerbaijani's parliaments investigative findings gives them more credence. I Agree with it's inclusion. I propose that the HRW figure of 161+ and Tom De Waal's figure of 485 be the only figures in the infobox. We can mention the Azerbaijani government's new claimed figure of 613 (unsubstantiated) in the body; also the footnote figure should be removed as unreliable (consensus).--Urartu TH (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Futile. Significant participants have not chosen to take part. Since participation is also needed for a case to be accepted at Mediation, it would appear that about your only remaining venue for dispute resolution is Request for Comments. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closed 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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Azerbaijan (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Interfase (talk · contribs) Divot (talk · contribs) Hablabar (talk · contribs) Roses&guns (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I created the "Name of Azerbaijan" section in the article Azerbaijan, where the usage of the term "Azerbaijan" is described. Here we can see a lot of sources claiming that the term "Azerbaijan" was used also for the lands on the north side of Aras river. In the map "Russia at the Caucasus" we can see it very well. I think in this section we can use this map which illustrates this fact very well. But user Divot claims that the map is wrong, but there are no any sources saying that. User Hablabar went further and wants to delete the whole section. He sees there some WP:CHERRY and some propaganda. But I don't see here any cherry and propaganda. The section is about the usage of the term "Azerbaijan" in the region in the different periods of history and is based on several reliable sources (e.g. Iranica). I claim the the deleting of this section by Hablabar is just vandalism and needs some administrative actions against him. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on the talk page. How do you think we can help? I'd like an outsider to judge matters from the viewpoint of Wikipedia policies and conventions: are separate articles warranted, or not? The conclusion of mediator will stop edit warring on this issue. Summary of dispute by Divot Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The map is wrong, Details on TP Moreover, I asked a well-known historian Bournoutian, his answer: "The map is wrong. The word Azerbijan is written in another font and script--compare it to Georgia. It is impossible to put Erevan and Lake Sevan in the so-called Azerbijan in 1847-- since it was until 1840 the Armenian Province and after that the Erevan Guberniia." There are a lot of maps of the region. I don't understand why we need to use obviously wrong map. Divot (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by Hablabar Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Roses&guns Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Azerbaijan discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Divot, the map isn't wrong. Bournutians words are not published in reliable source. And his position (if these words really belongs him) is unlogical. How can he say that the region on the north of Aras during Russian Empire wasn't called "Azerbaijan" if we could see that it was in the section "Name of Azerbaijan" (which was recently removed by vandals). In this section we can see a large amount of sources showing that the term "Azerbaijan" was used for the lands on the north of Aras. The map is a good illustration for this. I still don't understand what do you have against this map in the section about the name of Azerbaijan (not ethymology). Also I didn't see any new logical arguments from you. --Interfase (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] "Bournutians words are not published in reliable source" of course, but only if we use his words in the topic. According Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources :"Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." "we could see that it was in the section "Name of Azerbaijan"" - in that section we can read "Under Emperor Alexander III the term "Azerbaijan" gradually became used to Baku and Yelisavetpol province by European scientists and journalists". Alexander III (1881 - 1894), the map dated by 1847. So, Bournutian is quite right. As we see, region Azerbailan is a part of Russian Empire, but not Persia. It's nonsense, because in 19th century this name means region in Persia and sometimes (Safavid's epoch, after 1880-x) for Iranian Azerbaijan and modern Azerbaijan, but never only for modern Azerbaijan. Divot (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] "but never only for modern Azerbaijan" - statement without any sources. Bournutian is not right. The map shows the usage of map in the specific period of history. It shouldn't have exactly the same date which is shown in the sources. This is an absurd. We can see that the term was used for the lands on the north of Aras during the period of Russian Empire. We can see the sources saying that the term was used such. So stop give absurd arguments. --Interfase (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Coordinator's note: Discussion should cease — any more is past the "keep discussion to a minimum" point — and only take place on the article talk page until the two remaining listed editors make their opening statements and until a volunteer opens the case for discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] I'd be willing to take this case but it appears only 2 of the 4 participants have made opening statements so maybe it should be considered for closing? What do you think Tman?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply] Collapsing continued discussion added after request to cease. Any further discussion (other than the remaining editors adding their initial summaries) before a volunteer opens this for discussion will cause the listing to be closed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] I put all my arguments for the section and the illustration of the map in the talk page of the article and here. I couldn't agree with Divot, whose statements against this map seems to me absurdus. I also cannot understand the reason why the section about the usage of the term "Azerbaijan" was deleted. I still consider this action as vandalism and destructiv action against Azerbaijan article. Thus, a reasoned descision is needed on this issue. --Interfase (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] 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.

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Debian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 84.127.80.114 (talk · contribs)
• Flamingspinach (talk · contribs)
• Mthinkcpp (talk · contribs)
• Rwxrwxrwx (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I tried to introduce some changes, being discussed at the "Debian private practices and Debian Women activities" section in the talk page. Reverters oppose to these changes and refuse to discuss the reasons. Then I tried to break the changes to smaller pieces. That did not help. User Mthinkcpp is leading the opposition. There are other reverters, users Rwxrwxrwx and Flamingspinach at least.

I am trying to introduce some changes[3], being discussed in the talk page. mthinkcpp is presumably against all these changes for undisclosed reasons. It looks like Flamingspinach is in the same situation. Rwxrwxrwx mostly disagrees too. There may be other users against the changes. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Refusing to discuss is considered a conduct issue, so there are two threads in the incident noticeboard. I have been repeatedly advised to use content related resolution.

How do you think we can help?

I need a voice for the reverters in the talk page. Any neutral voice would help since there are no special technical requirements. It would help me to get back my bold/revert ability. I cannot propose the smaller changes nor revert to the status quo. A proxy user would be useful.

Summary of dispute by Flamingspinach

Summary of dispute by Mthinkcpp

These changes were applied to the Debian page. Parts were subsequently rejected due to being campaigning for a point of view. They were also wholly rejected for poor references; emails by a too closely affiliated individual, another (debian-private) did not back up the claims made, the bug report linked was written entirely by the individual expelled (therefore not an appropriate source). None of the above comes from reliable sources, and no reliable source was suggested by any editor (therefore presumably there isn't one, placing the validity of the material in doubt) - which makes it a policy violation to include the material, so it was rejected.

The material was not presented neutrally, and appeared to be designed to damage the Debian project (someone else's statement, I agree with it though), even if that was not the author's intention. An administrator looking into the matter (the individual who made the last statement, and a third party) determined that it was campaigning.

The consensus (given by those who have expressed a position) is against the edits, with only one supporter for them (the original author).

Summary of dispute by Rwxrwxrwx

Ditto what Mthinkcpp said above. The bulk of the desired changes clearly violate WP:SOAP, WP:OR, WP:RS. This has been explained to the IP several times, in edit summaries, the article's talk page, his own talk page. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Debian discussion

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors. In DRN cases where I am a volunteer, I have had a lot of success by keeping the discussion structured and dealing with one issue at a time. If anyone has a problem with this, we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the responses above and have spent a considerable amount f time looking at the edits in question. I must say, this is the first time I have ever seen someone try to use an XKCD comic as a reliable source.

First, I agree with those who have said that this is a content dispute and thus does not belong at ANI, at least not now. It has the potential to become a behavioral issue, and there are related behavioral issues such as edit warring, but it appears that those issues have been addressed.

As for the content dispute itself, normally at this time I try to get everyone to compromise and find a version that everyone can live with, but in this case it is quite clear that 84.127.80.114's preferred version simply does not meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability or neutrality. Rather than taking my word for it, 84.127.80.114 could post an RfC, but the result will be the same. 84.127.80.114. the consensus is clearly against you, and that clearly is not going to change.

There comes a time when one must realize that a particular battle is lost. We even have a page explaining this: Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.

We also have a page that might benefit those on the other side of this issue: Wikipedia:Ignore all dramas. once you have made your point, you don't have to keep responding.

I would now like to open this for discussion about the advice I just gave everyone. Remember, I do not have any special authority and my opinions should not carry any extra weight. If I have failed to persuade you, tell me why and we can discuss it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Premature, no extensive talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard. Please thoroughly discuss your dispute at the article talk page before seeking help at dispute resolution, as all moderated forms of content dispute resolution at Wikipedia require substantial discussion as a prerequisite. You might also want to seriously consider the good advice given by neutral third party Pinkadelica at your article talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closed 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. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Maryam Nawaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Adnan1216 (talk · contribs) Smsarmad (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Another editor had placed a scandal about this person,the editor, SMS, reverted it back as being unsourced. I added two sources, both from electronic media, the editor SMS that states that these are not good sources. I believe that the sources are well documented in reference to this issue and that for public personalaties, these should be included Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have left messages on the editors talk age How do you think we can help? review Summary of dispute by Smsarmad Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I am not sure whether it is the most appropriate venue as I see more of a BLP issue here, but now that we are here so I will start with a quick summary. An IP editor added some content to the article Maryam Nawaz, that was removed by me as I found it controversial and unsourced. It was restored by Adnan1216 and I again removed and informed him that it needs to be reliably sourced. It was restored again by Adnan1216 this time with two poor quality source and I reverted him. He insists that the sources are good earlier but I guess after a third editor's opinion that he sought, he agrees that those were poor quality sources (as of now). -- SMS Talk 00:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply] Maryam Nawaz discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Highland Clearances (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Richard Keatinge (talk · contribs)
• 94.173.7.13 (talk · contribs)
• Sabrebd (talk · contribs)
• Camerojo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Richard Keatinge after a previous attempt to remove content from the article, to the extent of seeking to do so via dispute resolution that was 'Closed as failed' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_87#Highland_Clearances ) has, sadly, again, taken upon himself to remove content from the article. At the first instance, upon failure of Richard Keatinge to remove the content from the article there was consensus drawn from other users for the content to move from the lead of the article to a section of the article with a brief overview of the section then given in the lead. Since then, Richard Keatinge has taken upon himself to appear sporadically to see either that the content of the section be the subject of deletion in toto or to minimise the content as much as possible. As such I do not oppose brevity or the encouragement of encyclopaedic language, yet the content of the section has taken shape through discussion and talks about consensus and neutral POV that Keatinge has not taken any involvement in, except very very briefly and very very recently. In questioning why Richard Keatinge has taken upon himself to delete content, he responds without mentioning specifically any problems in relation to content but merely asserting widespread problems and Wikipedia guidelines without relating them to content of the section. As the content of section is still in the process of attaining consensus through gradual additions and discussion of verifiability and neutrality, Richard Keatinge has taken upon himself to enter into that discussion at a late stage, state that deletions must occur and that other contributors should contribute to his personal user sandbox instead of the article itself. Subsequently replacing the content of his sandbox with that of the article despite many attempts to ascertain precisely what his problems are in relation to the content.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page, previous dispute resolution.

How do you think we can help?

By clarifying precisely what Richard Keatinge's problems are with the content so as to reach consensus about any possible deletion of content for the sake of brevity or encyclopaedic language, instead of deletion in toto without providing any specific reasoning other than mere assertion.

Summary of dispute by Richard Keatinge

Three editors, SabreBD, Camerojo, and myself, have come to a consensus that this edit is a good idea, an improvement in itself, and offers promise of further progress. This follows very extensive discussion on the Talk page, from here onward, which has produced agreement that anti-Catholic feeling was some slight support to the Clearances and that in the widespread misery the Catholic population may have suffered disproportionately. The edit removes quite a lot of explanatory material better located (and better expressed) on Roman Catholicism in Scotland, verbosity, and a small amount of OR and POV pushing (to the effect that anti-Catholic feeling was a major element in the Clearances, deserving extensive and discursive discussion in the article. 94.173.7.13 simply isn't getting the point. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by 94.173.7.13

From the start, at the commencement of first dispute resolution, there has been an attempt to characterise my input as giving more weight to anti-Catholicism than the words that I use state. The precise words I gave in my initial addition: 'One of the results of the Clearances was the near extinction of Roman Catholicism in Scotland, and there remains debate amongst historians as to how much this was a factor in thoughts of those who were responsible for the clearances.'[[4]] As such, I do not give any weight to anti-Catholicism, merely that there is debate about how much it was a factor in The Clearances. The current content of the section, content that Richard Keatinge wishes to delete, is not my contribution only. A number of contributors made additions to the point that the section looks like it does. These contributions are the result of discussion about content, verifiability, and neutrality that Richard Keatinge was largely absent from. Despite many attempts asking where there is OR or POV problems, Richard Keatinge has merely made an assertion that they are there without giving any examples of it. Similarly, in asserting that material is 'better located (and better expressed)' in another article, Richard Keatinge has been ignorant of the fact that the material has been the addition of a number of contributors through the process of consensus building, talks about verification, and neutrality, built upon my initial contribution to the article. If they were 'better located (and better expressed)' elsewhere, why was there an addition of the content at all? The vast majority of it is from other users than myself. Again, what precisely Richard Keatinge thinks is not relevant and 'better located (and better expressed)' elsewhere, isn't forthcoming. Merely an assertion of lack of relevance along with a subsequent deletion.

Summary of dispute by Sabrebd

This is part of what is now a very extensive and at times frustrating dispute over the content of the page (by my count it is now more than 23,000 words of discussion). The "deleted text" is not as the IP implies of long standing (as tacitly accepted by them here). The other editors on the page would have preferred to have agreed the content in the talkpage first, but accepted the idea of editing down the section to something more balanced and concise later. There was a process of negotiation and compromise that then produced a shorter and balanced text. Everyone involved then agreed to the change except the IP who then reverted the new version and continues to do so. I admit this may be a difficult dispute to now fully comprehend, not least because the IP talks the talk of NPOV, consensus and compromise, but then essentially uses the revert as a veto and then templates as a mechanism for WP:POINT editing, as here and here.--SabreBD (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Camerojo

Since his appearance on this page, a number of editors have crossed swords with the IP editor - not just myself and Richard Keatinge and SabreBD. In particular User:Andrew_Gray, User:Brianann_MacAmhlaidh, User:Shipsview. I know that is off topic of this particular dispute but I think it is relevant because it shows a clear pattern of behaviour. All editors have found it impossible to collaborate with him. In this particular matter, we have a clear agreement among the rest of us on content, but the IP editor insists that his view must prevail and strenuously resists any attempts at compromise.

I would like to add that I have been continuously involved in this larger dispute from the beginning - here, and the IP editor's claim that the content being deleted is the result of previous consensus of several editors is misleading - as evidenced by the talk page and the page history. I have contributed some content which no longer appears but I have no problem with the proposed new content. I agree with the other editors that what is being proposed is an acceptable compromise that we can build on. --Camerojo (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Clearances Talk page. discussion