[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive403#:Content dispute. I would suggest deleting this from this page and taking it to the article's Talk page. Corvus cornixtalk 22:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Plus, the username indicates a possible conflict of interest, and the content looks like original research. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was about to say the same thing. This is a content dispute. If discussion on the talk page has stalled, might I suggest a content RFC? Either way, it might be helpful to delete this. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have presented a case of disruptive editing by OrangeMarlin, QuackGuru and Eubulides. I would appreciate if comments were directed towards that. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- You might want to consider a User conduct RFC. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- this is content dispute, there is nothing here that a) requires admin intervention and b) would warrant admin intervention. As suggested, this is a matter for RFC. --87.114.7.178 (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Gwen are you suggesting that the evidence presented above is not sufficient for this noticeboard? It's my first time bringing something like this up so guidance would be appreciated. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. So far as I can tell, this is a content dispute over a controversial topic. There seem to be disagreements all the way down to what sources meet WP:RS along with WP:WEIGHT. While there are signs of edit warring, which is in itself disruptive, this is something for dispute resolution, not ANI. Truth be told, if discussion has truly bogged down, I think one might start with a content RFC, which could gather some helpful outside input. This also could be a fit task for the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely a content dispute as presented, however, if this doesn't get resolved somehow, this is going to keep coming back, because it involves a deliberate blanking of NPOV material. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Swatjester is succintly described the argument I was trying to make. It was too wordy, but I felt I had to provide context and diffs. Gwen, I tried to use RfC and I'm having a hard time figuring it out. I would like it to be known that the disputed source is a World Health Organization (basic training and safety of chiropractic). I feel that there are a few editors at Chiropractic (listed above) who are being disruptive by objecting to trivial little things and resort to reversions rather than talking about it first. It's not in good taste, it's its being done by experienced editors who know better and are gaming the system here. CorticoSpinal (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was the protecting admin, and am keeping an eye on things. I've gained two observations: 1) These guys have larger than average egos, and 2) They are debating content productively, though in fits and starts, occasionally tripping over observation 1. I feel they will resolve the issue by themselves in time, maybe up to a week. —EncMstr (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to look the other way at point #1 :) #2)one editor is holding up something that 4 agree on. (QG does not count, he's always on the 'nay' side no matter what). CorticoSpinal (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
User:CorticoSpinal = User:EBDCM, an indefinitely blocked edit warrior. I'm not sure why he was unblocked, but I guess I don't care. Just realize this editor has a COI as someone who has a continued interest in promoting the chiropractic POV. Otherwise, this posting isn't worthy of too much response. Orange'Marlin' Talk• Contributions 23:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Red Herring, it doesn't address why you reverted and blanked the scope of section page citing NPOV. Also, you've already suggested that you don't need to talk things through, as per your discussion with DigitalC. Admin Swatjester has the same concern, you don't have to answer me since you're so glib on labelling me, amongst other things "anti-scientific" "POV warrior" "edit warrior". What's next, the Ultimate Warrior? Sheeeesh! CorticoSpinal (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)|:Content dispute. I would suggest deleting this from this page and taking it to the article's Talk page. Corvus cornixtalk 22:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Plus, the username indicates a possible conflict of interest, and the content looks like original research. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was about to say the same thing. This is a content dispute. If discussion on the talk page has stalled, might I suggest a content RFC? Either way, it might be helpful to delete this. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have presented a case of disruptive editing by OrangeMarlin, QuackGuru and Eubulides. I would appreciate if comments were directed towards that. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- You might want to consider a User conduct RFC. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- this is content dispute, there is nothing here that a) requires admin intervention and b) would warrant admin intervention. As suggested, this is a matter for RFC. --87.114.7.178 (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Gwen are you suggesting that the evidence presented above is not sufficient for this noticeboard? It's my first time bringing something like this up so guidance would be appreciated. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. So far as I can tell, this is a content dispute over a controversial topic. There seem to be disagreements all the way down to what sources meet WP:RS along with WP:WEIGHT. While there are signs of edit warring, which is in itself disruptive, this is something for dispute resolution, not ANI. Truth be told, if discussion has truly bogged down, I think one might start with a content RFC, which could gather some helpful outside input. This also could be a fit task for the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely a content dispute as presented, however, if this doesn't get resolved somehow, this is going to keep coming back, because it involves a deliberate blanking of NPOV material. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Swatjester is succintly described the argument I was trying to make. It was too wordy, but I felt I had to provide context and diffs. Gwen, I tried to use RfC and I'm having a hard time figuring it out. I would like it to be known that the disputed source is a World Health Organization (basic training and safety of chiropractic). I feel that there are a few editors at Chiropractic (listed above) who are being disruptive by objecting to trivial little things and resort to reversions rather than talking about it first. It's not in good taste, it's its being done by experienced editors who know better and are gaming the system here. CorticoSpinal (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was the protecting admin, and am keeping an eye on things. I've gained two observations: 1) These guys have larger than average egos, and 2) They are debating content productively, though in fits and starts, occasionally tripping over observation 1. I feel they will resolve the issue by themselves in time, maybe up to a week. —EncMstr (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to look the other way at point #1 :) #2)one editor is holding up something that 4 agree on. (QG does not count, he's always on the 'nay' side no matter what). CorticoSpinal (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
User:CorticoSpinal = User:EBDCM, an indefinitely blocked edit warrior. I'm not sure why he was unblocked, but I guess I don't care. Just realize this editor has a COI as someone who has a continued interest in promoting the chiropractic POV. Otherwise, this posting isn't worthy of too much response. Orange'Marlin' Talk• Contributions 23:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Red Herring, it doesn't address why you reverted and blanked the scope of section page citing NPOV. Also, you've already suggested that you don't need to talk things through, as per your discussion with DigitalC. Admin Swatjester has the same concern, you don't have to answer me since you're so glib on labelling me, amongst other things "anti-scientific" "POV warrior" "edit warrior". What's next, the Ultimate Warrior? Sheeeesh! CorticoSpinal (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)]]||style="text-align:right;background:#F8C2C2;"|5,473||style="text-align:right;background:#F8CDCD;font-weight:bold;"|5,473
|
