Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 82#Australia national association football team

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Breadblade|18:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Improper venue. Now that I've looked at this closely, it appears to me that what is really in dispute is whether there was a clear consensus for the "merge" result on the AfD and, per the closing admin's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite&diff=581988435&oldid=581988205 subsequent clarification], whether there was a clear consensus for a "no consensus, therefore keep" rather than a "delete" result (on a "arguments are weighed, not counted", objection) if the merger was not supported by a consensus or failed due to a new consensus against it at the target article. Since the closing admin has not addressed that issue, the proper venue for this is Deletion review which, in effect, serves as the dispute resolution venue for deletion matters. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Highest-valued currency unit}}

Users involved

• {{User|Breadblade}}
• {{User|2Awwsome}}
• {{User|Jklamo}}
• {{User|Volunteer Marek}}
• {{User|Zntrip}}

Dispute overview

Two weeks ago, an AfD for the "Highest-valued currency unit" article closed, and the result was to merge its content to "List of circulating currencies." Edit warring has taken place on both the merged page and the target page; users are not in agreement that the merge has completed, since editors on the target page do not show a consensus to add very much of the content from the merged article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Participated in some talk discussions. Reverted a revert (flubbed the edit summary, but explained in talk) and was reverted.

How do you think we can help?

Determine conclusively which content should be merged so that the merge can complete without future edit warring.

There's no consensus either way, the consensus at the AfD was to merge, and because none of the merge was completed, the article to be merged should not be moved to a redirect. It is 'Volunteer' Marek who is not respecting the outcome of the AfD. He also seems to have a political motive for deleting these sorts of lists, given his methodical PRODding of country lists sorted by GDP. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.} _{See where I screwed up.} 16:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply to 'Volunteer' Marek:

1. 3 v 5 is nowhere near consensus.

2. 3 v 3 is not consensus

3. All of that is just saying you don't like it.

2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.}_{See where I screwed up.} 18:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Elaborating on the comment by Zntrip below: I do not think that there was consensus to merge. Only three editors (including the nominator) backed such a proposal. To be precise: I only backed a "merging" of a single sentence from the original article - that the Kuwaiti dinar has traded for more dollars than any other currency (essentially because it is a currency unit subdivided into 1000 rather 100 units as with other currencies). I definitely did not support merging all the original research which constituted 99.99% of the original article. Neither did anyone else, AFAICT. Even that part was an attempt to compromise; it's not really essential that the info about the Kuwaiti dinar is mentioned in List of circulating currencies.

The AfD nomination was *not* "off the cuff". The original article was OR crap and the version being actively restored by 2Awwsome in contravention of the AfD result is the same OR crap. I do agree with Zntrip that this content is completely non-encyclopedic. Volunteer Marek  22:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• Reply to 2Awwsome:

-- There was consensus to "merge" a tiny part of the original article which was not original research. You're trying to copy/paste the entire piece of junk into a new article

-- Understandably the editors at List of circulating currencies do not want to have that piece of junk in the article. So there is consensus to NOT include 99% of the old article in the new one. (I actually feel bad that in my attempt at compromise I dropped this problem into their hands).

-- At the end of the day the fact remains that 99% of the original article is original research junk, created by a now banned user. There's no way that this material stays anywhere. It's simply not encyclopedic. And that was the point of the AfD, whatever the fate of the other 1%.

-- You're engaging in vindictive edit warring because you didn't get your way at the Chopin article. This is like the fourth or fifth pointless argument you started, wasting a whole lot of people's time, since you arrived on Wikipedia. You have problems with basic WP:COMPETENCE, for example not being able to tell a Wikipedia mirror from a reliable source (and keep on insisting it's a reliable source even when the obvious fact has been pointed out to you by several editors!). Your actions fit the textbook definition of "disruptive editor".

 Volunteer Marek  17:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, there is consensus, at the very least, to not include the entirety of the merger article into the target. 2Awwsome, who has been the persistent objector, has not made a good faith attempt to discuss the merger and has on-and-off engaged in disruptive behavior.

My personal objection to merging the entirety of the article into "List of circulating currencies" is that the information is manifestly outside the scope of the list and that individual exchange rates (like stock prices) are not appropriate for an encyclopedia because they fluctuate constantly. I think it would simply be better to include an external link to currency exchange site.

I would also like to point out the result of the AfD discussion appears dubious to me. I do not think that there was consensus to merge. Only three editors (including the nominator) backed such a proposal and the proposal itself was initially made as an off-the-cuff remark. I instead believe that the result should have been "no consensus". I had previously voiced by concerns to the admin who closed the AfD and I will invite him to comment here. – Zntrip 18:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

DRN Coordinator's note: I have struck a couple of conduct comments in the material above. Do not discuss conduct, only discuss content. In light of the removals and reversions which have been happening here, just about any more of this will cause this listing to be closed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Solicitr|20:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Stale and/or resolved. This is several days past its ordinary DRN life span of 2 weeks and would have been automatically closed and archived several days ago if the bot was functioning properly. The dispute has apparently also wound down at the article talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Flight deck}}

Users involved

• {{User|Solicitr}}
• {{User| Damwiki1}}
• {{User| BilCat}}

Dispute overview

Edit war involving an assertion added which is factually untrue, 'supported' by a cite which in fact disporves the assertion. The editor responsible refuses to accept correction, has remained obdurate in Discussion, and continually reverts corrections- all in pursuit of a manifest POV.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Multiple entries on Talk

How do you think we can help?

Observe that based on the available facts, including the very citation included by DamWiki01 in 'support', the statement of alleged fact is untrue. Propose wording for section consistent with facts.

It is actually Damwiki1 and the user name, above, is incorrect. Solicitr has engaged in bullying and abusive behaviour to try and force edits into this and the article on Armoured flight decks. As you can read for yourself here: Talk:Flight_deck#Latest_revision:_capacity_comparison, here: Talk:Flight_deck#Armored_Deck_Questions, here:Talk:Armoured_flight_deck#NPOV and here Talk:Armoured_flight_deck#Regarding_Unbalanced_Opinion_on_Photos Solicitr consistently refuses to engage in reasoned dialogue and often presents "facts" which even the most cursory research shows to be untrue. When I ask him to provide sources he is unable to do so. The dispute seems to be that he is unwilling to accept that USN aircraft carriers used permanent deck parks (about 1/2 of the aircraft carried where in the below decks hangar and about 1/2 were parked permanently on deck), whereas the RN did not use permanent deck parks until 1943, and this accounts for most of the difference in the aircraft capacity between the 23000 ton RN armoured flight deck carriers and 27500 ton USN Essex class carriers. I have sourced my edits, but Solicitr has not provided any to support his contention and he has removed my sources from the article which clearly show that with a deck park, the aircraft capacity of an Essex class carrier would be about 100 aircraft versus about 50 for an RN Implacable class carrier without a deck park, but with a deck park the Implacable class carried up to 81 aircraft, which removes most of the disparity between the ships, when the larger displacement of Essex is taken into account. I have shown that I have been willing to engage in meaningful dialogue with Solicitr but he has not reciprocated. I have put a tremendous amount of effort into my research to further Wikipedia and my edits are always fully sourced to high quality sources. I think the article should be reverted to it's status prior to Solicitr's edits and he should not be permitted to further edit this article.Damwiki1 (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "involved" here, and don't wish to be. I made one revert with a plea for discussion yesterday. Today, I made a 3RR warning, and added a note on the talk page for the discussion to continue, and that I saw no cause for Solicitr's reverts. That's all. - BilCat (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, My name is User:Wiki-Impartial (I am an alternative account of User:olowe2011) and I will be assisting you by reviewing this case. Please give me some time to review the facts and pull everything together. Your time is much appreciated.--Wiki-Impartial (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Question - Can I please hear from both of you as to why you didn't find it possible to resolve this issue between yourselves using the Discussion tools available on Wikipedia, Can you be specific and try to reference specific areas in which you found offensive (and link to them.) This can help me judge if you have both taken steps to help resolve the matter peacefully. Thank you. --Wiki-Impartial (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This is an example of Solicitr's method of discussion on the talk page and my reply:

"03:53, 10 November 2013‎ Solicitr (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,856 bytes) (-757)‎ . . (Undid revision 580928410 by Damwiki1 (talk): Re-reverted- stop repeating your lies) (undo | thank)" You will also note a continuing pattern of making edits and reverts with no edit summary.

"DamWiki insists on maintaining the categorical statement, which is categorically false, that "the largest part of the disparity between RN and USN carriers in aircraft capacity was the use of a permanent deck park on USN carriers". This is part and parcel of DamWiki's very POV campaign to create the impression that RN armored-deck carriers did not, as they did, pay a heavy price in air group capacity. Yet let's look at the numbers, as provided in his own cite: "On June 05 1945, USS Bennington reported that her maximum hangar capacity was 51 aircraft, 15 SB2Cs and 36 F4Us, and that 52 were carried as a deck park." 51 aircraft in the hagar deck alone (103 total)- while no RN armored-deck carrier, even after adopting USN practices including the use of a deck park during this same period (Okinawa), ever managed to operate more than 54 aircraft total. Solicitr (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

HMS Implacable carried 81 aircraft by adopting a permanent deck park and this is stated and referenced in the section under discussion. The USN Essex class were much larger ships, with nearly 20% greater displacement than the RN armoured carriers, so it is no surprise that they carried a greater aircraft complement but I have very patiently explained all this in the past. The article makes it very clear that armoured flight decks would impose a penalty on aircraft capacity, but as the references show, the greatest part of the disparity was due to the USN's permanent deck park, which on Bennington, actually exceeded her hangar capacity. Threats and name calling are no substitute for accurate, cited, information.Damwiki1 (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)" You'll also note that he continually injects personal attacks into the discussion, and refuses to address the information and sources presented in a considered and polite manner.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

DRN coordinator's note: {{ping|Wiki-Impartial}} Would you please disclose the username of your other account so that the participants may evaluate whether you have any prior experience with any of them or with the topic of this dispute with a view to deciding whether they might wish to object to you in the manner set forth at the top of the page? It would be best to do so on your user page, in accordance with the Maintenance bullet of WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 06:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Follow up: Thanks to Wiki-Impartial for disclosing the username of his alternate account on his user page. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

{{collapse top|reason=Collapsing conduct discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)}}

Important Note: From the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flight_deck&action=history Page History Log] on the Flight Deck article I can see a clear violation of the WP:3RR. I would suggest that until this matter is concluded properly no further reverts are to be made by User:Solicitr. If there is an WP:NOT3RR exemption that can be applied to this situation please quote the applicable exemption and show evidence. --Wiki-Impartial (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Note 2: From what I have read in your dispute overview, User:Solicitr you have indicated the event of an edit war in which I believe occurred but during which you violated the WP:3RR. To make this simple can you please quote the content User:Damwiki1 added to the article and give a link to the source that he cited in reference to this content. --Wiki-Impartial (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

:{{ping|Wiki-Impartial}} I see no 3RR breach here. The bright-line rule is more than three reverts on a single page. {{ul|Solicitr}} does not seem to have crossed that line on this page. —me_and 13:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

:: @User:Me and He made more then three reverts in a 24 Hour time-frame according to the page history. He was already warned on two occasions by administration. However this isn't specifically about the WP:3RR that was a violation I believe was made during the edit war. --Wiki-Impartial (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Wiki-Impartial}} 3RR is within a 24 period. You said there was "a clear violation of the WP:3RR", which is not true. I assume the two warnings you refer to are these: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Solicitr&diff=581141936&oldid=581085772][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Solicitr&diff=581083719&oldid=580481302]. I note only one of those was given by an administrator; "administration" implies people with greater authority than regular editors, which does not appear to be the case. I have no investment in this dispute, and I haven't looked to see if there's anything I'd call warring, but I think it's important to be sure of what you're asserting before you assert it as fact, particularly when accusing another editor of bad behaviour. —me_and 13:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

:::Note: after this comment, {{ul|Wiki-Impartial}} edited their comment from referring to a "48 Hour time-frame" to "24 Hour time-frame": [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=581330388&oldid=581330174 diff] —me_and 13:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC) -

• Yes, I corrected a Typo --Wiki-Impartial (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

:::: @User:Me and From what I can see more than three reverts where made in this case within a 24-Hour time-frame.--Wiki-Impartial (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Wiki-Impartial}} I don't. Since May, I see only five edits on that article by {{ul|Solicitr}}:

:::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flight_deck&diff=580867956&oldid=580696251 9 November 8:44am] (not obviously a revert)

:::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flight_deck&diff=580868241&oldid=580867956 9 November 8:48am] (not obviously a revert)

:::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flight_deck&diff=580994322&oldid=580928410 10 November 3:53am] (revert)

:::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flight_deck&diff=580998130&oldid=580995188 10 November 4:41am] (revert)

:::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flight_deck&diff=581083069&oldid=581017543 10 November 8:10pm] (revert)

:::::That's only three reverts, and only three edits at all within a 24-hour period. Other editors have made reverts, but 3RR only applies to reverts a specific editor is making. What am I missing?

:::::—me_and 13:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Wiki-Impartial}} Regarding editing your own comment, since I'd already responded it changes the context and meaning of my response, and makes it unclear why I was pointing out 3RR applies to a 24-hour period. WP:REDACT advises using markup to highlight when you've changed the meaning of your comments. —me_and 13:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

:::::: @User:Me and Wikipedia has a number of rules and guidelines around reverts. From the history I believe that the Person who uses the account User:Solicitr violated guidelines under the WP:3RR. There is also the guideline WP:ROWN that is more specific about Reverting when necessary. Regardless this Dispute Resolution is not about Revert rules and how many times the user reverted the article and my main focus now is what material was added and the source that was used in conjunction with it. Further discussion about the interpretation and use of the WP:3RR should be made on a talk page or under the comments section as it's not directly related to this request for dispute resolution, thank you. --Wiki-Impartial (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

:Solicitr removed essentially the same material with revision 556001269 (20 May 2013) - note that he made no edit summary. He then removed it again, 4 times with revisions 580867956, 580994322, 580998130, and at 20:10 10 November 2013. In any event, I have clearly sourced my edits and you can read in my statement, above, how Solicitr makes the statement:"while no RN armored-deck carrier, even after adopting USN practices including the use of a deck park during this same period (Okinawa), ever managed to operate more than 54 aircraft total." while the article even now, contains a sourced statement showing HMS Implacable operating 81 aircraft. I also think that it is incumbent upon Wiki-Impartial to restore the article to it's status prior to Solicitr's latest round of edits, pending the outcome of this dispute.Damwiki1 (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments

:Am I misunderstanding your question, Wiki-Impartial? You seem to be asking for evidence regarding behavioural issues. As it makes clear at the top of this page, participants are asked to "Avoid discussing editor behavior or conduct, just content please." Perhaps you should clarify what you are asking for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

:As I've already pointed out, this isn't an appropriate place to discuss behavioural issues. The purpose of this noticeboard is to resolve content disputes by encouraging those in dispute to discuss the matter, and then reach a resolution with the assistance of others. If you wish to complain about contributors behaviour, you will need to do so elsewhere (i.e. WP:ANI), and raising it here isn't going to be conducive to settling the content dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have done this User:TransporterMan. Hello User:AndyTheGrump the reason I asked this question was to see if they have taken sufficient steps to resolve the dispute in other ways besides making a request for intervention. This can help me build a clearer picture of the whole matter. It isn't intended to request a rundown of each persons behavior, only to reference the attempts made so far to resolve the dispute. Thanks. I would appreciate your feedback on my talk page so I can answer.--Wiki-Impartial (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

::Let's not discuss conduct at all, including edit warring and 3RR issues. If there are behavioral issues, the parties can work them out at an appropriate conduct noticeboard (EWN, ANI, RFC/U, ARBCOM) and if necessary this discussion can be put on hold while that occurs. Can we shift the discussion at this point to just the content issues and drop further discussion of conduct? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC) (as DRN coordinator) PS: I have struck and collapsed conduct discussions above. The remaining edit, above, by Damwiki1 has conduct issues as well, but also has important references to content which need to be preserved and I have left it for that reason. Thanks to AndyTheGrump for taking this up in my absence. — TM 15:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

::: Apologies for the previous inclusions. I would like to ask either User:Damwiki1 or User:Solicitr to copy in the actual disputed content and give a link to the cited source. From there we can discuss it together. Thank you.--Wiki-Impartial (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've corrected Damwiki1's name. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

:Damwiki1 continues to assert baldly counterfactual statements.

:1) I do not and have never denied that the US Navy used a permanent deck park, which was SOP from long before the war, and DW's claim that I deny it is simply untrue.

:2) DW's assertion, repeated here, that "the RN did not use permanent deck parks until 1943, and this accounts for most of the difference in the aircraft capacity" is simply false, and it is this false statement which needs to be remedied>

:Some background here for those who aren't familiar with the subject-matter geekery- aircraft carriers can carry aircraft in two places, on the hangar deck or "in the barn," and on the flight deck or "on the roof." Aircraft parked above are usually referred to as the "deck park."

:At the outset of WWII, the USN commonly used a deck park- even with ample hangar space, because a doctrine which emphasized speed of sortie-generation decided that striking aircraft below was inefficient and unnecessary, save for maintenance. US practice was, after a recovery cycle, to respot the planes directly from the bow to the after end of the flight deck, ready for the next launch cycle. The hangar was workspace and storage for spares, save in very bad weather (and not always even then). The RN on the other hand valued protection above all else, and kept all their aircraft under cover on the hangar deck. Eventually the RN realized that this reduced air operations to a crawl, and during the late war they adopted US practices, including the use of the deck park. This also permitted the British carriers to augment their air groups beyond the small numbers carried previously. (Note, however, that deck-park capacity was not unlimited, nor could be indulged in up to the every-square-inch crowding seen in photos of carriers engaged in ferry missions; you still needed enough clear space for landings and takeoffs, limiting the available deck park to roughly 25-30% or so of flight-deck length).

:Now - and here is where the root of the dispute lies - during the 1930s, carrier designers on both sides of the Atlantic were confronted with a choice; as with almost all engineering, everything is a tradeoff. On a displacement of 20-odd thousand tons, one could design a carrier with the armored deck at the hangar deck level, or at the flight deck level; the latter, however, meant that the supporting structures needed to be correspondingly heavy and the hangar space below was necessarily constrained. Or, one could treat the flight deck as light superstructure, which left the hangar largely unprotected but allowed for a much greater internal capacity. US planners had determined early on that 4 squadrons of 18, 72 aircraft, was the necessary air wing, and designed its carriers based on that figure, with hangars intended to hold that many (admittedly smaller, pre-war) planes, together with an extra 25% as spares stored in the overhead. It should be repeated, however, that US carriers preferred to leave the planes on the roof except for maintenance and repair work. The British, by contrast, emphasized safety and damage protection, and accordingly put the armor on the flight deck (and in the early carriers, the hangar sides as well, the "armored box"), accepting a necessarily limited air group which was lined up in single file and moved to the lift one at a time after the previous plane had launched.

:Both navies, it should be emphasized, made entirely rational decisions based on the nature of the war they expected to fight and for the most part did fight. Confronting land-based airpower in the confined Mediterranean, the RN was entirely justified in emphasizing protection; concomitantly, facing a carrier war in the vast Pacific US designers were quite reasonable in maximizing offensive power.

:This is the point at which DW's POV crusade enters: here, as on other sites, he is determined to "prove" that the RN was in all things superior to the stupid, blundering, incompetent USN, and so here on this page he has tried to feign that designers were faced with no 'choice' or 'tradeoff' at all: that the RN armored flight deck design did not impose a serious cost in airgroup capacity; and this sleight of hand pivots on the declaration that "most of the difference in capacity was due to the US Navy's use of a deck park." This statement is false.

:The first three British AFD carriers, Illustrious, Victorious, and Formidable, had hangar capacity for 36-40 relatively small pre-war/early-war aircraft, and British doctrine at this time precluded carrying more than could fit in the hangar. Their half-sister Indomitable installed a two-level hangar, which increased the capacity to around 48 (at the price of low overheads and even slower planehandling). Note, again, that using ca. 1940 size factors, the US carriers had hangar space - without a deck park - for almost double the Illustrious and 2/3 more than Indomitable.

:DW attemts to confuse the issue by equivocating silently into the late-war period; but by the late war things had changed. Aircraft were bigger, the USN was cramming as many planes aboard as could possibly operate (100-110), and the RN had started to adopt deck parking. His citation from Bennington's report in March 1945 is thus illuminating, but not in the way DW intends. At that time the Essex-class hangar was reported as holding 51 a/c, not 72; but this was a consequence of the big Avengers/Corsairs/Helldivers etc of the time, much larger than the planes of 1940. The same size issue naturally affected the RN as well. Rather more to the point is the fact that Benny out of an active airgroup of 103 could put 51 of them in the barn- which was just about as many late-war aircraft as any WWII RN carrier ever managed to operate in total (54), hangar and flight deck combined. So DW's cite is not only misleading in the way he uses it, but in fact fatally undermines his attempted argument. Solicitr (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

:The article even now states that HMS Implacable operated 81 aircraft and this is fully sourced. Yet Solicitr continues to state: "Rather more to the point is the fact that Benny out of an active airgroup of 103 could put 51 of them in the barn- which was just about as many late-war aircraft as any WWII RN carrier ever managed to operate in total (54), hangar and flight deck combined." I provided a reference here: Talk:Flight_deck#Latest_revision:_capacity_comparison (last entry) showing that the late war hangar capacity of the RN's 23400 ton Implacable class was 48 and that total capacity with a deck park was 72 and, of course, I provided the the reference showing Implacable actually operating 81 aircraft in 1945 while the 27500 ton USS Bennington had a hangar capacity of 51 aircraft, and carried a deck park of 53 aircraft, which shows very clearly the importance of the deck park to augmenting aircraft capacity in WW2 aircraft carriers. Additionally in the previous discussions on this subject, I provided the hangar deck area of RN armoured aircraft carriers and showed how they compared to the Essex class (which Bennington belongs to) and I showed that there was very little difference between Essex and Implacable, and thus the main difference between the two classes, in terms of aircraft capacity, was the very large deck park on Essex class aircraft carriers. Here's a relevant excerpt from a past discussion:

This article has included the statement: "The armor also reduced the length of the flight deck, reducing the maximum aircraft capacity of the armored flight deck carrier; however the largest part of the disparity between RN and USN carriers in aircraft capacity was the use of a permanent deck park on USN carriers." Solicitr has attempted to remove the latter part this statement, and his latest edit attempt includes the statement: "Reference doesn't matter if the statement is horse manure". Perhaps Solicitr can explain more fully why he feels compelled to edit the article and then justify his statement with such unscholarly remarks? Can he provide sources which contradict the referenced statement. As it is now, his justification makes his edits tantamount to vandalism. Damwiki1 (talk)

:It may be from a 'source'; but simply because something appears in print doesn't mean it's not rubbish. The fact is that Essex had capacity for 72 aircraft in the hangar alone, without deck park (Norman Friedman, a real RS): double Illustrious'. The "deck park" argument is nonsense, counterfactual, and simply special pleading by Yankbashers who can't admit the operational cost of the ABH. Solicitr (talk)

:Just to prove a point, Essex hanger area = 654ft x 70 ft = 45780 sq ft. Indomitable's hangers = 408 x 62 + 208 x 62 = 666 x 62 = 38192 sq ft or 84% of Essex. Essex's standard displacement = 27500tons versus 23000 tons for Indomitable or 84% of Essex, so proportionally, Indomitable has the same hanger area as Essex. The Implacable class had 458 x 62 + 208 x 62 hangers and so had larger hangar area than Essex, on a proportional basis, and eventually operated up to 81 aircraft by using a permanent deck park, which is roughly proportional to Essex, based upon their respective displacements. Ark Royal (1939) had even larger hangar area than Essex, 568ft x60ft + 452ft x 60ft = 61200 sq ft on only 22000 tons or about 1/3 more than Essex, yet Ark Royal never operated with more than 60 aircraft, because she did not use a permanent deck park. If we examine aircraft capacity in 1944/45 on RN and USN carriers we find that the use of deck parks on RN carriers greatly reduced the disparity between USN and RN designs, just as the source states: Hone, Friedman, Mandeles, British and American Carrier Development, 1919-1941, p125: "The 1931 edition of "Progress in Tactics" included a section on foreign tactics, including operating practices. The U.S. portion mentioned that "the number of aircraft in carriers is proportionately much higher than in our Navy, largely due to the practice of storing some aircraft permanently on deck."Damwiki1 (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)"

:Since that time I added the reference showing USS Bennington's hangar and flight capacity, and not surprisingly, it shows hangar aircraft capacity almost exactly in line with her hangar deck area. I also provided this reference in the talk section of Flight deck: "Another source for information on Deck parks in RN armoured carriers is British Warships of the Second World War, by John Roberts, p.61. He states the nominal aircraft capacity (using late war aircraft) of the Implacable class as 72 with 48 in the hangars and 24 as a permanent deck park so this shows very clearly how the use of a deck park greatly increased RN carrier capacity." I have proven that sources exist, and I provided the needed citation stating that the use of permanent deck parks accounted for the large disparity between USN and RN WW2 aircraft carriers, and I provided specific sources showing the actual capacity of USN Essex class and RN Implacable class aircraft carriers during WW2 and how they agree with the cited sources.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

:This is the section under discussion. Before Solicitr's deletions:

:When aircraft carriers supplanted battleships as the primary fleet capital ship, there were two schools of thought on the question of armor protection being included into the flight deck. The addition of armor to the flight deck offered aircraft below some protection against aerial bombs. However, to reduce top-weight the hangar height was reduced, and this restricted the types of aircraft that these ships could carry, although the Royal Navy's armored carriers did carry spare aircraft in the hangar overheads.[2] The armor also reduced the length of the flight deck, reducing the maximum aircraft capacity of the armored flight deck carrier; however the largest part of the disparity between RN and USN carriers in aircraft capacity was the use of a permanent deck park on USN carriers.[3][4] The 23,000 ton British Illustrious-class had a hangar capacity for 36 Swordfish sized aircraft and a single 458 ft x 62 ft x 16 ft ( 140m x 19m x 4.8m) hangar, but carried up to 57[5] aircraft with a permanent deck park while the 23,400 ton Implacable class featured increased hangar capacity with a 458 ft x 62 ft x 14 ft ( 140m x 19m x 4.3m) upper hangar and the addition of a 208 ft by 62 ft by 14 ft (63m x 19m x 4.3m) lower hangar, forward of the after elevator, which had a total capacity of 52 Swordfish sized aircraft and carried up to 81 aircraft with a deck park,[6] while the 27,500 ton USN Essex class had a 654 ft x 70 ft x 17.5 ft (198m x 21m x 5.3m) hangar that was designed to handle a mix of 72 prewar USN aircraft.[7] RN carriers did not use a permanent deck park until 1943. The experience of World War II caused the USN to change their design policy in favor of armored flight decks: "The main armor carried on Enterprise is the heavy armored flight deck. This was to prove a significant factor in the catastrophic fire and explosions that occurred on Enterprise's flight deck in 1969. The US Navy learned its lesson the hard way during World War II when all its carriers had only armored hangar decks. All attack carriers built since the Midway class have had armored flight decks." [8]

• [2] Roberts, British Warships of the Second World War, p62.
• [3] Hone, Friedman, Mandeles, British and American Carrier Development, 1919-1941, p125.
• [4] USS Bennington, Action Report, OPERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE OCCUPATION OF OKINAWA INCLUDING STRIKE AGAINST KANOYA AIRFIELD, KYUSHU. 28 May to 10 June, 1945, p.18. On June 05 1945, USS Bennington reported that her maximum hangar capacity was 51 aircraft, 15 SB2Cs and 36 F4Us, and that 52 were carried as a deck park. At that time she carried 15 TBMs, 15 SB2Cs and the rest were a mix of F6Fs and F4Us. She was prompted to utilize, and report on, her maximum hangar storage due to a Typhoon.
• [5] Brown, David, Warship Profile 11, HMS Illustrious Aircraft Carrier 1939–1956, Operational History, p257. 42 F4U Corsairs and 15 Fairey Barracudas.
• [6] OOB Carrier raids on the Japanese home islands. 48 Seafires, 21 Avengers and 12 Fireflies.
• [7] Roberts, John, The Aircraft Carrier Intrepid. London: Conway Maritime Press, 1982.
• [8] Cracknell, W.H, Cmdr USN, Warship Profile 15, USS Enterprise (CVAN 65) Nuclear Attack Carrier, p56.

:now, with Solicitr's deletions:

:When aircraft carriers supplanted battleships as the primary fleet capital ship, there were two schools of thought on the question of armor protection being included into the flight deck. The addition of armor to the flight deck offered aircraft below some protection against aerial bombs. However, to reduce top-weight the hangar height was reduced, and this restricted the types of aircraft that these ships could carry, although the Royal Navy's armored carriers did carry spare aircraft in the hangar overheads.[2] The armor also reduced the length of the flight deck, reducing the maximum aircraft capacity of the armored flight deck carrier. The 23,000 ton British Illustrious-class had a hangar capacity for 36 Swordfish sized aircraft and a single 458 ft x 62 ft x 16 ft ( 140m x 19m x 4.8m) hangar, but carried up to 57[3] aircraft with a permanent deck park while the 23,400 ton Implacable class featured increased hangar capacity with a 458 ft x 62 ft x 14 ft ( 140m x 19m x 4.3m) upper hangar and the addition of a 208 ft by 62 ft by 14 ft (63m x 19m x 4.3m) lower hangar, forward of the after elevator, which had a total capacity of 52 Swordfish sized aircraft and carried up to 81 aircraft with a deck park,[4] while the 27,500 ton USN Essex class had a 654 ft x 70 ft x 17.5 ft (198m x 21m x 5.3m) hangar that was designed to handle a mix of 72 prewar USN aircraft.[5] RN carriers did not use a permanent deck park until 1943. The experience of World War II caused the USN to change their design policy in favor of armored flight decks: "The main armor carried on Enterprise is the heavy armored flight deck. This was to prove a significant factor in the catastrophic fire and explosions that occurred on Enterprise's flight deck in 1969. The US Navy learned its lesson the hard way during World War II when all its carriers had only armored hangar decks. All attack carriers built since the Midway class have had armored flight decks." [6]

• [2] Roberts, British Warships of the Second World War, p62.
• [3] Brown, David, Warship Profile 11, HMS Illustrious Aircraft Carrier 1939–1956, Operational History, p257. 42 F4U Corsairs and 15 Fairey Barracudas.
• [4] OOB Carrier raids on the Japanese home islands. 48 Seafires, 21 Avengers and 12 Fireflies.
• [5] Roberts, John, The Aircraft Carrier Intrepid. London: Conway Maritime Press, 1982.
• [6] Cracknell, W.H, Cmdr USN, Warship Profile 15, USS Enterprise (CVAN 65) Nuclear Attack Carrier, p56.

Damwiki1 (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

:Text in dispute:

however the largest part of the disparity between RN and USN carriers in aircraft capacity was the use of a permanent deck park on USN carriers.[3][4]

• [3] Hone, Friedman, Mandeles, British and American Carrier Development, 1919-1941, p125.
• [4] USS Bennington, Action Report, OPERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE OCCUPATION OF OKINAWA INCLUDING STRIKE AGAINST KANOYA AIRFIELD, KYUSHU. 28 May to 10 June, 1945, p.18. On June 05 1945, USS Bennington'' reported that her maximum hangar capacity was 51 aircraft, 15 SB2Cs and 36 F4Us, and that 52 were carried as a deck park. At that time she carried 15 TBMs, 15 SB2Cs and the rest were a mix of F6Fs and F4Us. She was prompted to utilize, and report on, her maximum hangar storage due to a Typhoon.

:Again, I would like to point out that the article should be reverted to it's status before Solicitr's last revision, pending the outcome of this discussion.

Damwiki1 (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Damwiki1 (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yet another coordinator's note: I can't speak for Wiki-Impartial, but due to the lack of use of proper indenting, quoting, and other formatting, I have absolutely no idea who said what and when, what's new and what's quoted, and the like in the foregoing wall 'o text. I started to try to puzzle it out, but then changed my mind. That's not my job and it's not Wiki-Impartial's either. If you want us to understand what you're saying, please go back and format it so it can be easily read. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

:It strikes me that both Solicitr and Damwiki1 might do as well to (re)read Wikipedia:No original research. There looks to me to be a great deal of WP:OR in the above, evidently posted to prove one side of the argument or another. That isn't how it is supposed to work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

:I have carefully footnoted all my edits, and they show that without a deck park the disparity in aircraft capacity between USN Essex class carriers and RN Implacable class carriers was about 2-1 but with a deck park it was reduced to 1.8 to 1, even though the USN Essex was almost 20% larger. My edits should stand, however in response to Solicitr's edit here: Talk:Flight_deck#Latest_revision:_capacity_comparison I rewrote the entire section and placed my proposed version in the talk page, so perhaps you could take a look at that Damwiki1 (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

:Note: Thank you for providing information. I am currently taking time to read through everything and formulate a respective possible solution. Sorry for the delay but I had to deal with personal working commitments. --Wiki-Impartial (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

:Question: User:Solicitr, What are your thoughts about Damwiki1's proposed edit of the article? You can find this on the Talk page. --Wiki-Impartial (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

:: Note: Before involving further arguments it would be a good idea for you to read WP:REF, WP:CON, WP:V and WP:NOR. It does seem that both of you play certain parts to providing information in the article that has WP:NOR. It is important to ensure that details in the article are based on original research. --Wiki-Impartial (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

:Perhaps you could clarify your OR assertion? I have carefully cited all my statements and I don't see any OR. In any event it seems apparent that while I have been more than willing to engage in constructive dialogue, this has not been reciprocated by the other parties here, except for yourself. Again, I have to state that wikipedia policy is to return articles to their pre-dispute status pending outcome of disputes.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

:It seems pretty apparent that that I'm the only person who actually participated in good faith and was actually interested in resolving a dispute. Hopefully someone can close this out.Damwiki1 (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Detailed discussion has not occurred on an article or user talk page, as a primary party has not responded in either location. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Lseltzer|14:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|OS X Mountain Lion}}

Users involved

• {{User|Lseltzer}}
• {{User| Mdphddr}}

Dispute overview

On 28 November user Mdphddr removed a contribution I made. I believe the reasons are inadequate.

On October 22, Apple released OS X 10.9 (a.k.a. Mavericks) supplanting version 10.8 (a.k.a. Mountain Lion). In the past, when Apple has released a new version, they have continued to provide security updates for at least the immediate previous version and provide the updates at the same time as the release of the new version. It needs to be so because when they release the new version they disclose vulnerabilities in the old one that are fixed in the new one. But Apple did not, and has not since release a security update for Mountain Lion to address the vulnerabilities disclosed in it on October 22.

I am a contributor to ZDNet and did a good deal of research on this, including consulting with Apple. I wrote a one-paragraph contribution to the OS X Mountain Lion page describing the issue and citing my own article. Shortly thereafter, Mdphddr removed it, saying "Instead of complaining about security updates, we should either wait for new ones to be released or wait until Apple declares ML unsupported." The problem with this position is not only is it irrelevant to the truth and usefulness of my contribution, but Apple never declares a version of OS X unsupported. They just stop supporting it. I specifically asked Apple when or if they would release updates for OS X Mountain Lion and they specifically said they had no comment.

There was another problem with the OS X Mountain Lion page which I declined to address: It still listed the product as "Supported." Since then, an unidentified user changed the status to "Security updates and printer drivers." This is untrue, as Apple hasn't and appears not to be providing security updates. The status should be "Unsupported" and the same change should be made to OS X Lion and OS X Snow Leopard, both of which are inaccurately listed as "Security updates and printer drivers."

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I made an entry on Mdphddr's talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Someone authoritative should restore my change. I'm uncomfortable making the change myself without outside input, as I imagine Mdphddr would just remove it again.

It is under 2000 characters

Larry Seltzer, Editorial Director - BYTE 15:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lseltzer (talk • contribs)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=The issue is moot, as the disputant has uploaded his/her files to Wikimedia. Additionally, the other two parties declined to respond. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Sprezzatura|19:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo}}

Users involved

• {{User|Sprezzatura}}
• {{User| Gareth Griffith-Jones}}
• {{User| Hafspajen}}

Dispute overview

The dispute originally started at The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (GWDT), the Wikipedia page for the book.

I have prepared a set of family tree charts to accompany the novel and the movie. I am a professional genealogist, and thought I would share the charts with other viewers. There is no charge for the charts, they are free. As elaborately documented in our discussion at the second site, the charts are important towards understanding the movie.

I posted an external link to my charts page, from the GWDT page. Mr. Gareth Griffith-Jones deleted the link.

I have tried to discuss this with Mr. Gareth Griffith-Jones, but the discussion seems to bounce around, with Mr. Griffith-Jones grasping at various pretexts to "win" his point.

Following his suggestion that the book's site may not be the best place to add the link, I moved the link to the film's page, whereby Mr. Griffith-Jones pounced on it.

I am offering genuine value to other Wikipedians.

Note that in his very first communication with me. Mr. Griffith-Jones [1] threatened me, [2] accused me and [3] did not assume my good intentions, which I have.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have had what I feel are extensive and reasonable discussions with Mr. Gareth Griffith-Jones, but he is obdurate.

How do you think we can help?

Allow me to post an external link from the movie page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Girl_with_the_Dragon_Tattoo_%282011_film%29". to the charts page "http://progenygenealogy.com/products/family-tree-charts/sample-charts/girl-with-the-dragon-tattoo.aspx"

Thank you.

Since the genealogy chart shows photographs of characters from the English-language film of 2011, but uses the relationships in the book, which are different, the inclusion of an external link in this case seems to me to be potentially misleading for the reader. Deb (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sprezzatura has expressed a desire to freely share his (her?) work. That's a noble goal and it can be done in a non-controversial way: post the charts to Commons. To do so would be incontrovertible proof of Sprezzatura's good faith and it would resolve this issue. Lambtron (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I have uploaded the [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vanger_family%28non_spoiler%29.jpg Vanger family tree] to Wikimedia Commons, under the User ID "Gnarfulous", not because of some sinister attempt to conceal my identity, but because "sprezzatura" was already taken by someone else.

:The advantage of linking to the [http://progenygenealogy.com/products/family-tree-charts/sample-charts/girl-with-the-dragon-tattoo.aspx Website] is that it offers ten different presentations of the family tree, including Fan Chart, Outline Descendant, Trellis, Timeline, narrative book, and a format that permits printing a large 48" x 22" (122 cm x 56 cm) chart on your home printer, through a process called tiling. I won't be allowed to link to all these options.Gnarfulous (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

::Linking to your other works would certainly be allowable if those works reside in Commons. Since you've already taken the plunge with one work, why not follow through by uploading the others? As for linking to your works, several options come to mind. For example, you could group your works in a shared Commons category and link to that category from the article. And of course, if one or more of your works are particularly relevant to an article, you can display them directly in the article. Lambtron (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• I am seriously confused: I tried to sign into "Wikimedia Commons" with my User ID "sprezzatura" and password. They were rejected. So I figured "OK, Wikimedia uses a different set of User IDs", so I created a new User "Gnarfulous".

:However, now I see that I drifted back into Wikipedia as "Gnarfulous". I don't understand what is going on. I am not "sock puppeting", I will never ever use "Gnarfulous" again if I can figure out how to sign into Wikimedia as "sprezzatura".Sprezzatura (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Rikster2|19:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Technical close and/or request outside the scope of DRN and/or referral to another process. There are a couple of dozen, more or less, folks involved in the discussion at the MOS talk page, but only two are listed here. DRN does not provide mediators to mediate at other venues (though any volunteer here can, of course, choose to go there and volunteer to do so, if they care to do so, under the scope of the Mediation policy); mediation at DRN takes place on this DRN page and requires all editors involved in the discussion to be listed so that they can be notified of the discussion here by the listing bot. Listing them later, after the initial listing here, requires that someone manually notify all of them and manually create an opening comment section for each of them below. Failing to do so is not fair to the DRN volunteers and is much more easily accomplished by merely relisting the dispute with all involved editors inserted into the listing form. Having said that, in light of the policy discussion going on at the MOS page, in my opinion a much more appropriate process than DRN would be to create an RFC and/or list the matter at the Village Pump to draw in more of the general Wikipedia community. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers }}

Users involved

• {{User|Rikster2}}
• {{User| Epeefleche}}

Dispute overview

There is a MOS discussion on tenure year range format at the MOS Manual of Style/Dates and numbers talk page that has long roots. Wiki projects for several major sports (basketball, association football, American football, baseball and to an extent Cricket) have been using an 8 digit. Date format to show tenure with club in infoboxes and templates. MOS currently encourages 6 digit. MOS-focused editors this 6 digit should be enforced, sports editors think 8 digit. My concern is that we were not able to resolve this in a discussion in March/April and this seems to be headed the same direction. An article on an Israeli basketball player (Gal Mekel) has been changed and reverted several times. I have personally reverted it several times because I strongly feel the article should be left in its original state until the date issue is resolved. Please help us. Ideally, someone who understands MOS but is not locked into the current state would be preseferable. Likewise, someone who gets that sport articles are important but is not actively involved with one of the projects that use the 8 digit format. This will continually be a problem - resulting in unconstructive edits and reverts - until resolved with MOS being tweaked one way or the other. Thank you.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have made a formal request to amend the MOS. In my opinion it either needs to be tightened to expressly forbid or language added to allow 8 digit date spans

How do you think we can help?

Please help the MOS review. It needs unbiased mediation,. Right now everyone is either an MOS loyalist or a sports editor. Probably neither can be 100% unbiased. Leaving MOS as is will not result in a happy end in my opinion.

• Hello! I'm Theodore, and I will be assisting with this discussion. I will add further comments after Epeefleche responds. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• Closing notice: I will close the discussion on Tuesday, December 3 if no other responses are posted. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|LesPhilky|19:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Stale and discussion has moved on to other processes. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Carolina-Clemson rivalry}}

Users involved

• {{User|LesPhilky}}
• {{User| GarnetAndBlack}}
• {{User| Sandlap123}}
• {{User| Gamecockpride123}}
• {{User| 2Awwsome}}
• {{User| ClemsonC4}}

Dispute overview

Also located in South Carolina Gamecocks football. There is a dispute on whether the University of South Carolina should be referred to as "South Carolina" or "Carolina" on the relevant pages. 2Awwesome, Sandlap123, Gamecockpride123, ClemsonC4, and I agree that it should probably be changed to "South Carolina" for the sake of clarity and since other sports teams refer to themselves as "Carolina". GarnetAndBlack insists that it remain "Carolina" and argues that someone would be "dense" to confuse South Carolina with another team. Unfortunately, GarnetAndBlack and Sandlap123 have engaged in an edit war over this on both pages and attempts to produce a constructive discussion between all parties have devolved into accusations of sock-puppetry and personal attacks.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I started a new discussion on the Talk page in hopes that the edit warring would cease and we could come to a consensus, but that didn't work. I think an outside impartial party would help the situation.

How do you think we can help?

I think an impartial viewpoint on whether "South Carolina" or "Carolina" should be used would be great. I also think getting people to calm down and talk about it in a civil fashion would help. I think GarnetAndBlack believes making the change is somehow an attack on the University of South Carolina, and we would like him to understand that it is not. Sock-puppetry may have indeed occurred (it seems suspicious), but 2Awwsome and I are not sock puppets, so the discussion is still a valid one.

Although I agree to keep South Carolina when referring to South Carolina, I will not be involved in this debate any longer, as i work in the same office as Gamecockpride123, and do not wish to violate any rules. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandlap123 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Clemson is in North Carolina's conference, the ACC. However, Clemson plays South Carolina as well. Deleting South in front of every South Carolina is only going to add confusion. This is because Clemson has a rivalry with both (North and South) Carolina. Yes, South Carolina's rivalry with them is the topic. So it should be used in the article and even title. I understand that if you say "Carolina" in the SEC then it means University of South Carolina. But if one says Carolina in the ACC, it means North Carolina. Clemson is in the ACC. This is unnecesary verbal confusion that shouldn't be an issue. When it comes down to it, there are two Carolinas. North and South. The only TRUE teams that are officially Carolina, are the Carolina Panthers and Carolina Hurricanes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamecockpride123 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'll accept this case. However the first thing I'd like to discuss is: Is this the proper forum to resolve this dispute? The dispute resolution noticeboard "is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution and get assistance to the right place; request for comment, conduct RFC, mediation or other noticeboard, if involving other issues." So it is intended as a place for moderated discussion rather than a place to get outside opinions (although anyone is welcome to participate and give their opinion if they want to). If you would like outside input and opinions then I would suggest a WP:RFC which "is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines, article content, or user conduct". If you would like a moderated discussion then I am happy to assume the role of moderator for you. Any comments, questions or opinions on this?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

:24 hour closing notice: This case will be closed if no one responds by tomorrow, Monday December 2nd.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

::I think we've been able to put the issue up for vote/discussion, so further mediation may not be necessary.--LesPhilky (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=A detailed discussion has not occurred on an article or user talk page. MrScorch6200 (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DR case status|close}}

{{drn filing editor|Stjohn2001|21:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Penn State 2009 Football}}

Users involved

• {{User|Stjohn2001}}
• {{User| C.Fred}}
• {{User|Go Phightins!}}

Dispute overview

Can you please explain why I am incorrect to say that it is a Sandusky Child Sex Abuse Scandal, when he (an ex-employee of Penn State when the crimes occurred) is the only person that has been convicted in a court of law of a crime. No one else from Penn State University, I repeat no one, has been convicted of a crime has so far, as of this date. Is it not our principles that say you are innocent until proven guilty? Has an employee of Penn State committed any crime? Three PSU empolyees are charged, but until they are found guilty is it fair to call it a "Penn State child Sex Abuse Scandal?" How can one call it a Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal and besmirch a whole university based on the actions of "one ex-employee?" Stjohn2001 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Stjohn2001Stjohn2001 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to ask a set of questions of the individual, who did not respond directly to the questions I asked.

How do you think we can help?

Please be so kind as to answer my questions directly. Thank you for your consideration.

The article in question links to Penn State child sex abuse scandal. That's the title of the article. There is no article titled Sandusky child sex abuse scandal. Thus, Stjohn2001's edits to this article ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2009_Penn_State_Nittany_Lions_football_team&diff=584036426&oldid=577990446] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2009_Penn_State_Nittany_Lions_football_team&diff=584241886&oldid=584049894] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2009_Penn_State_Nittany_Lions_football_team&diff=584248928&oldid=584247031]) were disruptive to the extent that they broke a functioning link.

While there has been discussion at User talk:Stjohn2001 regarding this matter, there has been no discussion at Talk:Penn State child sex abuse scandal or Talk:2009 Penn State Nittany Lions football team—nor had Stjohn2001 engaged in any discussion about this matter until he had received a final warning on his talk page about his breaking of links throughout all the Penn State football team season articles that linked back to the abuse scandal.

With regard to the questions asked in the dispute section here, I answered those at User talk:Stjohn2001. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stjohn2001&diff=584262713&oldid=584261956]

Thus, I have no dispute with Stjohn2001 directly about this article. Any content dispute relates to the title of Penn State child sex abuse scandal, so in my opinion, the proper venue would be to discuss the article title at that page before coming to dispute resolution. Otherwise, I'm just the admin who saw he'd been reported to WP:ANI and gave one last warning that he was risking a block if he kept breaking links. —C.Fred (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding myself as a party (I think that's allowed), as I did the initial reversion. Consensus right now (emerged at Talk:Penn State child sex abuse scandal) was to name the page that (Penn State child sex abuse scandal]]. Going through articles and changing links to point to a page that does not exist (Sandusky child sex abuse scandal) is simply disruptive. If {{u|Stjohn2001}} wants the name of the article to change, that is one thing, and that can and should be taken up at and only at the aforementioned talk page, but changing links to pages that don't exist hinder a reader, which is certainly not the goal of this encyclopedia. Go Phightins! 22:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

--Stjohn2001 (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Stjohn2001--Stjohn2001 (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Please tell me who decided the consensus? What was the rational for the consensus, was it based on fact or just what was popular? If it is based on just popular belief, it should be noted as such, or the credibility of Wikipedia is diminished. When you Google "Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" it exists: https://www.google.com/#q=Sandusky+child+sex+abuse+scandal&safe=off&tbm=nws. How is a fact disruptive, is it because some facts are inconvenient to some people? --Stjohn2001 (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Stjohn2001--Stjohn2001 (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

--Stjohn2001 (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Stjohn2001--Stjohn2001 (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Also C.Fred on the TALKPenn State Child Sex Abuse Scandel states:

I don't see the usage as strictly about sex crimes; consider the article on the Watergate scandal. I think Dusty has it summed up right: it's the cover-up and related fallout that are the scandal that the title refers to. —C.Fred (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Please provide proof of said cover-up, if anything it is an "alleged" cover-up. And the related fallout is strictly by association. One person does not a whole institution make. It might have been relevant, if Sandusky was an employee of Penn State when the crimes were committed.--Stjohn2001 (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Stjohn2001--Stjohn2001 (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hey guys, I'm MrScorch6200 and will be assisting with this discussion. MrScorch6200 (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the article provided (2009 Penn State Nittany Lions football team), there is nothing on the talk page except for a notification by a bot. Looking at Stjohn2001's talk reveals that the disputed article is basically Penn State child sex abuse scandal. Just asking for some clarification here, did Stjohn2001 make redlinks to an uncreated article, Sandusky child sex abuse scandal in related articles when he may have wanted to propose/change the name of Penn State child sex abuse scandal to Sandusky child sex abuse scandal? This dispute seems like a misunderstanding to me. MrScorch6200 (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Can you please explain why I am incorrect to say that it is a Sandusky Child Sex Abuse Scandal, when he (an ex-employee of Penn State when the crimes occurred) is the only person that has been convicted in a court of law of a crime. No one else from Penn State University, I repeat no one, has been convicted of a crime has so far, as of this date." Because, you are not just saying it (which is POV)...you are changing existing links in the article to state that POV which breaks the links to the existing article that could also be seen as attempting to push a POV.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

:To Mr. Mark Miller:Let me ask who determined that it was a "Penn State Child Sex Abuse Scandal" when no employees of PSU were proven (in a Court of Law) to be involved in the crimes, when the crimes took place? Is this not a point of (POV) that is being pushed too. It seems to me that only the "unknown annointed few" can come to a consensus and make supposition appear as fact. So if it is popular to call it the Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal, then is it a fact??? I thought Wikipedia was about facts, and if it is about opinion or POV than it would be more credibile if it was identified as such. --Stjohn2001 (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Stjohn2001--Stjohn2001 (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

::Stjohn, three items: first, all the arguments you are making are valid, however you need to start a discussion at Talk:Penn State child sex abuse scandal about possibly renaming the article. Changing links to point to article titles that do not exist is reckless and unhelpful. Second, though consensus is currently that the title should be Penn State child ..., consensus can change, so do not hesitate to bring it up. Third, and this is simply a procedural note: we need to refer to the scandal how reliable sources refer to the scandal - verifiability, not truth. Go Phightins! 01:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

::* Stjohn, Wikipedia prefers the most recognizable names for articles. MrScorch6200 (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Also, {{u|Stjohn2001}}..the discussion is down here, not in the opening statements of the other participants. Could you move those comments to the discussion please.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• I believe {{u|Mark Miller|Mark}} will agree with me that there should have been a lengthier or more in-depth discussion on one of the talk pages. As {{u|Stjohn2001}} is a new editor (November 24), he may not know how to efficiently work a dispute and has come to the DRN earlier than he probably should have. As {{u|C.Fred}} said, there has been no discussion at Talk:Penn State child sex abuse scandal or Talk:2009 Penn State Nittany Lions football team—nor had Stjohn2001 engaged in any discussion about the matter until he had received a final warning on his talk page about his breaking of links throughout all the Penn State football team season articles that linked back to the abuse scandal. All three of the editors should have at least -or should- engage in some type of discussion on one of the talks before coming to the DRN. MrScorch6200 (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, I do agree with {{u|MrScorch6200}} not enough discussion on the user talk page to justify the DR/N filing at the moment. I support the closing of the request at this time until editors have had a chance to discuss at length!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|The dispute has not been extensively discussed on the article talk page; the complainant has only made a single post there. MrScorch6200 (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC) }}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Sunilreddym|11:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Dronamraju Krishna_Rao}}

Users involved

• {{User|Sunilreddym}}
• {{User| }}

Dispute overview

This is regarding Personal entry in Dronamraju Krishna Rao page on wikipedia which is damaging to his personal image. The evidence provided is the opinion of the author and not an actual fact.

I request the personal column be deleted.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I requested the page be deleted, on request from Dr Dronamraju Krishna Rao.

How do you think we can help?

I request the Personal column on this page be deleted. I can submit requried documents if necessary.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|There is an open discussion on this disputed article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bob_Huff here], at the COI/N. If the dispute is still not resolved at the end of that discussion, you may attempt a DR/N case again. MrScorch6200 (talk)}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Billbird2111|19:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Bob Huff}}

Users involved

• {{User|Billbird2111}}
• {{User| OrangeMike}}
• {{User| NeilN}}
• {{User| Jbhunley}}
• {{User| Elaqueate}}
• {{User| Bahooka}}
• {{User| 72Dino}}
• {{User| RJFJR}}
• {{User| JohnCD}}
• {{User| Gråbergs Gråa Sång}}

Dispute overview

The page set aside for the Senate Republican Leader in California has been forced to comply with a set of guidelines that is not applied to any other political leader in state or federal government. This includes rankings from organizations and groups that are generally not aligned with the Republican Party nor the Republican Party platform. This would be akin to placing Tea Party rankings on the pages of Democrat officeholders, a move they would not appreciate. I've appealed to numerous editors, but have found none who will agree with me. I was even locked from editing over a 72 hour period.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have requested some clarification be made to the page, and some of these requests have been granted. But the offensive material placed on the page remains. I would like it removed. Like it or not, the organizations listed on the Bob Huff page are political in nature. This amounts to a political attack on a Wikipedia page. There are also criminal allegations that have been posted on Bob Huff's page about his wife, Mei Mei. No such crime has taken place, but the posting makes it appear (implies) that something criminally wrong took place.

How do you think we can help?

Either apply the same reporting standards to all elected leaders in California, or stop subjecting Bob Huff to what is basically a political attack. I also want to be open in that I serve as the Communications Director for Bob Huff, and I am an employee of the California State Senate.

Billbird is Huff's head press agent. He thinks the article should be based on the nice pretty shiny official biography he wrote for his employer. He has also said that listing ratings of his client by organizations which are not favorable to his client's political party constitutes libel!!!! He has repeatedly edited his client's article, and displays an arrogance unusual even among PR people, refusing to acknowledge :WP:NPOV, :WP:RS, :WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, and above all :WP:COI. He hints that he could be fired if his client doesn't like the Wikipedia article about him, and in fact, he admites that he's filing this at the instigation of his client, the subject of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 2:34 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Mr. Bird does not understand Wikipedia articles are neutral and not puff pieces for politicians. The rankings come from a wide variety of sources. His [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Huff&oldid=583444176 preferred version] contains only cherry picked sources for rankings. "I've appealed to numerous editors, but have found none who will agree with me" just shows that consensus is against him. Mr. Bird's intimation that we do not place rankings in articles of groups opposed to a Democratic politician's positions is easily shown to be incorrect - Loretta_Sanchez#Political_positions. It took me all of two minutes to find this and I'm not even American. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Add: The phrase, "...on the pages of Democrat officeholders, a move they would not appreciate" shows that Mr. Bird still does not understand that Wikipedia articles are not written to please the subjects. Until he accepts this, I fear Dispute Resolution will be of little use to him. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This page was also discussed late last month at WP:BLPN[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN#Bob_Huff], a discussion initiated by Mr. Bird. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This page was also discussed at WP:COIN. 70.134.226.187 (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

My involvement with this issue started with the discussion at User Talk:NeilN#Bob Huff. I advised Billbird2111 about WP:NOLEGALTHREATS because of his repeated accusations of libel on User Talk:NeilN, his own talk page and the article's talk page. I also mentioned OTRS as a way of dealing with libel issues and recomended he avoid COI editing. I will put up diffs if this is an issue. Jbhunley (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hey guys, I'm MrScorch6200 and will be helping with the dispute once all/most of the editors have made an opening statement. MrScorch6200 (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

:Thank you --Billbird2111 (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

::*Bill, I know that you've gotten these links before, but please read WP:COI, :WP:NPOV, :WP:RS, and :WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Do you understand what these policies state? MrScorch6200 (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

::I have received these links below and I have accessed them. I do understand where your concerns come from. It does not change the fact that a set of standards have been applied to the Senate Republican Leader and ONLY the Senate Republican Leader. It doesn't change the fact that the organizations listed on the Senator's page are diametrically opposed to Republican policy, making his page more of a political attack than an encyclopedia. Finally, it does not address the criminal allegations of wrongdoing against Senator Huff's wife. --Billbird2111 (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

:::*Wikipedia stresses to retain a neutral point of view on every article. Here is a quote taken directly from that policy, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources...". Viewpoints have been included from both Democratic and Republican parties because of this policy. MrScorch6200 (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

:::Taking articles at random - Edward Hernandez and Ricardo Lara do not have a "Recognition" section. Are you proposing we remove that section from Huff's article? As you've been told before, each Wikipedia article stands on its own. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

::: (edit conflict) @Billbird2111 would you please link to a diff that shows these criminal allegations? I do not see it in the current version. Thank you. Jbhunley (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

::::I believe [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Huff&diff=next&oldid=583764345 this] is the diff with a citation from the San Gabriel Valley Tribune. Bahooka (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

::::That is correct. It implies wrongdoing when no such thing took place.--Billbird2111 (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::No, the article states the vote led to criticism. From the L.A. Times: "He shouldn't be leading the charge to protect that pot of money if he or anyone in his family has a financial stake," said Carroll Wills, a spokesman for the California Professional Firefighters union, which wants to redirect the subsidies to public safety and schools." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There are no allegations of criminal activity on the Bob Huff page. Bill seems to be referring to the summary of a much-discussed vote that Bob Huff made, that was reported as being criticized in multiple reputable sources. If the Senator believes that reporting amounts to allegations of criminal activity, he should take it up with the reporters involved. I added a summary of the controversy that was reported, with links [http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/10/local/la-me-redevelopment-huff-20110510/2 here] and [http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20090829/lawmaker-wife-both-lend-support-to-majestics-nfl-stadium-project here], without prejudice. It shouldn't have to be said, but other politicians' articles document similar events. To disclose, I have previously added sourced material to the article for Ronald Calderon, a Democratic state senator, regarding newsworthy events in his career that the subject might prefer to see erased from the public record. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• A couple of things. First, Mr. Bird, you have a financial (paid) conflict of interest. I hope you have NOT edited that article directly. Also, as having a direct conflict of interest, I believe this request should be closed and the editor directed to the proper venue. The reason I say this is because of what Mr. Bird is asking for:"Either apply the same reporting standards to all elected leaders in California, or stop subjecting Bob Huff to what is basically a political attack. I also want to be open in that I serve as the Communications Director for Bob Huff, and I am an employee of the California State Senate." which is also the declaration of paid advocacy editing. Simply put, this board is not in the position of applying a standard across such a large swath of articles and any perceived political attack is simply not a legitimate reasoning to bring this request before this board. I suggest two things, Mr. Bird should be sure and follow the advice at WP:COI and this request should be referred to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I also suggest this be brought up at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Mr. Bird has indeed edited the article directly by removing large portions of content. I also note that it appears Mr. Bird is a single purpose account on top of the conflict of interest.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• It appears there is an open Noticeboard filing in regards to this article already at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bob_Huff COI/N]. This request should simply be closed at the moment as we do not accept requests when there is an open discussion at another noticeboard.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• There is definitely a heated discussion here, however the dispute has an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bob_Huff open discussion] at the COI/N. This dispute will be closed because there is an open filing at the COI/N. MrScorch6200 (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|reason= The case failed to open, as {{u|WWGB}} did not make an opening statement. MrScorch6200 (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|AlanM1|09:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Deaths in 2013}}

Users involved

• {{User|AlanM1}}
• {{User| WWGB}}

Dispute overview

At Deaths in 2013, there is a dispute over inclusion of well-known related people in the blurb, names which I contend help identify the person, but are objected to by the other editor. Discussion on the talk page, as usual, has yielded just one other opinion (split between the two examples in this case) from one of the other regular editors of the page.

The cases are:

and

I contend that the second instance of both cases helps the reader know who the person was – a primary question in the minds of those reading death announcements, particularly here, where there are so many names that are unrecognizable to a given reader because of the global coverage. The vast majority of WP:RS include the additional information in the article headline.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None.

How do you think we can help?

Bring enough neutral, objective opinions to form a real consensus.

Deaths in 2013 is clearly WP:OWNed by a very small number of users. Discussions on the article and user talk pages rarely get more than one other contributor, and the "outsider" routinely gives up. The insider routinely gets their way through persistence. Either nobody else reads the talk page of this highly-visited page, nobody else cares, or nobody else wants to fight what seems to often be a futile battle.

• I will assist with this discussion, following statements from all involved parties. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• Closing notice: I will close the discussion if the other party doesn't respond by Tuesday, December 3. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 21:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• I note the complainant wants to "bring enough neutral, objective opinions to form a real consensus". That is not the purpose of WP:DRN. WWGB (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Perhaps a request for comment or a third opinion request may be more beneficial than this forum. In either case, an external viewpoint (or multiple viewpoints) will be provided. The goal here at DRN is to allow participants to talk out their problems, and try to reach consensus, in a moderated forum. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|It is clear there is no consensus or any type of resolution/compromise gained through this discussion, therefore it has been closed as failed. For the editors involved, it is advised they go to MEDCOM or try another RFC. MrScorch6200 (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DR case status|failed}}

{{drn filing editor|Sionk|00:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)}}

prominently

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Australia national association football team}}

Users involved

• {{User|LauraHale}}
• {{User| 2nyte}}
• {{User| PeeJay2K3}}
• {{User| HiLo48}}
• {{User| Clavdia chauchat}}
• {{User| Sionk}}
• {{User| Jmorrison230582}}
• {{User| Lukeno94}}

Dispute overview

Proposal to rename the article "Australia men's national association football team" on the basis there is a women's national team too. Proposer argued the name is innaccurate, others argued the current name is sexist, opponents argue it is normal WP:PRIMARYTOPIC disambiguation, born out by evidence and would have impact on every other sports article.

Discussion has become increasingly very heated with poor language and personal insults from several people, particularly from some of the 'support' camp. How should the issue be resolved? (Suggestions have been put forward that it should be taken to a general higher-level discussion rather than piecemeal article name-changing, but WikProject Football isn't a favoured option at all)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Suggested articles be moved to "Socceroos" and "Matildas", their common names. I was initially halfway between the two camps and was trying to grasp a policy based reason to support a name change. Unfortunately driven into the 'oppose' camp by the intransigence and name calling.

How do you think we can help?

Suggest an alternative forum? Discussion is now difficult to navigate or comprehend because of its great length, so I don't know how effective an RFC would be (though maybe an option). If I knew the solution I wouldn't have come here.

:: Also, there are other people involved on the side of the rename in favour of the following WP:PRECISE, WP:NPOV, WP:UDUE and WP:V and who are not included on this list. Why are Rushton2010 , {{ping|The-Pope}}, {{ping| Clavdia chauchat}}, {{ping|Hmlarson}} not on this list? It basically casts the problem as a few well meaning football articles against two people. This is clearly not the case. --LauraHale (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

...or Simeone001, SuperJew, Giant Snowman and Raystorm? I simply included people that had engaged at length in the argument, rather than people that had succinctly commented only once and made their position clear in their comments (either for or against).Sionk (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

:: Frankly, coming here appears to be an example taking the "dispute" to another level. People opposing the move have been repeatedly asked to provide Wikipedia policies to support their positions. They have only been able to cite WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, where an abundance of sources and WP:PRECISE demonstrate that the men's team is not the primary topic. Rather than work through policies, pillars and guidelines to support a position, we are brought here. Where are the sources that in anyway suggest that the men's team is the primary topic when it comes to WHICH national team recognised by FIFA, the AOC, FFA, ASC, SBS, ABC, the Sydney Morning Herald is the one that says the men's team is the primary topic? These sources all recognise two national teams for Australia and WP:PRECISE implies that when you have ambiguity like this, precision should be striven for. It takes nothing away from the men's game of soccer in Australia to precisely identify which team is being talked about. There isn't one source that supports this position to the extent that WP:PRECISE and other policies should be ignored. This "dispute" exists because WP:NPOV and WP:V are being ignored and sources are not being provided to support the oppose rename rationale. {{ping|Sionk}} and others are worried that following WP:NPOV and WP:V will result in "false equivalence" between the men's game and the women's game. --LauraHale (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

My issue with this discussion is that it has the potential to affect articles other than just the one about the Australia national football team, and the user who proposed the move ignored suggestions from the previous RM (also started by her) to take the matter to a more central location. Any suggestion that this RM affects only one page is preposterous. – PeeJay 01:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I feel that one could summarise the Oppose arguments in two ways. One is given by the proposer above - It "...would have impact on every other sports article". That's clearly nonsense. There are already many examples of men's teams with and without that word. Changing the one in question would not force change anywhere else. Nonsense arguments are very frustrating, and inevitably generate heat. The other Oppose argument seems to be that the men's team is the more important, and doesn't need clarification. That's not the case legally, depends on Google hit counts (always a dodgy approach), and obviously inflammatory. The Opposers really seem opposed to change because they're opposed to change, another heat generator. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

:Since I wrote the above, we've already had an opposer write "Any suggestion that this RM affects only one page is preposterous." That's just silly, provocative, and ignores what I wrote. The latter, ignoring what I wrote, is even more provocative, and happens all the time with the opposers in this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

::Since the above refers to a comment I made, it's only right that I should respond: I did not ignore what you wrote, I responded to it in the negative, in accordance with my opinion on the subject. You need to get over yourself and realise that your opinion is not the only one that counts, and that if people disagree with you, it's because they have the right to think for themselves, not because they want to get your goat. I mean, really... – PeeJay 04:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

:::You need to give a bloody good reason for your different opinion, not just state it. I have given very clear reasons for mine. One of the biggest problems here is the poor discussion skills of soccer obsessives. They simply have to argue against change, without rational reason. It's no wonder discussion becomes heated. HiLo48 (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

:::: The oppose was not based on any policy rationale (other than the men's game is superior to the women's game). Indeed, it asks for non-policy views about the alleged superiority of the men's game to be elevated above WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:PRCISE, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --LauraHale (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This is something which comes up again and again. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/National_teams#Proposed_change:_consistency_in_article_title_gendering last time] it was after Wikipedia had been [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-04-29/In_the_media publicly shamed] by some editors' sexist treatment of female novelists (by ghettoizing them into subcategories). Then as now the move had widespread support and was backed in policy but was derailed and ultimately blocked by WP:FOOTBALL editors. Here the 'no' campaign is basically WP:FOOTBALL +1 (User:Sionk, whose above characterization of the dispute is very far from neutral). The situation where a handful of editors from a very, very narrow demographic assume that their WP:LOCALCONSENSUS should win the day obviously causes frustration. Not only that but the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC argument, in my opinion misses the point: If popularity and coverage really trumped clarity, precision, neutrality, consistency etc. etc. then we'd have one England national team, with hatnotes to the cricket, rugby and all other teams. Ultimately, this matter will keep coming up so deserves much wider input. I've got no opinion on the soccer/football or Australia/n things. I did think edit warring out the NPOV tags while a valid discussion was ongoing was particularly disrespectful and egregious. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

:To suggest that the term "England national team" refers primarily to the football team is a gross misstatement of fact, and no one would ever seriously suggest that the article about the football team should occupy a page titled England national team. I think this is a case of argumentum ad absurdum, Clavdia. – PeeJay 13:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I can see why the proposer of the name change has a problem with the current article - it makes little references at all in the lede to explain the article is about the men's team (I added "men's"). But this is a common situation with most national football team articles. In most situations the male football team is extremely dominant in the media and public profile, in this particular example "Australia national football team" is synonymous with meaning the men's team. On the basis "Australia national football team" will be a common search term for the men's team, based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I'm inclined to favour the current means of disambiguation. To blame Wikipedia for inequality in football would be the 'tail wagging the dog'.

As for the reasons behind the dispute, well, the proposer accuses anyone who doesn't agree with her of not listening, then repeats her argument, also tag-bombing the article. Two others use insults quite freely (as soon as I voted 'Oppose' I became "sexist", "male" and "chauvinist") and prefer to personalise the discussion. Treating all disagreement as an attack on women will only back amenable editors into a corner. There is some distrust of the proposal because of its piecemeal change-by-stealth, while equally there is a distrust of WikiProject Football ("circle jerk") by the other side. Sionk (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

NB I was unaware of the previous lengthy discussion involving most of the same contributors - the arguments seem well rehearsed and the positions entrenched. Sionk (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

:You're no doubt also unaware of the five(!) threads I recently deleted from my Talk page, all started by soccer nuts who think that's a way of making me change my mind! LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I actually have some sympathy for the suggestion that Australia national association football team should be moved to Australia men's national soccer team (naming consistently with the US and Canada). The Australia men's team has only qualified for the World Cup a few times, whereas the women's team has qualified for most World Cups (in a younger sport) and has performed reasonably well at the last two. I believe Australia is more similar to Canada or the US in this regard than the major European or South American national teams, which have long histories in the men's game. However, I do believe that in Australia the men's team is the primary topic, based on media coverage (e.g. the most recent' women's team game wasn't televised in Australia).

The problem I have is that none of the arguments for moving the article appear to be based on whether or not the men's team is the primary topic. Instead we are told to disregard that guideline simply because a women's team exists and thus having a men's team article as the primary topic is not a neutral representation. I can't accept this because that would logically mean moving every national team article to a gender specific title, even in extreme cases where one team (e.g. 1. New Zealand men's rugby union, 2. India men's cricket, 3. Brazil men's football) has far more coverage and notability than the other. I believe that WP:NPOV means we have to treat subjects proportionately, which means that some national teams in some sports will be the primary topic. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• This is one of the most ridiculous "debates" I've ever been involved in. I have stated, as many others have, that Laura should've started a discussion on WP:FOOTBALL with regards to where all national football team articles are located; a single article move request is doomed to fail as it would contradict the existing global consensus. From there on in, it has degenerated into a farcical mudslinging contest, initially started by Laura, HiLo and Clavdia, which the likes of myself and other users have ended up reacting to in equally unhelpful ways. The fact that these users seem utterly incapable of actually reading other people's posts, much less responding to them in a helpful manner, has contributed to most of the problem; Laura has constantly spun things round and round in circles by ignoring the answers to her questions, and instead repeating her questions; Clavdia and HiLo have contributed very little but inflammatory content, for the most part (although, at least HiLo did bring up a valid question about which word out of Australia/Australian is more appropriate for the title). Perhaps Laura's worst actions are to edit-war (via tag teaming with Clavdia) in two tags (NPOV and UNDUE) that are rejected by the consensus of most editors, and are simply WP:POINTy additions, into the article itself. This is despite the fact that she has openly admitted her issue is with the title, and therefore this aspect is simply a distraction in order to enforce her views strongly. I should also note that Laura has previously attempted a move of a whole bunch of Australian articles via RM back in 2011, which was soundly rejected as well (two page moves by another user a year later have directly contradicted said consensus, without the formation of a new one). Finally, I should state that I have no issue with the presence of the word "men's" being in the title, or with it staying at the same location as it is currently; however, I do strongly object to the underhanded backdoor tactics that Laura and her tag-team have used, and indeed still are using. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'll be assisting with the discussion. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed a few things I'd like to point out before we go any further.

• Does everyone feel that this is the appropriate venue for this dispute? I think a DRN discussion might be useful, but both sides seem very steadfast in their viewpoints. If we begin a discussion here, the goal should be to hammer out some kind of consensus. If participants feel that this might be impossible, formal mediation might be better.
• If we proceed here, is there any interest in discussing the Australia vs. Australian issue? The main point of contention seems to be the men's/women's dispute, but I'd be happy to address both.

Thanks, and feel free to comment below. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

::Yes, entrenched views. Good luck! My personal view is that article's title should read "Australian national men's soccer team". So, "Australian" rather than "Australia" because it's how most people talk and write about the team, "men's" for obvious clarity and equal treatment with the more successful women's team, and "soccer" because that's the single, unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia. Nobody calls it "Association football" in Australia. More than you expected? Maybe. But you asked. HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

:::Sounds good. I've divided the space below into three separate sections for the individual disputes. I think the men's/women's issue is the primary one we should address, but discussing the other areas won't hurt. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

:: I am not sure this is the best place to discuss things. This appears to be an attempt to circumvent consensus by delaying a move proposal based on a non-policy decision based on an inherent POV situation. I'd be game if we could see some indication that there was acknowledgement of other policies and that this issue should not be passed off to the association football project. I have difficulty understanding from their point of view why the football Wikiproject should be involved in the naming decision for Australia men's national goalball team. I am also unclear policy wise why WP:PRECISE and WP:UNDUE and WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are not relevant to the discussion. These issues for me are fundamental to any possible mediation. I have no interest in expanding the scope beyond single issue of policy, pillars and guidelines and their use solely as it applies to the article where the title is about the national team (of which there are two) and the article text which is about the men. --LauraHale (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

::::I can't see how this is helpful either. The original dispute that faced extreme difficulties to reach agreement was about the addition of "men's" into the title of the article. The subsequent quibbles are entirely different and can probably be dealt with elsewhere far more amicably. Turning this DRV into a discussion about "Australian" and "association football" is circumventing the main problem. Sionk (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::: Your interpetation of events is not my interpretation of events. My interpretation of it is this: POV pushers are attempting to circumvent Wikipedia policies, including WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:PRECISE, WP:UNDUE. This is at the heart of the conflict. It is one where mediation should focus on: How we can work together to comply with Wikipedia policies. Would you care to explain your interpretation and application of these policies as they relate to this dispute? --LauraHale (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::::As several people have objected to continuing the discussion here, I am willing to close it. I'm doubtful an RfC would be very useful here; similar discussions in the past have been fruitless. I would strongly encourage formal mediation. Additionally, I'd suggest thinking about a few questions:

::::::::*How can some editors' concerns regarding WP:LOCALCONSENSUS be addressed?

::::::::*Exactly what content/topics should be included in these discussions?

::::::::*Can any compromises be made with regard to this material?

:::::::Thanks, and my apologies if this discussion has not been as useful as some may have hoped. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::Well, it seems LauraHale, the person originated the page move discussion leading to a heated debate, no longer has a dispute about her proposal. If her dispute is about Wikipedian's general misinterpretation of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:PRECISE, WP:UNDUE then that definitely needs addressing at a more general forum. If there is a dispute about adding the word "men's" to the article name of Australia national association football team, then it's reasonable for the discussion to take place here and Talk:Australia national association football team. Judging by the perspectives outlined by all the other participants, the main point of disagreement is with the use of the word "men's" in the article title.

:::::::::From what I can see, the tangential issues (association football v. football v. soccer) were examples used to show how article page names can vary according to local preferences. Sionk (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::: I have never had a dispute. This was and is a mischaracterization based on others opposed to the move because of their expressed fears such a move would set a precedent for future article moves. The people opposing the move have largely done so based on their expressed fear, while not providing any rationale beyond those fears, beyond association football Wikiproject consensus trumping all other consensus, and based on the belief that including men in the title would create false equivalence between the men's game and the women's game. My position has always been that a move is needed for the article to bring it in line with policies. There is no change in my position. There is no dispute. There is a need to understand POLICY, PILLAR and GUIDELINE based decisions for opposition to the move that would bring the article title into compliance with the repeated mentioned policies. I still seek understanding. Can it be provided? --LauraHale (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::: Now you are taking semantics to a new level of daftness. You may not have a dispute with yourself but there are quite a few other people that disagree with you. As a consequence you have been unable to find agreement on your point of view. Otherwise why are you asking for an understanding? I think most people understand where you are coming from but they disagree with your selective interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. Sionk (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing to add beyond my summary above. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Nor I. A DRN on a specific page move is not anywhere near the global or WikiProject-wide consensus that is really required for this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

::And there's a perfect example of the problem here. The anti-change campaigners have invented this new strategy. They insist that an article about something in Australia cannot be changed without changing the same aspect of every other article about the same sport everywhere in Wikipedia. I can never accept that. If change is the correct thing to do, it must start somewhere. Otherwise we will never change anything. HiLo48 (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

:::I think the WP:POVTITLE policy may be of some assistance here. Additionally, I will close the discussion later this evening, given some participants' objections to continuing it. Formal mediation may be a good choice. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

:::: I would object to any close at this point citing DRN as cause to close it without change. There are clear policy reasons to support the article name having men and the redirect being made into a disambiguation. The rationales for not moving have been "Wikiproject football would need an RfC to do that", which is not policy and any such RfC should not trump local article consensus. There are numerous policies that support a precise gendered title, and no policies or verifiable sources that support the idea of Australia having a single senior national team open to both men and women. Despite requests for understanding what percentage would be adequate to have a dual gendered article, none have been provided. That discussion stalled. --LauraHale (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

::*As usual, you're spouting pure rubbish, HiLo. If it is standard WikiProject or Wikipedia practise to give the titles of everything to a specific format, then any discussion about changing things needs to go to said WikiProject, or through a global channel. And given the common debate of "equivalence", it would be far more beneficial for you three to actually follow the advice given, and try and get all the articles moving to your preferred naming structures, rather than just one article... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::Except for the whole fact that Wikiprojects don't set or control policy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::*Except for the whole fact that I was saying precisely fuck all about policy there; I was talking about WikiProject-wide standard practise/consensus. The standards for naming ARE generally related to the WikiProject. And in terms of the general naming across all national teams in all sports, then that needs to be a global discussion, not one held for an individual article. I fail to see the relevance of your comment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

::::::* Articles can have local consensus. Your comments are not based on policy, pillars or guidelines. This lack of understanding about the role of Wikiprojects in terms of their ability to develop project based consensus that trumps policy, pillars and guidelines. You understand that people working on an article can develop local consensus that trumps individual Wikiproject practices? (Also, why you think Wikiproject Association Football should trump the naming practices of Wikiproject Australia articles about national teams is beyond me. That's never been established.) --LauraHale (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::::*I would encourage everyone to try to remain civil during the discussion. I know that most participants have strong views on the issue at hand, but escalating tensions isn't a good idea. With regard to this dispute's impact, I think we can keep it "local". Perhaps, once a conclusion is established regarding this article, further discussions can be held about other titles. The WP:POVNAME policy provides some analysis of non-NPOV article titles. Additionally, closing this discussion does not mean the dispute is "over". Instead, moving this to formal mediation would allow for a more binding decision regarding the disagreement. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

::::::::* Common name for the team would actually be "Socceroos" for the men and "Matildas" for the women. There are numerous sources where both the women's team and the men's team are both described gender neutrally (as in they are described as the Australian team) and gendered (men's national team, women's national team). No evidence has been offered to suggest WP:POVNAME situation exists, and exists to such an extent that WP:PRECISE should be trumped. WP:POVNAME also doesn't appear to deal with the issue that the current article text for the article violates WP:V and the article text violates WP:NPOV. The men's team is not the national team. The lack of ability to cite policy+pillar to oppose the move and the desire to have a particular Wikiproject view trump a policy+pillar based consensus are why I believe we are here. It is a stall tactic to wear people down. --LauraHale (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

::::::*As Laura has pointed out (and I tried to point out,) Wikiprojects cannot and do not establish binding practice with regards to article naming conventions. Local consensus absolutely trumps Wikiproject common practice. If Laura wanted to change the name of every single football article, it would be appropriate to have a discussion in a more general forum. If she wants to change the name of a single article, the talk page of that article is a perfectly appropriate place to hold a discussion about it. "Our Wikiproject usually does it this way" is not an argument that can trump... er... anything. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::::*You (both Laura and Kevin) make a number of valid points. As for POVNAME, if a majority of reliable sources call the men's team "the Australian national team", that might help determine consensus. However, if they don't (as Laura suggested), this would be irrelevant. Regarding the impact of a name change, WP:TITLE states that article titles should be consistent with naming conventions. These are not determined at a WikiProject level. If such a convention exists, it should probably be followed. An RfC or village pump discussion may be more conducive if you want to adopt a new convention. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has been continually talked about throughout the discussion. As for COMMONNAME and POVNAME, several people have already described Google search results for Australia national football team which invariably point to the Socceroos well before the Matildas. From what I remember, Laura dismisses PRIMARYTOPIC as not Wikipedia policy, while NPOV is. The question then is, does WP:NPOV (and WP:POVNAME?) support a gendered name change of the article? Personally I'm not convinced it does. In fact POVNAME specifically does not preclude 'Non-neutral but common names'. Sionk (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::*That's why I brought up POVNAME, as it seemingly accepts titles like the one in question. However, I think reliable sources should substantiate that the current title is the common name. What are your thoughts? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::::* I'd like you to provide sources. I have provided multiple sources that show the game is gender segregated by rule. This includes the sport's highest governing body, FIFA. SBS, FFA, ABC (Australia), the Australian Sport Commission all support the team being the men's team. The facebook page for the men's team says they are the men's team. WP:V makes it clear that the team is the men's team, not the national team. Worse yet, there are a multitude of sources that also show the women's team is the an Australian national. POVNAME has no application here. If you have sources to support your particular POV, then please provide them. It would be a massive improvement over the Wikiproject football people. WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:PRECISE all trump the idea that a non-neutral title is acceptable. You have provided no rationale and no sources. Beyond which, your view would pervert consensus on the talk page to move the article. This is completely unacceptable. --LauraHale (talk)

:::::::::::::*Laura, when the hell are you going to get it through your skull that "the Wikiproject football people" are not the only people who have opted for this path, and therefore stop hysterically ranting about the WikiProject's massive wrongs on society and the world? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::::::*Luke, While I assume good faith in your use of hysterical, this word has historically and frequently been used as a way to put women down by implying their views are irrational. Also, the use of my first name alone falls into a similar situation. I would request that you please modify your behavior. That said, when you are going to explain why WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:PRECISE do not apply here? Will you next engage in profanity and use other ways of condescending to women? --LauraHale (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::*Are you fucking kidding me? I refer to you as "Laura" because that is the first name of your account, same as I refer to HiLo48 as HiLo, same as people refer to me as Luke. Your attempt at portraying me as sexist is bullshit - I said from the very beginning that I am not opposed to the proposed move; just the way the entire situation has been handled, and the methods you are using, in contrary to what everyone has requested you to do. The fact that you feel the need to sink this low speaks volumes for the desperation in which you feel the need to promote your cause. If you'd started the debate at the Football WikiProject, as you were told to do in the first place, you'd have probably gained a lot more support, without stirring up the enormous drama that you have. I am certainly wondering if this is more an attention-seeking exercise than a sensible move request... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::*Luke, perhaps you need time to calm down. Your use of fucking and your inability to respond rationally with some verifiable sources to support your claim regarding the name being common use indicate you might be hysterical. Luke, can you please get over your hysteria demonstrated through your use of vulgarity and work with me towards a policy based result that upholds Wikipedia's policies regarding verifiability and neutrality? Please stop your irrational and non-policy hysterical repetition of the need for Wikiproject Australia and individual article editors to subvert themselves to Wikiproject Association football. Luke, please be rationale and non-hysterical. We're all here to support Wikipedia´s pillars. --LauraHale (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::*Read what I wrote properly, or go away. It's been pretty damn obvious from the very beginning that you've been reading little bits of what people have written, and not even attempting to read them properly. The above comment is a shining example of that. Also, WP:NOTCENSORED means I can, and will, continue to use the exact words I choose, and one editor who is too lazy/arrogant to even attempt to read what people write moaning about things won't change that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::* Luke, please stop with your hysterical observations. It is clear to me that you are not familiar Wikipedia policies. Furthermore, it is clear to me that you fail to understand the purpose Wikiprojects. You think that the consensus developed by a few members results in the final say of all things related to the project. Luke, in your hysterical support of POV regarding the men's game, you have ignored the multiple Arbitration cases that said this is patently not true. WP:ARBCOM has said projects cannot do this. Therefor, that point of discussion is a non-started. Wikiprojects are not the final arbitrators. You've been repeatedly told this and you've hysterically repeatedly made the claim of the opposite. Ask the Birds people and the Classical Music people and the US Roads people. They've all been down that road and ArbCom has been pretty consistent on that point. Wikiprojects are not and cannot be the final arbitrator. So please stop pushing this. --LauraHale (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::*OK, I'll just do the broken record impression again; maybe that way you will be able to read this. I am not opposed to the proposed move; just the way the entire situation has been handled, and the methods you are using, in contrary to what everyone has requested you to do. If you're not going to bother reading that, then don't fucking bother replying with clear bullshit statements, such as that I am "in hysterical support of POV regarding the men's game". You're wasting everyone's time by being pretentious and deliberately misrepresenting what people say. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::*Luke, please stop pushing the hysterical "Wikiproject Association told you no! Consensus must come from us!" That is patently untrue. You're wasting everyone's time by pushing an idea that ArbCom has said is not true. Worse yet, you're wasting my time by failing to provide sources. Please stop with your hysterical accusations and provide verifible sources and policy links that support your position. Please Luke. How hard is this Luke? Please Luke. Be kind to me. Provide the links Luke. I provided you links to the FFA and FIFA Luke. We're supposed to be collaborating here Luke. There is give and take so we can work towards this. I've tried to work with you Luke but you refuse and come back with hysterical responses, including vulgarity. Would Tim Cahill do that? --LauraHale (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::*Words fail me. Are you stoned or something? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::Woah, woah, woah. Being a bit unfair to marijuana there!--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::Lukeno94 enough of your completely uncalled for uncivil personal attacks, I've been rather disgusted at your comments towards a female editor. If I see one more comment from you that fails Wikipedia's etiquette guidelines, will see you at ANI. No editor should have to put up with such shameful attacks. Bidgee (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::*I fail to see how Laura has been any more civil, and at least I haven't sunk low enough to deliberately misrepresent and downright lie about what other people have said. No editor should have to put up with that either... I note very clearly that you clearly have disregarded that - so don't waste people's time by making threats when you haven't even bothered to look at the situation. The fact she is female is utterly irrelevant; I would address any gender in the same way, if they acted in this way towards me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::If you fail to see what you've said as completely uncivil and uncalled for, you clearly need to look at the mirror a little harder and see where you've failed the community. "Are you stoned or something?" is a comment that no one, let alone the "f" word, should have directed at them, the fact you said it to a female editor is worse. I think you should be well aware that the English Wikipedia is having a hard time getting female contributors because of disgraceful behaviour and comments targeted at them. Also if you read the policies, you'll note that you should comment on the content and not the contributor. Bidgee (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::*You're as bad as Laura is, in terms of not bothering to read things properly. I fail to see how I have been any less civil than Laura has; I did not say that I had not been uncivil at any point. And if I should comment on the content and not the contributor, answer me this; why have the three proponents of this move request constantly focused on other editors motives? The fact of the matter is that I have given up focusing on content, when people like Laura and yourself are too lazy or arrogant to actually read people's posts at all, or are just determined to misrepresent them. And believe me, I could say a lot more against various people in here than I have done. Please, stop trolling; I'm sick to death of the lot of you doing such things. Oh, and as a further proof that I'm not against female football, sexist, chauvinist, or whatever; please read Hayley Raso, which I just wrote (although it could do with a little more weight on the youth internationals front; I'm not 100% done yet, and sources seem to be scarce) and stop wasting my time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Again, you're making a comment on the person and not the comment/content. Laura hasn't used any expletives directed at you, but you've used it a number of times towards her and then suggested she used drugs (which I would recommend her to request oversight, since it's a libel remark that has no place here). If you're not going to focus your arguments on the content but attack the editor, I think that you've given yourself a reason to be blocked (there is no exceptions to violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA) since you're failing to address the issues that being this project into disrepute. And creating an article on a female player and trying to use it to distance yourself from the criticism about your behaviour is the oldest trick in the book that doesn't work. Desist from uncivil personal attacks, just because they don't hold the same view point and attack your argument doesn't give you the right to attack them personally and as an editor. Bidgee (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::*If a user is going to deliberately misrepresent what I say, and try and make clearly false claims, I have every right to react angrily. Gender has precisely fuck-all relevance. I don't care whether an editor is male, female, transgender, or any particular race, colour, etc. It makes NO difference. The only time it makes any difference is when people like you talk down from their high-horse, without paying any attention to what's going on, and just go around seeking attention by trying to play the gender/race/colour card. I've created articles on female footballers and racing drivers - the latter being a LONG time before this dispute. Stop trolling. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't see "hysterical" or "ranting". But all Laura has done is prove the womens national football team exists, which absolutely no-one disputes at all. But WP:COMMONNAME prefers "names [which] will be the most recognizable and the most natural" and WP:POVNAME suggests "Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to" (this is a quite common, standard way of disambiguating articles with the same name). So the question is what would most readers expect to be taken to when searching for "Australia national football team"? I (and others) am strongly inclined to believe it is generally the men's team, which has by far the highest profile, support, TV coverage etc. Is it sexist or non-neatral to say this? I'm not sure it is. Sionk (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

:: WP:V trumps common name, and it we were doing WP:COMMONNAME, we would be using Socceroos. Are you now advocating for Socceroos? --LauraHale (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, one Australian team is currently ranked 8th and has appeared in every World Cup except the first. One team is ranked 59th. The other has missed lots of World Cups. Want to take a guess football fans as to which team is the better team? --LauraHale (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

:As already pointed out in my summary. If you had pursued that kind of argument throughout, I may have supported a move to disambiguating the Australia teams by gender. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

:: The problem is the relative rankings is it pushes a POV regarding the relative merits of one team versus another. We should not be endeavoring to do this on Wikipedia. We should be working towards WP:V and WP:NPOV. I do not understand why pushing the idea that women's football in Australia has a relatively better performance globally than Australia's men should even be a factor given the policy considerations. Can you explain to me why?--LauraHale (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

And while at it, WP:V compels me to go to Google. [http://www.google.com/search?q="Australia+national+association+football+team"+-site:wikipedia.org this search for Australia national association football team" without Wikipedia showing up shows that WP:COMMONNAME cannot be used to support the rationale for men only. This claim fails WP:V. Can we get serious and drop the POV pushing for the men's game? --LauraHale (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

:I'm not sure that a search term using quotation marks is particularly helpful, given the various namings used for football / association football / soccer in Australia. I think it is worth noting that the [http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/football-in-australia Australian Government describes the (men's) team as "Australia's national football (soccer) team"]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

:: That's one source. The claim regarding common use has not been debunked with it. Now, provide a few more to demonstrate the exclusivity of the term "Australia national association football team" to apply to the men's game. You can't commonname make based on one source, when FIFA, the FFA, SBS, ABC all claim the team is the men's. Beyond which, again, WP:V should trump that. WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:PRECISE say the name should be genderized. And if we're going to play the value judgement game here, the men's team frankly sucks. They are ranked 59th in the world, have qualified for few World Cups, performed worse than New Zealand at the most recent one. The best performers, since we're pushing for supremacy here, is the women's team. By the logic involved here, the national team article should be replaced with the women's so as not to wrongly imply parity between the inferior men's game in the country and the superior women's game in the country. --LauraHale (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:V is a complete red herring. We all agree the women's team exists. WP:V gives no advice about disambiguating siilar topics, while COMMONNAME and POVNAME do. A search on google.com.au for 'Australia national association football team -site:wikipedia.org' brings up the Socceroos homepage, their FB page, their Twitter account, the mens squad list on soccermanager.com, a news article in Times Colonist about the men's team. The Australian Womens National Soccer League appears on page 2. It's hardly a great search term because football is simply called 'football' in Oz. A search for 'Australia national football team' is even more conclusive. Sionk (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

... let's get serious and talk about how to neutralize the article to make it about both teams, per WP:V and per WP:NPOV. We need to figure out how to include the women's team in to the article in a neutral way. I would like the mediation to focus on this. --LauraHale (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

:What you are suggesting here is effectively a merger of the two articles. I think this is a worse solution than moving the current article to Australia men's national association football team, given that the two teams are clearly separate (different coaches, schedules, players and competitions). The hatnote tells the reader where to find information about the Matildas, if that is what they are looking for. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

As I commented during the move discussion, I don't believe there are any issues here with NPOV, because the men's team appear to be the primary topic (having the less notable topic disambiguated is not an NPOV issue - Everton F.C. and Everton F.C. (Port of Spain) isn't discriminating against Trinidadians, it's simply that the English club is far better known), and, most importantly, none of the supporters of the proposed move have provided evidence the contrary. Look at the media coverage in Australia; the soccer section of the [http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer Sydney Morning Herald] has around 50 news stories on football (several of which are about the men's national team), of which just 2 are about the women's game (and neither about the national team). In [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/football The Australian] has around 30 stories of which not a single one is about women's football. It's a similar story in the [http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/football Herald Sun].

In the face of these figures, what Laura is proposing is some kind of false equivalency – regardless of what we'd like in terms of equality, the fact is that the men's version is the primary topic in some sports, usually because the men's version is more popular in terms of spectators/viewers and number of people playing, and therefore receives more media coverage (as shown above), making it automatically more notable. Of course, where there are sports where the women's teams are the primary topic, this should be reflected in article titles - e.g. England national netball team. I don't think anyone would seriously suggest moving it to England women's national netball team to comply with NPOV (and yes, there is a [http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/sport/8946573.England_take_the_honours_as_RGS_stage_Superball/ men's national team]). Number 57 13:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this is clear-cut. The name of the team is "Australia". That's what appears on the scoreboard, the media coverage and so on, because the governing body regulations state that the team name must be "an appropriate political and geographical description of the countries or territories of the Members whose teams are involved in the match or competition...". It isn't necessarily an "Australian" team because national teams often use people (either coaches or players who change citizenship) with foreign nationality. There is no requirement for grammatically perfect English in article titles. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

:I cannot comprehend Jmorrison's obections. Possible foreign nationality of players is completely irrelevant. It's the team representing Australia. And the simplified heading has allowed this editor to misrepresent the debate. It's not about Australia versus Australian. It's about "Australia...team" versus "Australian...team". The later form is far more common. That's the major point here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

:*His objection goes far beyond the actual nationalities of the players; as usual, however, you're happy to just ignore that in order to constantly try and get what you want. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

:::You'll really have to explain your concern better. How on earth can a team be an Australia team but not an Australian team? HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

::::I believe the noun adjunct, as seen here, is regularly used in similar articles. According to WP:TITLE, consistency should be a goal with regard to titling. Does this seem OK, or are there still objections to the adjunct? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::It may be "regularly" used. I haven't noticed it for Australia. And it's definitely not the most common usage in Australia. Australian team would be a far more common construct. And I'd still like to know how a team can be an Australia team but not an Australian team? HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

::::::*My guess is that the sport-wide, not the national, name is the most consistent. However, that raises the issue of whether that naming norm is appropriate. At any rate, I doubt this DRN will be the most fruitful forum for participants seeking to clarify naming conventions. These would be better addressed in a new RfC, I think. I'm leaning toward closing the discussion tomorrow morning (I'm in the United States) if there are no further objections to doing so. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::::*Meh. I just follow the tunnel visioned soccer fans to whichever forum they take their arguments. Never did see the point of this one, but nor did I see the point of the five threads recently opened by them on my Talk page to try to convince me I was wrong. It's shame the quality of discussion is so poor wherever we go. HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::::* {{ping|Theodore}}, I disagree that establishing naming conventions would be the most useful for participants, especially in the context of this discussion being brought here because of the issue regarding the inclusion of gender in the name. Your suggestion appears to that pillars, policies and guidelines should be trumped based on Wikiproject consensus set by the football Wikiproject. Can you explain your policy and pillar based rationale for why the soccer Wikiproject consensus trumps these issues? Especially in the broader context of the reason we were brought here? --LauraHale (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

::::::::*Just to clarify, I did not mean to suggest that local consensus trumps any of the other issues. My comments were only meant to guide the discussion forward, as I'm not sure that DRN is the best forum for what you and other editors want to accomplish. I posted a few more thoughts in the subsection below to clarify what my intent was. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 12:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This is an issue as to which term is more applicable in each country. In the majority of countries just "football" is the dominant term, in a few (e.g. the US) soccer is the dominant term and in some countries (e.g. Australia) both terms are used to a similar extent. I have no strong opinion either way. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

:The key issue is that nobody outside Wikipedia actually calls the game "association football". For first time readers it inevitably requires a search for the meaning. We should not do that when there are clearer alternatives. In Australia "soccer" is the single, unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game. None of those opposing the name "soccer" have been able to say what's wrong with it, just that they oppose it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

:*Not true on the "nobody calls the game association football"; several clubs are "association football clubs", and not just "football clubs"; Hull City A.F.C. being a Premier League example of this. The [http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/sports/a-z/football University of Leicester] differentiates its teams by "American football" and "association football". With all that being said, I would be inclined to agree that "soccer" is the more prevalent term in Australian circles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

:::Yes, I'll agree I was primarily talking about the Australian situation with "nobody calls the game Association football", because that's what all of these issues are about, how the game is described IN AUSTRALIA. I hope we don't forever have to begin sentences in this discussion with "IN Australia..." HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

:::*When you make the comment The key issue is that nobody outside Wikipedia actually calls the game "association football", then you kinda do have to clarify it, since that sentence explicitly states that no one anywhere bar Wikipedia calls it association football, not that no one in Australia calls it that... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

::::*According to WP:TITLE, editors should generally adhere to naming conventions when deciding articles' titles. These conventions are determined on a sitewide basis, through an RfC or a Village Pump proposal. If you're participating here, do you feel that an RfC or proposal is necessary? Is there already a sitewide convention that should be adhered to? If not, what should be done about this? These questions may help guide you as you think about this topic. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 23:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::* There has been an RfC regarding the use of soccer versus association football. The consensus is soccer for articles about the sport in Australia, and association football where it is about Australia versus the rest of the world. (Hence the difference in article names.) The use of soccer situation is not without precedence. The United States, Canada, US Virgin Islands, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago articles are a few that have soccer in their name. Culturally, these are also countries with domestic football codes where those codes are understood as football, and soccer is known as the game inside the country. (And where European soccer is sometimes described as football.) If this type of behavior was repeated in relation to the USA or Canadian articles, well, it wouldn't because soccer rules the day. --LauraHale (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

::::::*If this consensus has been clearly established, perhaps the "soccer" title might be appropriate. What do other participants think of this? Are there any other policy-based reasons in favor of either title? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::::*Regarding these comments: if participants with differing opinions believe there is no dispute, this is probably not a good forum. The sole focus of this venue is to allow editors to hammer out a dispute in a moderated setting. As discussion below is becoming quite extensive, I'd like to make a decision soon about closing the thread. If participants feel a non-DRN forum to be more appropriate, please let me know. Again, this doesn't mean that the issues will not be addressed. They will be addressed, but in a better forum. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

::::::::* The conditions to which I felt mediation would be helpful would be in terms of understanding how policies apply to this situation as they applied to the discussion. Rather than discuss WP:V and WP:NPOV, central to Wikipedia, you got personally involved by bringing in new concepts like WP:POVNAME, making a claim and then not substantiating it with sources, and implying you would close the discussion in favour of one side. I'd like deeper understanding as to why FIFA, FFA, ASC, ABS, SBS and others who acknowledge the existence of two national teams segregated based on gender, both listed on pages about the national team in Australia, where by rule the sport is segregated by gender are not considered verifiable? Why a POV that suggests only one team is worth mentioning in the article about the team should be the one that governs both the name and article content about the Australian national team. As a mediator, can you start there? Please? --LauraHale (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::*I don't think I suggested I would close in favor of anyone; a close would merely allow you or another editor to open discussion in a better forum, like RfC (or formal mediation, which could work, also). I may have overstepped by bringing up POVNAME, but it was not intended as a critique of any side's arguments. My only goal in mentioning it was to trigger discussion of its relevance in this situation, as several participants had discussed issues covered by the policy. Also, I thought it might be a useful starting point for a discussion about the name. You make a number of excellent points about sources, but I think a different forum (where you and other editors can work to establish naming conventions) might be the best option. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 12:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::*As an additional note, I will not close the discussion now. I'll leave a note on the talk page requesting that another volunteer reviews this, and makes a determination at some point later today. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 12:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

{{outdent|10}}

I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN. Unless there is some issue here which is not within the scope of the issues involved in the suggested move, then this DRN listing isn't really proper under the DRN guideline which says, "We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums." Since suggested moves have their own built-in resolution process, the DRN community has always considered them (as we do other forums with such processes, such as AFD) as a form of dispute resolution. While it may look like the SM process is going to stall out or end up with no consensus, a listing here (or at MEDCOM or RFC) is premature until that process is complete. I think this should be closed unless there's something here that I've overlooked. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

:Side comment: The guidelines for editors who volunteer here as moderators are general in nature and our role is to facilitate and moderate discussion to the best of our abilities. For myself, I find that sometimes it is productive to make participants aware, or remind them, of specific WP policies and guidelines that may apply to their discussion. This is not 'taking a side' but rather offering a tool or insight into the issue to facilitate resolution. We are all here for the good of the project which, I think, makes us all on the same side (more or less). Peace.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There's pretty clearly no consensus at the relevant RM. I've closed, though I don't think that will really affect this discussion. Theodore's suggestion of a new forum seems a good one; I made a similar recommendation in my closing statement. I won't be actively watching here, so ping me or come to my talk page with any further questions. --BDD (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's clear to me that this dispute will probably not be resolved here; another platform as suggested above may be more appropriate. I will close as failed if nothing relevant can be brought to the discussion within a few hours. MrScorch6200 (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with your reasoning on this. I'd encourage the participants to try another RfC; if this falls through, or proves too contentious, MEDCOM may be the best option. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|resolved}}

{{drn filing editor|86.154.204.73|13:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Resolved against filing editor. Policy clearly defines this as original research. See my comments, below, in the closed section. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Wallis Simpson}}

Users involved

• {{User|DrKiernan}}

Dispute overview

It is about whether Wallis Simpson was a Princess and Royal Highness. My view is that as a simple matter of fact she was, based on a Royal Warrant of 1917. Under this warrant the Duke of Windsor was a Prince and Royal Highness from birth. His abdication had no effect on this title. When he married Wallis Simpson she became a Princess and Royal Highness automatically. It is a very simple matter; if he was a Prince she was a Princess.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

He just reverses my edit within minutes.

How do you think we can help?

The article could state that under the 1917 warrant the Duke of Windsor was and always remained a Prince and Royal Highness and therefore, in accordance with normal usage, Wallis Simpson was a Princess and Royal Highness - in the same way that the wife of Prince Charles is automatically Princess of Wales, even though she doesn't use the title.

There is prior no discussion from this user on any talk page.

The user states above "My view is .." We are agreed that it is a personal opinion: that is why I and others keep removing it. DrKiernan (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

So it comes down to your view versus mine. My 'view' is that it is a simple matter of fact and you refuse to acknowledge that fact. Your 'opinion' is deny the facts. So what qualifies you as an expert in this area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.204.73 (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

:Can you cite a reliable secondary source that says Wallis was a princess entitled to the style of Royal Highness? Surtsicna (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

::Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here. Let me first deal with a procedural matter: While there was not enough discussion at the time this was filed to allow it to remain, that discussion has progressed sufficiently at DrKiernan's talk page to allow it to do so. Next, let me cut to the chase: Surtsicna and DrKiernan are correct that this is prohibited original research. Note that "original research" is a defined term at Wikipedia and does not have its ordinary English meaning. What it means at Wikipedia, as set out in the Original research policy is that we do not include anything in Wikipedia which is reasoned through by an editor. Instead, we only include things which are specifically and plainly reported in reliable sources (which is yet another defined term which does not have its ordinary English meaning). When the IP editor takes information from Heraldica and then applies that information to other facts and says, in effect, "therefore such and such" that reasoning process is prohibited by the original research policy. Under that policy and the Verifiability policy, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wallis_Simpson&diff=584531032&oldid=584519312 the information that] the "Duke of Windsor ... was and always remained a Royal Highness and Prince, even after the abdication, and Mrs. Simpson was therefore automatically also a Royal Highness and Princess and remained as such throughout her life" cannot be included in the article unless a reliable source can be provided which specifically says that without any reasoning or interpretation. Finally, let me note in passing that at least on first blush it appears to me that Heraldica is not a reliable source as defined and required by Wikipedia. Since we don't need to get there (due to the fact that even if it were a reliable source this would be prohibited original research) I'm not going to go into why that is, but would recommend to the IP editor, if he cares to know why it probably is not, that he or she read this and this. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Johntosco|19:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Issue was debeated and reporting editor has gone on an "I believe" revert spree without justifying their case. Discussion appears to still be working on the talk page, so DRN is premature. Hasteur (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|shiatsu}}

Users involved

• {{User|Johntosco}}
• {{User| Alexbrn}}

Dispute overview

differences on whether something is original research or not

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have explained the position - from the beginning - on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I believe that what Alexbrn has added comes under the definition of original research. If this is so, you can help me by telling him. If I am wrong, then you can explain why.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Johntosco|22:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Conduct dispute. DRN handles content disputes and does not handle disputes which are primarily conduct disputes. The proper venue for that is RFCU or ANI. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Shiatsu}}

Users involved

• {{User|Johntosco}}
• {{User| Alexbrn}}

Dispute overview

Alexbrn keeps on disrupting my editing. He insists that I write my reasons on the talk page - which I have done, and he hasn't.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Try to explain things, patiently, on the talkpage and on the Teahouse.

How do you think we can help?

Sincerely, I believe you should admonish him not to disrupt other people's editing and to follow wikipedia guidelines.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|This dispute has not been extensively discussed on a talk page (discussed under an incorrect heading relating to a different dispute between the same editors on the article talk); premature DR/N request (three posts on the talk). It is advised for the editors to continue discussion on the talk. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 00:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DR case status|close}}

{{drn filing editor|Johntosco|21:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Trick or Treatment}}

Users involved

• {{User|Johntosco}}
• {{User| Blackguard SF}}

Dispute overview

I have undone some original research following wikipedia guidelines. Blackguard SF has put them back, first saying that there is a consensus - which I cannot see - and that it has been discussed on the talk page which I can't see either.

Then the second time, he accuses me of disruptive editing - not explaining why it is disruptive - and then he says: Shouldn't you be working on your book? As if that had anything to do with the fact that the section "Contents" is original research, and therefore be deleted from the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have explained my reasoning on the talk page but Blackguard SF just gives evasive answers.

How do you think we can help?

Tell me if I'm right or wrong in thinking the section I refer to is original research, and therefore should be deleted from the article

• Hey guys, I'm MrScorch6200 and will be happy to assist once all editors have made their opening statements. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 23:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Discussion never reached fruition as two participants received a 24 hr block and did not return to here afterwards. The filing party then requested the case be closed due to lack of participation. A possible next step would be to take the source in question to WP:RSN for community input.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Legionarius|03:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Arena Corinthians}}

Users involved

• {{User|Legionarius}}
• {{User| Rauzaruku}}
• {{User| 130.88.164.18}}
• {{User| Leonardo Piccioni de Almeida}}
• {{User| Dariusvista}}

Dispute overview

There is a source that could be categorized as reliable, but for this particular case looks heavily biased. The source - portal R7 - lost a commercial opportunity due to the actions of the club who is building the stadium, so started a smear campaign. User Rauzaruku supports a rival of Corinthians and wants to use this source. This is leading to edit warring.

Article link: [http://esportes.r7.com/futebol/noticias/andres-sanchez-do-corinthians-ganha-estadio-por-apoiar-ricardo-teixeira-20110614.html]

"Smear campaign" sources: [http://veja.abril.com.br/blog/radar-on-line/futebol/a-record-vai-bater-em-sanchez-e-no-corinthians/], [http://acritica.uol.com.br/craque/Jornalista-Globo-Record-Andres-Sanchez_0_498550213.html]. There are many others, but those two are representative.

Wiki diff with content from the article: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arena_Corinthians&oldid=584434580]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to explain the reasoning and asked for discussion on the talk page, but hit a wall.

Apparently Rauzaruku is in a war to prove that the people who is building the stadium stole it, are not good people, etc. and is mixing those issues with the construction of the stadium itself. Until this behavior stops, it will be very hard to keep the article in shape.

How do you think we can help?

Commenting on the quality of the source and if it would or not merit inclusion could help.

::The only problem I'm seeing is single-purpose accounts like Legionarius trying to prevent others from editing and inserting data that not interest them, resuming, "exclusive possession of an article" and severe WP:COI conflict. Legionarius thinks he is this article owner. I'm adding, now, another reliable sources and he keeps erasing everything (since the beggining). Every source who talks against Corinthians is "unreliable", to these people. This is pure vandalism, and these people are trying to do wiki-advocacy to block me and keep the article without nothing bad against their beloved team (here we have a proof, the IP saying "MY world championship": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arena_Corinthians&diff=584127037&oldid=584077211). That's the pure reality. The sources are all reliable, they have documented facts and personal statements of those involved. If these editors don't show interest in documenting the relevant facts into the article by personal interests, then they are partial editors, and this article is not afford to be GA by severe lack of relevant information, and the fact that this article have no chance of being stable, since, if somebody add "controversial" data (some truth that some people don't want to see in the article) here, the team's fans run here desperate to erase everything. The solution to this problem is to punish these single-purpose accounts. Rauzaruku (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have started the edit war, undoing the revisions made by Rauzaruku, which led me to a block warning. Realising simply undoing his revisions to omit what is controversial to the subject wasn't right, I decided to gather information on the controversies and upgraded the aforementioned user's revisions. After that, Benhen1997 filed me for blocking, and I explained to him my changes (which weren't visible since I moved the position of the controversies topic). After that, he kept my revisions, to be later reverted by Rauzaruku. Then, another edit war began, with the user reverting all alterations to make his version prevail (despite the low quality of the text, basically a transcription of a news report, and written in broken English).

There is always space for improvement, but from my point of view, I believe my version should be the starting point for that, mainly because his editions include a whole background on a club officer's life, which is a key man related to the subject (the stadium). However, the facts raised by him are not related to controversies of this officer concerning the subject itself (I even suggested he put the whole bunch of info on his respective biography).

What I don't understand is that I'm open to discuss this, I'm not trying to be disrespectful or aggressive since I did my additions, while fellow user Rauzaruku doesn't seem to be willing to do this, and keeps threatening other users (as he did with Legionarius even after he announced the article would be put here for dispute resolution) and imposing his passionate speech on others (as seen in the article's talk page), even bothering Benhen1997 after I asked him for advice. And about the alleged biased statement (which he laughably treated as "swearing" previously), I do admit it is teasing, but with no such things as aggressive treatment or swearing. It could be translated to something like "Your despite reflects on my Club World Cup [trophy] and hits back on your [tournament] elimination," which I wrote to demonstrate that, despite being partial editor, a vandal supporter of Corinthians trying to omit the facts he gathered and presented, I was willing to bring facts to light, not caring whether they were of positive or negative image to my club, and making it by adding relevant content to the article.

130.88.164.18 (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Dariusvista and Rauzaruku [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rauzaruku are the same person].Legionarius (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hey guys, I'm MrScorch6200 and will be happy to assist you once the other editors have made their opening statements. MrScorch6200 (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• {{u|Legionarius}}, before we move further can you please provide a link to the source in the "Dispute overview" section? Thanks. MrScorch6200 (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

::Added; thank you.Legionarius (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

:::After this message, more sources were added. I wrote a (long) text about it on the article's talk page.Legionarius (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The two paragraphs below were added on my talk page. I believe they belong here; please correct me if I am wrong.

If you want a consensus from me, do a section with "the offical Globo-CBF-Federal Government-Russian Mafia" version. I'll not erase this, like you did with my editions. Rauzaruku (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

:Write a section with the official version, so I can adapt my text to yours. The article will only be complete, and deserve the status of GA, if both versions are written in the article. GA articles are huge and does not omit any material or information. The option I have, if you don't do something like that, is asking for retire GA status, by the notorious lack of information and instability. The instability you are causing in the article is reason for an article miss the GA too. If you keep ignoring it, that is my offer of consensus, is because you are declaring a partial editor, and will justify your block. Rauzaruku (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Legionarius (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• {{anote}} Both {{user-c|Rauzaruku}} and {{user-c|Legionarius}} have been blocked 24 hours due to the egregious violation of WP:3RR on :Arena Corinthians. Either or both are welcome to appeal on their talk page if they wish to continue a productive discussion here. —Darkwind (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Discussion can resume once the editors' blocks expire; until then this discussion should remain open. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 23:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

::Well, nobody is discussing nothing. I've added some information with reliable sources, and these vandals erased all, and now they are 2 days without editing. They are just trying to gain time, and to block me if it's possible. If nobody wants to do nothing, so, I'll revert now to my version, and I'm waiting for they to stop to try to hide information, that is their goal. Rauzaruku (talk)

:::To be frank, I don1t know what we're supposed to discuss here. Shouldn't MrScorch6200 give his opinion on the discussion?

:::130.88.164.18 (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this can be closed as a consensus will never be reached. Please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Legionarius this]. Mr IP130, would you consider opening a Wiki account? Maybe this way they would stop confounding us. Legionarius (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}