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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• "Heroes" (David Bowie song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 174.141.182.82 (talk · contribs)
• Edokter (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is disagreement over whether quotation marks in a title, acknowledged by Misplaced Pages as part of the title, should be treated as quotation marks in text.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I started the discussion on the article Talk page, in which I feel I made several polite requests that he respect the previous consensus by leaving the nested quotation marks in per WP:STATUSQUO and seek a new consensus, possibly by requesting that the article and the related "Heroes" article be renamed sans quotation marks. The other editor has refused on all counts.

How do you think we can help?

If at all possible, please evaluate the current project-wide consensus regarding the quotation of titles which contain quotation marks. I thought it was a rule of standard written English that such quotation marks are nested and alternated between single and double, but the closest Misplaced Pages comes to codifying this grammar rule seems to be at WP:MOS#Double or single. Failing that, please tell us which version of the article is the status quo.

Summary of dispute by 174.141.182.82

For over a year, the text of the article "Heroes" (David Bowie song) (named for a song title that includes scare quotes) has quoted the song's title as "'Heroes'", including the title's quotation marks as part of the title. A couple weeks ago, without any discussion, User:Edokter edited the article to remove the nested quotation marks, making the quoted title (with no irony quotes) inconsistent with the article's title (which includes irony quotes) and ignoring the RM consensus that added the titular quotation marks.

When I noticed this change yesterday, I reverted to the status quo that stood for over a year since that RM discussion and started discussion on the Talk page. He has since repeatedly reinstated his changes. My position is that the changes made a couple weeks ago treat the title as if it does not include quotation marks when the consensus of the move request was that it in fact does, and that per WP:STATUSQUO the nested quote marks should remain as they were for over a year while they're debated. I feel I have politely and repeatedly asked this editor to respect these points and to seek consensus, and he has repeatedly refused on all counts.

Notes

1. From H:REV: “Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page being restored to a previous version. Partial reversion involves restoring one part of the page to a previous version, but leaving other contributions intact. … Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version can be considered a reversion.”

Summary of dispute by Edokter

The title in itself is not in dispute, so the RM has no bearing here. My edit targeted the ocurrences of ‹"Heroes"› in the article. For one, the nested quotation has been misapplied, changing the double quote marks, which are part of the title, to single quote marks. The correct nesting would have to be (spaces added for clarity): ‹ ' " Heroes " ' ›. However, it looks awquard either way and since we are not dealing with an actual quotation, but with a stylized song title, I opted to remove the nesting quote marks, and let the quote marks as part of the title double as the quote marks used for denoting single works (songs and episodes).

The MOS does not handle this situation very well, because the situation is so rare (if not unique), so I welcome any discussion. However, trying to apply current MOS standards will result in these kind of disputes. What 174.141.182.82 needs to understand is that his desired change needs consensus, and that edit warring to his preferred version is not the proper procedure, and that he should discuss first. My edit stood long enough, with multiple edits by other editors since, so that 174.141.182.82's initial edit can no longer be labelled a 'revert'. -- ] {{talk}} 09:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

"Heroes" (David Bowie song) discussion

Waiting for comments by Edokter before I make a decision on whether to take this myself. However, I would like to note that if edit warring continues while the case is open, I will turn this over to WP:AN3. I would also like to note that the consensus reached in the RM discussions should be considered. --Mdann52talk to me! 09:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Beat me by a second. -- ] {{talk}} 09:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think I should have taken it to AN3 when Edokter refused to respect WP:STATUSQUO. But I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt, and I’m still waiting to hear how the title by consensus for over a year ceased to be the status quo before my initial revert, how I’m the one trying to “change” it by reverting his undiscussed changes, or how irony quotes don’t grammatically “count” as quotes. Our MOS makes no such distinction, nor do any grammar or style guides I’m aware of. Yes, nesting the quotes looks awkward to some, but it’s correct—if you were to quote the phrase, I don’t need a “hero”, you would include the irony quotes: “I don’t need a ‘hero’.” Each set of quotes serves the same function in the case of this title, and if you’re going to ignore grammatical rules for aesthetic reasons, you need consensus. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I’m going to revert it one last time with an explanatory post on the Talk page. Edokter, if you want to push your changes through again and accuse me of edit warring for insisting on discussion first, then so be it. But I’m hoping that nonsense is over and you’d rather discuss your proposed changes, whether here or on that Talk page. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Since it was reverted back, I’ve taken the WP:STATUSQUO question to WP:AN3 (edit: declined). That doesn’t settle the content question, though, so I’m still open to discussion here or on the article’s Talk page. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

So… is anyone willing to help? I have no idea how long these things usually go before a volunteer takes them. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to take this over to WT:MOS, where you may find editors who are more knowledgable than us. If you wish, I can close this without prejudice to reopening if that discussion gets anywhere? Alternatively, you could post a comment over there and ask a few of them to comment here. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

All right, Edokter and I have both posted over there and directed them to the article Talk. I think you can feel free to close this for now. Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:American Dad!#Season 11 & season 12 dispute (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• AmericanDad86 (talk · contribs)
• Wattlebird (talk · contribs)
• 108.226.145.151 (talk · contribs)
• Koala15 (talk · contribs)
• Davejohnsan (talk · contribs)
• Spongey253 (talk · contribs)
• KYLE (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Consensus has been reached on a disputed edit at the American Dad! article as shown by the discussion here Talk:American Dad!#Season 11 & season 12 dispute, yet User WattleBird has reverted despite consensus and is now pretending like various editors agree with him when they've actually expressed disagreement with him.

I have made every attempt to avoid an edit war and be reasonable with User: WattleBird regarding this edit at the American Dad! article, that includes reaching out to individuals at Fox and starting up the discussion at the talk page so as to seek a consensus regarding the edit all as shown here Talk:American Dad!#Season 11 & season 12 dispute. All my efforts have been met with disruption from the user. As you'll see by the article, all editors who have contributed to the discussion besides WattleBird himself and 1 other user have expressed opposition to his desired edit.

The long and short of the editing dispute in question is that season 10 of the American Dad! aired during 2013-14. A 15-episode season 11 is to begin on October 30, 2014, on TBS. However, Fox recently issued a new report that there are 3 episodes left to air on Fox on September 14 and September 21. WattleBird believes this recent announcement is reason to change everything up, so that the 3 episodes of American Dad! on Fox are considered their very own season, a "microseason 11" as he describes it, and now the 15 episodes on TBS, a season 12. As shown by the discussion, all editors besides 1 user have expressed opposition to that.

When consensus against the 3 episode micro-season became clear, I went ahead and edited the article accordingly but was reverted by WattleBird here .

As of today, User Koala and User Kyle have elaborated their disagreement. The user is acting like consensus doesn't matter, but that his opinion is refuted to his satisfaction.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have also contacted the Fox article that WattleBird seems to think supports his claim that the 3 episodes are a season all by themselves. I reported to all involved in discussion that I ask if they could revise the article to make it more clear since nothing seemed to be convincing WattleBird, not even consensus. WattleBird dismissed that idea and basically said it wouldn't prove anything.

How do you think we can help?

Given the editor seems to be flat-out ignoring consensus, ignoring the users that disagree with him, I don't know how else to communicate with this individual. He has even began to dismiss the concept of consensus, stating something to User Kyle on how it shouldn't matter if a lot of people vote against him because, according to him no one has proven their argument against him as shown here

Summary of dispute by WattleBird

The reason that the episodes should be split into a separate season is that the official FOX press release explicitly refers to these episodes as follows:

AMERICAN DAD wraps up its run on FOX with three all-new episodes this fall. First, in the special one-hour season premiere

It doesn't says "Season 10 resumes", "the Fall premiere" or any similar. It clearly says "season premiere" which indicates that it should be separate from the previous season. This is an official press release from FOX — the network that airs the show — and is therefore extremely unlikely to contain incorrect information.

AmericanDad86 disagrees with this, and insists that the batch of three episodes should be considered to be part of the tenth season. However, he has not been able to provide a valid source for his claim. In the inital discussion on the talk page he started, he tried to use articles that pre-dated the FOX press release that referred to the TBS episodes as season 11 (which at that point was correct, because then no-one outside of FOX knew there were still unaired episodes) and a lack of Google search results as sources.

When I pointed out that none of these were valid references for his claim, he never responded to my comments and then later tried to use a third-party article to justify his claim which isn't equal to or greater than an official FOX press release. When I pointed this out to him he replied:

You came to a conclusion based upon vague wording

In which Davejohnsan replied:

How is "season premiere" and "season finale" not specific enough?

Once again, AmericanDad86 never replied to this question as he simply could not answer it. Especially when the definition of "season premiere" on Google is:

A season premiere is the first episode of a new season of an established television show. Many season premieres are aired in the fall time or, for mid-season replacements, either in the spring or late winter.

At this point, he never offered any new sources to back up his claim, replied to any questions or requests asked of him and instead just began exclusively replying to people that agreed with him. He simply refused to discuss the issue any further and clearly felt as though he had said all he needed to. Then once he felt he had enough people agreeing with him, he felt consensus had been reached and that he could edit the article as he saw fit.

However, consensus was not reached. A mere "vote" had taken place where two people "voted" with AmericanDad86, one "voted" with me, and another offered an alternative that was completely ignored by AmericanDad86. To this date, AmericanDad86 never presented a valid, referenced argument for:

• why his idea was correct.
• why the FOX press release should be considered invalid.

This is in contrast to me, where I have presented the two following key points:

• FOX clearly labeled the episode that aired on May 18th 2014 as the season finale. Note: FOX would have been aware there were still unaired episodes at this point.
• FOX clearly labeled the first two episodes to air on September 14th 2014 as a season premiere.

How can anyone possibly consider these two sets of episodes to be the same season when there is absolutely no ambiguity here, nor does one press release contradict the other in anyway.

When I made it clear that I felt consensus had not been reached, rather than discussing it on the talk page, he has been reverting edits and complaining to administrators. At no point has he tried to discuss with me about why I feel consensus hasn't been reached, despite my efforts to discuss this with him.

Finally, if this is truely how consensus is reached, then I should just get friends to sign-up for Misplaced Pages, "vote" for me and then I'd "win" consensus. I'm not replying to this conflict report to "win" for the way I feel the article should be presented, I'm replying to get a response that consensus hasn't been reached and that the issue does need to be discussed further.

Summary of dispute by 108.226.145.151

I had actually thought a consensuses had been reached earlier, reverting to the one season fewer method/microseason 10 as both AmericanDad86 and Wattlebird had seemed to agree to for several days. Spongey253 is also on board with this last I saw. --108.226.145.151 (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Koala15

It's pretty clear that these 3 extra episodes are just leftovers from season 10, since 23 were originally ordered. So it makes sense to just put it in this season, and i'm sure as the air dates get closer we should get better sources that say the same thing. Koala15 (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Davejohnsan

American Dad! concluded its tenth and final season on the Fox network in May of this year. However, on July 20, Fox published a press release indicating that the series was scheduled to return this fall for its "final run on Fox." It is set to air two episodes on September 14 in what Fox calls the "one-hour season premiere" before airing its "final FOX episode" the following week." That is the source of the dispute here - whether these three episodes are part of its season, the conclusion of the season that ended back in May, or the beginning of the season that is to begin its broadcast on TBS (the series' new network) this coming fall. I do not believe any consensus can be reached here until Wattlebird and AmericanDad86 work with one another and end this standoff. Davejohnsan (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Spongey253

Yes, I agree with the one season shorter fewer making the "microseason" Season 10, however making the "microseason", Season 11 and TBS' Season 12 seems like a real bullshit idea to me.

Summary of dispute by KYLE.

As per FOX press release, the season (10) premier airs September 14th 2014 .

As per show runner Matt Weitzman & the information from the 2014 ComicCon panel, the show moves to TBS on October 30th & then regularly airs on Mondays. The episodes that air October 30th on, are part of Season 10. KYLE (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.foxflash.com/div.php/main/page?aID=1z2z2z254z9z8&ID=17091
2. http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/07/27/american-dad-finishes-out-fox-run-and-moves-to-tbs-with-uma-thurman
3. http://www.discoversd.com/news/2014/jul/26/comic-con-2014-american-dad-panel

Talk:American Dad!#Season 11 & season 12 dispute discussion

Adminstrative note: Please wait until all parties have given their summary and a DRN volunteer has opened the case before making any comments in this section.Thank you!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude but several of the individuals involved in this debate, myself included, have been wondering what the hold up is as far as receiving input from uninvolved parties. I understand this debate is rather convoluted, but if we could have some input from uninvolved parties, that be much appreciated. Cheers! AmericanDad86 (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Babymetal#Disruptive edits by SilentDan297 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SilentDan297 (talk · contribs)
• Moscow Connection (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

numerous disagreements regarding the articles format on the members and discography section. These arguments have spread across multiple sections and a consensus is yet to be made due to this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asking for third opinions, citing to FA standard articles and citing to guidelines and templates.

How do you think we can help?

By explaining to both users how the article should follow and the importance of guidelines and template articles.

Summary of dispute by Moscow Connection

SilentDan297 simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT the article and this request is a WP:DEADHORSE. I'm already bored and annoyed to death. I just wish I wasn't away on June 19 when SilentDan297 changed the whole article. On that day he was reverted by an IP and started edit warring. On that day, he violated 3RR by reverting five times in 42 minutes (1, 2, 3, 4 , 5) and he won and he WP:OWNed the article () until July 16 when I returned and reverted some of his changes.

Since then, the user just can't stop creating walls of text on the talk page. He has already started several discussions about this matter.

• First, he requested a third opinion. The third opinion wasn't favorable to him: Talk:Babymetal#Third opinion (as best one can). Basically, the editor said that either way will do. And that SilentDan297's desire to change the discography section was WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
• Then, he asked a Misplaced Pages acquaintance of him to come by and to help him with as he said a person who was edit warring (i.e. me): User talk:STATicVapor#Edit warring on Babymetal article. The acquaintance liked some of his proposals better and he also had his own ideas about how the article should look and changed the article accordingly. I was absolutely sure some of the editor's changes made the article incorrect and even terribly incorrect, but I stopped arguing cause I had other things to do.
• But since not all of SilentDan297's desires were implemented, he continued creating walls of text on the Babymetal talkpage.
• Then I didn't edit for several days, and he thought I wasn't looking and on August 4 he again changed the article to look exactly the way he liked. The next day I reverted him. He reverted me back with an edit summary saying he had a consensus, which quite possibly was an intentional lie: .
• Today, after I begged him to stop torturing me on the talk page, he seemed to say that he will only ask Bbb23 and then he will stop: . But Bbb223 didn't come and now we have this DRN request.
• This is just crazy. I think the editor must be advised to take a very long break from the Babymetal article's talk page. And if he doesn't, he should be blocked for a day or two for starting the edit war and for his disruptive and counterproductive behavior.
  Also, I think he was trolling me in this comment: . (Cause I replied saying that he misinterpreted what another editor said and that he seemed to be ready to make any, even incorrect changes to the article just to win an argument over me, and he replied saying he wasn't a troll: . He said the word himself, I'm just repeating...) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Babymetal#Disruptive edits by SilentDan297 discussion

Heads up, vaguely involved in that I've participated in some discussions on the talk page. I'm not going to state very much here, hopefully, particularly as it's not yet opened. IMO, many of SilentDan's "walls of text" (as MC put it) on the talk page were attempts at discussion, at least the ones I did respond to and/or look at. I don't personally believe that any of the statements of consensus were made in bad faith, either. I don't really have much to say about the content dispute at hand here (other than that the chaos around this discussion and its fairly not-closed-ness makes this DRN report not DEADHORSE and, IMO, somewhat necessary, actually), as I've spent most of the time I've had for this on the talk page and haven't looked at the article's history, but looking at what usually gets said, it appears that SilentDan is treating this as a content dispute (what it is, IMO) whereas Moscow Connection appears to be repeatedly trying to raise a conduct dispute (I've seen at least four instances, here included, of his want and/or intent to get SilentDan blocked). - Purplewowies (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, I am Mdann52 and I am a volenteer at the noticeboard, however this does not give me any extra powers. I have looked into this, and there appears to be disputes over several section. It will probably be easiest to try and resolve these one-by-one. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

@SilentDan297 and Moscow Connection: Lets address this first. The main issue here appears to be the number of genres to include, and the number that appear in the infobox. The main issue here is the inclusion of "Kawaii metal"; Do any reliable independent sources (ideally critics) use this genre to descride the band's music? --Mdann52talk to me! 08:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

There were many problems in the original SilentDan297's version that I had to partially revert by force cause he wouldn't let me change anything and he fought about every minor thing... (Look at his version, the discography tables are badly formatted, there is some WP:OR like "clean vocals" in the Members section, etc.)
No, I only reverted "kawaii metal" back to the infobox because several other editors wanted to include it. And because I didn't want to annoy Babymetal fans and likely future contributors to the article. But I actually think that the infobox looks neater and more "professional" with less genres.
The newest discussion is here: Talk:Babymetal#Request for outline of actual problems... Basically, after I surrendered in the matter of the list of members... (Okay, not really surrendered cause SilentDan297 wanted to list the members in an original/unofficial order and delete the real names, so DAJF's version is a compromise. I still think that the Members section must include the official instruments/positions ("scream, dance", etc.) and the official all-caps capitalization, though.) So, after the list of members was changed according to DAJF's proposal, there are only a couple of minor matters left to resolve.
Basically, I don't really know why SilentDan297 insisted so much in the first place. I think I reverted some of his changes absolutely fairely and any other editor would just say, "Okay, someone says it's not good, so probably what I did wasn't that good" and would just switch to other stuff. Because of such things Misplaced Pages doesn't worth the time spent. (It has been three weeks!)
But I hope it's (almost) over now. Like, I changed some incorrect things and instead or reverting SilentDan297 expanded the article futher by adding some valuable information about the lyrics. What he did is indeed a major improvement. And many of his changes back in June were a major improvement too. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't notice the section was titled "Infobox". In the infobox, the only issue that's left is how to list the record labels. It's being discussed here:

• "Talk:Babymetal#Request for outline of actual problems"
• "Talk:Babymetal#Label name"

I hope the whole discussion is almost over. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The infobox as far as I'm aware of is meant to contain simple and generalised information, and the template article suggests that the genres to be generalised also so to simplify this I removed any unofficial genres and sub-genres since they are all mentioned in the articles "Musical characteristics and lyrics" section, while there was a dispute around the removal of such genres an agreement was made to do so so long as the three primary genres where referenced which isn't against the template's guidelines. The main issue here now is as Moscow Connection says the labels mentioned here, the minor edit I did previously here was the removal of a small note: "(Both are sub-labels of Toy's Factory)" which looked very out of place and again was against the template's guidelines, we have suggested several different compromises but a final agreement is yet to come from this. SilentDan (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You are repeating the same thing all over again. I can't repeat everything all over again too as if it were something new. Just read this:

• Talk:Babymetal#Label
• Talk:Babymetal#Request for outline of actual problems, See "Labels in the infobox".

In short, the information is essential for understanding on which label they are actually on and you just want to make the infobox useless to 99.999% of readers. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

IMO, the information in the infobox is meant to convey a general overview, so therefore I feel that only the main genres should be included, with more specif ones mentioned later in the article. Would this be a suitable compromise? --Mdann52talk to me! 15:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52: The genre's have already been discussed and that is the current format now, with general ones in the infobox and the specific ones in the article itself, the main issue right now is with the labels, currently being discussed where Moscow Connection linked before in his previous comment. SilentDan (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk)#blanket reverts (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• HerkusMonte (talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)
• MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Two and a half years ago (February 2012) user:Skäpperöd made some major contributions to Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) . After an intense discussion with User:Volunteer Marek and user:MyMoloboaccount (From Talk:Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) #Recent edits down to Talk:Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) #Another problem with sources) a compromise was reached, which led to a stable version for 2,5 years. Different viewpoints (the topic is one of the traditional Polish-German conflicts) were presented in a neutral manner, opinions were clearly marked as such and attributed. As a secondary product of that discussion the ref section featured large quotations of the sources. These quotations were provided because Marek asked for them.Talk:Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk)#Sources;

In August 2014 Marek returned to the article and deleted more or less every single addition Skäpperöd had made two years ago. He argued, that “block quotes” should be avoided (those quotations he had asked for in Feb. 2012) and deleted not only the quotations but the whole sourced info from the article. He regards a critical view of a monument erected in post-war Poland as WP:Cherrypicking and in general anything not supporting his POV as WP:UNDUE.

I have removed the quotations from the ref section and some minor problematic parts (though WP:TRUTH wouldn't require that). However Marek, who was joined by Moloboaccount , continued to delete what he doesn't like [https://en.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempts to discuss in detail were ignored.

How do you think we can help?

Make clear that presenting opposing views in a neutral manner isn't WP:UNDUE but an essential principle of NPOV. Make clear that "repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors" is regarded WP:DISRUPTSIGNS

Summary of dispute by VolunteerMarek

Just a quick note for now: it's not true that " After an intense discussion ... a compromise was reached". Rather sheer exhaustion in the face of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT and tendentious editing set in, and editors just gave up, having better things to do. There was no compromise, the article retained its problems which were not solved. The so called "stable version" is the one with all the issues. Like many articles on Misplaced Pages. And just to remind everyone - there's no presumption or bias in favor of status quo, hence any arguments based on "stable versions" are spurious. Indeed, such arguments go against the very spirit of Misplaced Pages which is supposed to be a dynamic, ever evolving, and ever improving encyclopedia.

My edits substantially improved the article and were explained in detail on the talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MyMoloboaccount

Herkus is incorrect in stating that there was a "compromise"-the article was simply left alone. As to part to me "not liking" certain things, indeed I don't believe that sources like Werner Conze or Theodor Schieder both of whom were dedicated Nazis propagating ideas of German supremacy, nationalism and ethnic cleansing and genocide against Poles should be used as sources for articles about Polish-German history.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) #blanket reverts discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• User talk:Thomas.W (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Thompsonshep (talk · contribs)
• Thomas.W (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I recently edited the pages of various cities, states, and countries to add translations in languages that are not official, but which I believe hold minority or historical status in those locales. One user in particular, Thomas.W, seems to have gone out of his way to take down my edits and explain his reasoning in messages that seem arrogant and targeted. If my edits go against Misplaced Pages policy, then I will gladly stop. If, however, my edits are technically permissible, your help will be greatly appreciated in resolving this conflict.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I asked the other user to stop removing my edits. After he responded that he would continue to take down my edits, I asked him to be more courteous in his messages. I am not aware as to whether or not he received this message.

How do you think we can help?

I think that you can inform both me and the other user, Thomas.W, as to whether or not my edits are permissible, and ask Thomas.W to use courtesy in his messages.

Summary of dispute by Thomas.W

This is ridiculous. Thompsonshep started adding home made word-for-word translations (probably made via Google Translate or similar) into foreign languages of the names of various cities, states and countries, adding them to those articles, languages that are of no relevance whatsoever in the articles in question. Such as a Chinese name on San Fransisco, names in Dutch, Swedish and Italian on New Jersey, in German on Kazakhstan, and so on. Edits that were promptly reverted by me and several other editors. I also issued appropriate warnings since they didn't stop, with a customised message telling them that we don't add names in other languages than English and whatever languages are official in the city, state or country in question. A message that was also added in an edit summary by another editor who reverted Thompsonshep. The last edit in that series was this redo of a previously reverted edit on New Jersey, again adding machine translations into Dutch, Swedish and Italian, but now as "native name" in the infobox. And today I noticed that they had added a machine translation into French of the article name on French and Indian War, claiming that it's called "Guerre française et indienne", when the actual name of that war in French is "Guerre de la Conquête" (as can be easily seen by following the Interwiki link). Which I pointed out to them in this message on their talk page, a message they have now removed. So it's not a content dispute, just a simple case of disruptive editing by Thompsonshep. Which is all I intend to say about it since I have more important/interesting things to do than this cr*p. Thomas.W 13:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

user talk:Thomas.W discussion

Hello. I am a volunteer here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Before beginning the discussion, there are a couple of things to note. Firstly, volunteers here have no special powers and abilities to enforce a particular course of action. Secondly, please respect both parties and assume good faith. Thirdly, the DR/N is not a place to discuss user conduct and issues concerning user conduct should be taken elsewhere. Attempts to discuss user conduct will not be entertained. Be sure to focus the discussion on content only.

With that in mind, let's move onto the discussion. It looks like the conflict is over the addition of article subjects in foreign languages such as the edits here: , , , and . Concerning this dispute, it appears that WP:NCGN is the most appropriate guideline for this conflict, particularly the second section of General guidelines. Can both parties agree on this or suggest an alternative policy or guideline? KJ 06:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Spark121212 (talk · contribs)
• Sitush (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I had edited the Shudra page with proper citations. The citation was from a book by BR Ambedkar, the man who wrote the Indian constitution. That has been repeatedly reverted by a very biased and casteist Sitush. Please go through the edits and resolve this dispute.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

What I had written on Sitush's talk page to initiate a discussion has been deleted. So it does not look like he wants to have a discussion on this matter. Clearly he is not informed about this topic, just biased.

How do you think we can help?

Please look at my (Spark121212)'s edit. It is factual (the hyperlinks and citations make it self evident) and balanced. The biased version that Sitush is reverting to does not make any sense as it says Shudras who are Other Backward Class (there is a wiki entry on this) are scheduled castes/tribes. As my edit is balanced, informed by scholarship and unbiased I request you to retain my edit.

Summary of dispute by Sitush

The reporter of this dispute is new to Misplaced Pages and is confused about issues such as verifiability, reliable sources and neutrality. They are also confused about talk pages, as exemplified by the claim that I had deleted their comment on my talk page when in fact I had replied to it both politely and in reasonable detail. Since filing their report, they have both opened a discussion at Talk:Shudra and replied on my talk page. There is nothing to do here or, at least, not yet. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of the dispute by Spark121212

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Shudra#Scholarly_referenced_content_on_this_page_is_being_removed.

As you can see here I have made repeated requests to the editor not to use the offensive word "untouchable" to describe Bhim Rao Ambedkar, the man who drafted the Indian Constitution. The use of the derogatory and racist word -- which has no relevance to the article -- has been rationalized with some incredible "racist" logic.

Also, every statement I have made in the article is backed by research evidence, some of which I had provided in the citation to the article, and some of which I have provided on Talk. But instead of discussing my edit my version has been repeatedly reverted and I have been given a 3 revert warning. Since I have taken the discussion to its logical conclusion request you to please intervene and resolve the matter. Thanks.

This was my edit, with citations and hyperlinks, which was reverted to a "racist" and "biased" stub with no citations.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Turkish presidential election, 2014 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• T.C. Ataturkiye (talk · contribs)
• Maurice Flesier (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hi. This request for a resolution refers to a war on the Turkish presidential election, 2014 page, where three candidates ran for election. The dispute originates in the infobox, where myself and another user (Maurice Fleisher) cannot agree on which colour to use for Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, an independent candidate which came second. My argument is that using red (FF0000) is the most relevant for İhsanoğlu, since almost all of the thirteen political parties that supported him use red as their primary political colour, including the main opposition party that initially nominated him (Republican People's Party). My rival insists on using the colour blue, which to my knowledge has no relevance to İhsanoğlu's candidacy or campaign and will thus only confuse readers, since the remainder of the article uses red to denote İhsanoğlu. My rival argues that blue is an acceptable colour due to the fact that it is the colour used on the Anatolia Agency (AA) (the Turkish government news agency) to denote İhsanoğlu. The problem is that my rival then doesn't take into account that the AA uses different colours for the other candidates as well, which do not match their infobox colours. I would also like to add that a huge amount of Turkish media uses red to denote İhsanoğlu in election news.

Furthermore, he argues respectably that İhsanoğlu was ultimately an independent candidate (a point which formally is correct, though practically isn't true), and as a result red is not an appropriate colour. It is true that there is no fully appropriate colour for İhsanoğlu, since he didn't use one primarily during the campaign, but since the majority of the parties which supported him use red, I believe red is probably the "most" appropriate. Although he wasn't fully an "independent" since he was asked to run for election by the Republican People's Party, I would further argue that light grey is a better option rather than blue, which has no significance at all to İhsanoğlu's campaign.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have had an extensive argument over the talk page, where I have replied to his arguments. Instead of turning the dispute into an edit war, I have decided to seek assistance here. Unfortunately, my rival has disregarded the existence of this request for an independent resolution by continuing to change colours as he sees fit despite my pleas for him to stop until the issue is resolved. This has regrettably turned into an edit war.

How do you think we can help?

I am hoping that someone with at least some knowledge of Turkish politics will be able to offer their opinion on whether they finds the colour red or blue the most appropriate to denote Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu's candidacy. At the moment, I personally find the use of blue confusing and irrelevant, but my rival seems to think otherwise. I hope that someone will also be able to take a look at our argument in the talk page (section: Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu's colour) and offer their own opinion.

Summary of dispute by Maurice Flesier

Talk:Turkish presidential_election,_2014 discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• May 22 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Deb (talk · contribs)
• User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

This user Deb (http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Deb) is vandalizing wikipedia's pages and abusing her power. She keeps on deleting people from the list of births on the May 22 page (view the history) that are LEGITIMATE entries! She is just deleting them based on whether or not she likes the people, not on whether or not they match the criteria for deletion! She keeps on doing this persistently, even after I revert the deletions she has made!

I honestly think that she should be banned from wikipedia, at least temporarily.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried posting on her talk page that she was vandalizing other people's pages.

I also tried to revert the edits she made but she comes back and reverts the edit.

How do you think we can help?

Prevent her from editing the May 22 page or ban her, at least temporarily, so she knows there are consequences to her illegitimate actions.

Summary of dispute by Deb

Summary of dispute by

May 22 discussion

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