Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 144 - Wikipedia
2 people in discussion
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 140 | ← | Archive 142 | Archive 143 | Archive 144 | Archive 145 | Archive 146 | → | Archive 150 |
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview On the organizational behavior topic there is a big messy un-sourced list of disciplines and then even sub-disciplines. there are no reliable sources in the list in the article and i thought we could just boldly remove un-sourced material. am i in the right place? could someone lend a hand over there and help resolve this. That would be great. Have you tried to resolve this previously? tried to point out no un-sourced material and offered to delete the un-sourced section instead of add even more un-sourced material as iss246 suggested we do How do you think we can help? hoping to have this amicably settled with no additional conflict Summary of dispute by iss246Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Organizational behavior discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note - The filing party is requested to notify the other editors on their talk pages of this filing. This thread will be closed if notice is not given so that the other editors can decide whether they want to participate. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| There's more than a month's gap between the last extensive discussion and the recent, brief discussion. DRN requires that there be a considerable recent discussion on a talk page before it can be moderated here. Please consider the recommendations made here, in case editors fail to discuss the issue. If the issue still remains unresolved after thorough talks, feel free to open another case. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 18:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview In Iran–PJAK conflict#Foreign involvement, I have added verifiable content from and attributed to reliable sources. User:Greyshark09 started a pseudo-editwar, making constant groundless claimes that my edit violates various guidlines and policies without further explaination.
Step one, I have tried to discuss with User:Greyshark09, however he seems reluctant to discuss and evades answering me. Step two, I requested for a Wikipedia:Third opinion, it was not answered. Note: I filed a dispute resolution (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 143#Talk:Iran–PJAK conflict) but I forgot to notify the user and it was closed.
I think this is a Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing case, and hard to be dealt. Maybe an experienced user can help. Summary of dispute by Greyshark09Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Iran–PJAK conflict discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
| Procedural close. The filing party did not notify the other editors on their talk pages of this filing. Please resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, a new request for moderated discussion can be filed here, but notice should be given to all parties. If you need help in giving notice, just ask how. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview We have a dispute on the following: should we, or should not we insert "who face discrimination" in the text of the article Have you tried to resolve this previously? On the talk page, the editors, who helped the creation of the article, have a looong discussion. The article itself was about to be a Soapbox - if You take a look at the Talk Page, You can see, what I am talking about. How do you think we can help? I think the whole article should be rewritten in a more neutral tone. We are unable to do it, I was accused of lots of things, and get really annoyed, the others are pushing some political agenda. Summary of dispute by Thucydides411Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by DarouetPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Norden1990Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Ferenc Szaniszl%C3%B3 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note - The filing party is requested to notify the other editors on their talk pages of this filing. This thread will be closed if notice is not given so that the other editors can decide whether they want to participate. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| This dispute doesn't seem to have been extensively discussed in the article's talk page. DRN requires that the dispute be discussed extensively on a talk page before it can be moderated here. Please consider the recommendations made here, in case editor(s) fail to discuss the issue. If the issue still remains unresolved after thorough talks, feel free to open another case. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 10:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Dispute over how the cast is listed on that page, as well as whether future unaired episode should be shown on the page Have you tried to resolve this previously? User tried discussing on the talk page How do you think we can help? Come up with a revision that all parties can agree with Summary of dispute by Brianis19Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Tornado1117Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Superstore (season_2) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Op has neither notified other parties of the discussion nor has added the party's username(s) within the given time frame. Editors are requested to continue in the article's talk page, and should they feel the need, are free to open a case here properly notifying and including other editors involved in the dispute. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 11:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview BarlowGirl (BG) has endorsed a host of secular artists over the years, both while active as a band and also after disbanding. In band years, the sisters played The Beatles music at a number of concerts. The Mamas & the Papas is also cited as a musical influence. In 2013 and even in January 2014, the band operated a BarlowGirl Merch store despite claiming to be disbanded. During this time, BG cited artists such as Bruno Mars and Beyoncé as influences. Since February 2016, Lauren Barlow said she admires Lady Gaga's work. The band did all of this despite its messages like "don't conform", purity, etc. A number of users, from 68.108.83.5 to Instaurare to Walter Görlitz, have so far refused to allow a balanced perspective to be shared on this article. I believe that all these users have a pro-BarlowGirl bias. It's one thing to disagree with part of my edit. It's quite another to intentionally conceal information simply because it reveals notable, long-held concerns about contemporary Christian music (CCM) like BarlowGirl. The final revised edit, which I did after reviewing feedback from other Wikipedians that objected to my earlier edits, may be found here here. Nevertheless, it was rejected. Have you tried to resolve this previously? In addition to discussing on the article's talk page, I discussed on Walter Görlitz's talk page, which he responded to by directing me to the BarlowGirl talk page. How do you think we can help? I would like all sides of the issue to be fairly represented. Consider the edits I made to "Pink (Victoria's Secret)", for example: both pro-VS and anti-VS perspective that are notable, appropriate and relevant to the article are included. I am asking for the same standard to be followed with BarlowGirl (BG), which already discusses objections to Mercy Ministries in a fair matter. Likewise, BG's musical influences are very much worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Talk:BarlowGirl discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed as not opened. (That sounds tautological.) The two non-filing editors appear to have declined to take part in discussion here, and discussion is voluntary. The editors are advised to try to settle this on the article talk page. If discussion there fails, and discussion here has been declined, a Request for Comments is a reasonable next step. If there are conduct issues, there are three possible venues. If the conduct issue is edit-warring, it may be reported at [WP:ANEW |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview The dispute is regarding the 2016 Presidential election vote count. My position is that Associated Press results has higher WP:WEIGHT than the Leip's Atlas source (because it includes members of every media organization in the US and David Leip's website appears to be doing some projecting models). It should be used for the vote count in the info box. My second position is that we should probably try to find a more authoritative source than Leip's atlas for 3rd party counting, but we should leave it for now. CrazySeiko doesn't like Leip's atlas. MaverickLittle position is that Leip's Atlas is a more accurate source than AP for the infobox. My main concern is MarverickLittle's behavior, he appears extremely agitated that I am trying to discuss this with him, and explaining to him WP:WEIGHT guidelines. Really i think he has been rather abusive. I asked him in edit comments to discuss in the talk page with no results. Then I went to his talk page to consider WP guidelines and ask him to discuss it on the article talk page,and told me to get off his talk page. He finally went to the 2016 Election talk page after I asked him several more times. I'm finding it hard to discuss this with him as he is projecting incorrect positions on to me. He also removed the factual dispute on the results page without establishing consensus. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried engaging talk page discussion via edit comments, tried engaging discussion on his talk page to get him to discuss on article talk page. Tried talking with him on article talk page. How do you think we can help? Overall, I'd really like dispute resolution to A) give an opinion about the usage of Liep's Atlas vs. Associated press for the 2016 Election results infobox. (For the article body 3rd party votes, I'm fine leaving it until we can get a better source.) B) Talk to MaverickLittle about being more respectful and constructive in discussion and establishing consensus rather rather than dismissing people and acting unilaterally. This is really my main concern. Summary of dispute by MaverickLittlePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by CrazySeikoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:United States_presidential_election,_2016#Results_section discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview User brianis19 claims copyvios and revert away episode summaries trying to write short episode summaries for the page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried discussion on talkpage but unable to resolve. How do you think we can help? Come up with a compromise and explain that writing short episode summaries is not copyright infringement as the summaries submitted don't appear on any other site. Summary of dispute by Brianis19Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by NZunknownPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Superstore (season 2) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Premature. There has been no discussion on the article talk page. Editors should discuss on the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, a new request for moderated discussion can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Steven McGonigal is listed under "Authors" from derry - Another user keeps removing his name. I feel it is unfair as Steven McGonigal is an author and is from derry! Have you tried to resolve this previously? I would like to ask that HighKing stops removing Steven McGonigal as an author How do you think we can help? Do a search on Steven McGonigal, you will find he is a country sports writer from derry, and ask HighKing that he refrain from deleting him from the page. Summary of dispute by HighKingSome stretching of the truth going on by Cherryamo. Before today (25th), the same day this dispute was filed, there have been no attempts to discuss this anywhere. Nothing has been posted on the article Talk page and one message was posted on my Talk page at 00:39 and 5 minutes! later, this complaint was filed here. As to the dispute itself, its a very simple case since there has been zero discussion. An editor has been adding the name "Steven McGonigal" to the List of notable people from Derry with zero indications of notability and certainly nothing like enough to meet the criteria in WP:JOURNALIST. It's on my watchlist and when I see it, I remove it. Also, not only is Cherryamo an WP:SPA with a grand total of 5 edits, I suspect this is the same editor as User: Steven.mcgonigal and User:JOHNRIDLEY and anon IPs 109.77.203.128, 109.77.203.227 and 109.78.237.86 who also tried adding the name. Based on the name User: Steven.mcgonigal there may be conflict of interest issues. -- HighKing++ 15:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC) List of_notable_people_from_Derry discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed as incompletely filed. The filing party has not listed the other editors or notified them. Discussion should be on the article talk page, Talk:BarlowGirl. If discussion continues and is inconclusive, a new request for moderated discussion can be filed here if the other editors are listed and notified. Alternative methods of dispute resolution, such as a Request for Comments, are also available. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview BarlowGirl (BG) has endorsed a host of secular artists over the years, both while active as a band and also after disbanding. In band years, the sisters played The Beatles music at a number of concerts. The Mamas & the Papas is also cited as a musical influence. In 2013 and even in January 2014, the band operated a BarlowGirl Merch store despite claiming to be disbanded. During this time, BG cited artists such as Bruno Mars and Beyoncé as influences. Since February 2016, Lauren Barlow said she admires Lady Gaga's work. The band did all of this despite its messages like "don't conform", purity, etc. A number of users, from 68.108.83.5 to Instaurare to Walter Görlitz, have so far refused to allow a balanced perspective to be shared on this article. I believe that all these users have a pro-BarlowGirl bias. It's one thing to disagree with part of my edit. It's quite another to intentionally conceal information simply because it reveals notable, long-held concerns about contemporary Christian music (CCM) like BarlowGirl. The final revised edit, which I did after reviewing feedback from other Wikipedians that objected to my earlier edits, may be found here here. Nevertheless, it was rejected. Have you tried to resolve this previously? In addition to discussing on the article's talk page, I discussed on Walter Görlitz's talk page, which he responded to by directing me to the BarlowGirl talk page. How do you think we can help? I would like all sides of the issue to be fairly represented. Consider the edits I made to "Pink (Victoria's Secret)", for example: both pro-VS and anti-VS perspective that are notable, appropriate and relevant to the article are included. I am asking for the same standard to be followed with BarlowGirl (BG), which already discusses objections to Mercy Ministries in a fair matter. Likewise, BG's musical influences are very much worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Talk:BarlowGirl discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| This appears to be a conduct dispute, including the removal of comments by others from the talk page, which renders collaborative discussion impossible, and allegations of sockpuppetry. Removal of comments from a talk page should be reported at WP:ANI. Sockpuppetry should be reported at sockpuppet investigations. Baseless allegations of sockpuppetry can be reported at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I have been trying to add academically referenced information to the page, but one editor has removed content or blocked editors (on false sock puppet charges) for the last two years. She has taken down at least six editors. I would love to donate to wikipedia, but I am only when it functions as a forum for truth.... Dear readers, Today we ask those of you in the U.S. to help Wikipedia. To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We're sustained by donations averaging about $15. Only a tiny portion of our readers give. Now is the time we ask. If everyone reading this right now gave $3, our fundraiser would be done within an hour. That's right, the price of a cup of coffee is all we need. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I asked my professor, who teaches a class on the subject, to contact the wikipedia administration, but they referred it to the sock-puppet people, and they did nothing How do you think we can help? Simply inform all editors on the page that academically referenced information may not be removed without cause Summary of dispute by (cur | prev) 12:59Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 10 November 2016 Midnightblueowl (talk | contribs) . . (95Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 379 bytes) (-967) . . (Undid revision 748757165 by 50.126.235.193 (talk); undoing edits by repeated sock puppet.)Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Heathenry (new religious movement) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I am new to wikipedia authorship, but that does not mean I am new to debating, new to ethics, new to informational corrections. Initally, I placed my talk comments on the page. They were deleted by JamesBWatson. After Placing this commet on his page, he restores my Talk Discussion. Following The Rules : Neutrality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JamesBWatson/Open#Following_The_Rules_:_Neutrality But I am still not able to get authority to alter the focus of this article. WHAT I STATE IS THIS: BLATANT BIAS -- APPEARS TO BE HOMOPHOBIC TO BE ABUSED BY VIOLATIONS OF PRIVACY THIS ARTICLE AS IT IS APPEARS IS HOMOPHOBIC IN PRESENTATION FROM SCIENTIFIC FACTS (2014 Forward) VS. PRESENTATIONS ARE DATED AND PROVEN UNTRUE. First comment regarding Homophobic presence of this article stands Feb2016 I think maybe the tag was added because of all the homophobic subtext? A completely naive reader only reading this article might be led to think sex on meth was a purely gay phenomenon. PNP might be gay slang, but I highly doubt gay men are the only people who have sex while high. Quodfui (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC) PLEASE REVIEW MY TALK DISCUSSION IN WHOLE/ PLEASE REVIEW MY RE-ADDRESS TO EDITOR JamesBWatson Please Advise. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have been deleted time and time again for attemptimg to get voice on this stated focus of this article is BIASED! No one so far acnowlowedges this TRUE STANDING. How do you think we can help?
I PROTEST! Talk:Party and_play discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There is a Roosevelt quote in the article on jerrycans that is in utter conflict with actual history. It is misleading people into believing an utterly wrong idea of history (disinformation). I removed it, reverted, rinse and repeat. I then did let it in place, but even a quadruple-sourced (internal links to wiki pages on the historical events) addition to the text that clarifies how wrong the quote is was deleted. So now Wikipedia makes people believe that the Allies liberated France quicker in 1944 than the Germans defeated it in 1940. In actual history (undisputed) the Allies did barely break out of the Normandy invasion zone as quick as France+Belgium+Netherlands+Luxembourg were defeated in 1940. This nonsense is hidden in the jerrycan article, where readers have no immediate means to check the actual historical dates without leaving the page. The appeal to authority "(President Roosevelt") likely makes the fantasy history claim believable to readers, which makes it even worse. I want at the very least ensure that nobody gets misled by the (utterly needless) quote in the article if the nonsense quote cannot be deleted entirely. My last (reverted) edit added this: " This statement was actually incorrect and had it backwards because the Battle of France in 1940 lasted from 10 May to 25 June only, whereas the Allies needed much longer than that (June 6 to mid-July for the Invasion of Normandy alone, till August 25 for the Liberation of Paris and the Siegfried Line at Germany's Western border was reached only by September). " The other editors utterly disregard the disinformation problem and are determined to keep the misleading quote in there, though it has practically no descriptive value on the item the article is devoted to. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk Page, answer on my user talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lastdingo#November_2016 How do you think we can help? Tell them this is no place for disinformation and fantasy history statements and quadruple internal linking to relevant events articles is enough and suitable sourcing to prove that the quote has a counterfactual meaning. Or even better, make sure this crappy disinformation disappears and put the page on protection (after solving the content issue) if possible and necessary. Summary of dispute by Chaheel RiensMy position is essentially the same as Andy Dingley's, as I've pointed out on both talk page, and in edit summaries - and let's also note that it was I who started the talk page discussion, not LastDingo. It's the context of the quote that's important - even if Roosevelt was wrong, or given inaccurate information - he (that is, The President of the United States of America - a reasonably influential person,) believed that the Jerrycan was so important that success would not have happened without it. That's why the quote is present. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MartinezMDI share a similar position to Andy. The quote is direct from FDR's report to the US congress about the Lend Lease program and correctly attributed to him. FDR being correct or mistaken does not alter the fact he made the statement. A properly referenced footnote mentioning the potential timeline inaccuracy would be the correct way to go here is my opinion. Lastdingo seems to personally argue the point in his proposed addition to the article, and I believe that is not the right way to do it. MartinezMD (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Andy Dingley(I was the first to revert this. I'm surprised I wasn't listed here.) It is false and misleading to state, "There is a Roosevelt quote in the article on jerrycans that is in utter conflict with actual history." The quote is sourced and accurate. Roosevelt may have been imprecise or inaccurate here. I have no idea, I do not feel any need to compare their rates of advance. Roosevelt's obvious point is that the jerrycan was important in the Allied forces achieving the speed that they did, i.e. he is conveying the importance of the jerrycan, not the speed of the advance. That much is relevant and belongs here. There is no more need to nitpick the quote now than there would have been for a newspaper editor at the time to correct him. There is room for clarifying this - which personally I'd keep as a footnote, not inlined. But Lastdingo has not done this in any proportionate way. As he has now switched to abusing other editors, I have increasingly less interest in going in circles with this. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC) DMorpheus2 inputI agree with those editors who think the quote should remain, for the reasons already stated. If I may add a couple additional thoughts:
Talk:Jerrycan#Removal of_Roosevelt_quote discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by volunteer moderatorI will be accepting this case for moderated discussion. See User:Robert McClenon/Mediation rules. I see that one issue is a quote from Franklin D. Roosevelt, which appears to be a historically valid quote in which President Roosevelt was historically wrong. Will each editor please state what they see as the issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC) First statements by editors
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview A user by the name of Johorean Guy used misleading information to claim that Iskandar Malaysia (Johor Bahru) is the second largest metropolitan area in Malaysia, even though statistics point otherwise. Johorean Guy has undid my revisions and engaged in an edit war. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have corrected the information, based on Malaysia's 2010 census figures and metropolitan definitions, which state that Johor Bahru is the third largest (not second) metropolitan area in the country. But my revisions have repeatedly been undone by Johorean Guy. How do you think we can help? By mediating a neutral solution to this issue and prevent misinformation. Summary of dispute by Johorean GuyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johor Bahru&action=history discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hi Robert. Regarding the edit war in Johor Bahru, I received this somewhat crude, ridiculous explanation on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Semi-auto&oldid=751918605 Translation : Hello, Penangite, Penang is already behind the times. So dont feel paranoid. Ikea, Paradigm Mall & Southkey Mall is opening in JB. JB's highways are also longer than Penang.. Built-up area in JB is larger than Penang.. High speed rail will also commence in Johor.. About 60 elevated highways are under construction in Iskandar.. Penang's era is over Stop vandalising the Johor Bahru page or I will report your account.
A new section on this disputable content has been opened at the Johor Bahru talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Johor_Bahru#Second_largest_metropolitan_area_in_Malaysia_.3F Awaiting further developments.Semi-auto (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Utcursch and I had a dispute on Khas people. I cited two refs to show that most Bahun and Chhetri form the basis of a nation/ethnic group called Khas, with the first ref states that the present day Chhetri belonged to the nation Khas and the second asserted that Bahun and Chhetri belong to the same nation/ethnic/people. Utcursch alleged that both were "fake references" and intimidate me that I would be blocked. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Nothing yet. How do you think we can help? Clarifying whether the two references establish the fact that Bahun and Chhetri form a nation whose name was Khas. If not, what kind of statement do I need to find in a reference to establish it. Also, what's the Wikipedia definition of a "fake reference" and was my reference "fake" according to Wikipedia standard? Thank you! Summary of dispute by UtcurschPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. @Utcursch:--146.111.30.193 (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC) The references that the 146.111.30.193 is talking about:
146.111.30.193 synthesizes these two to claim that "Bahun and Chhetri form the basis of a nation/ethnic group called Khas", which is original research. All I'm asking for is a source that directly supports 146.111.30.193's claim. utcursch | talk 21:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
User talk:146.111.30.193 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The issue: Whether we should include the word dictator in the lede sentence for the article that talks about Fidel Castro. My position: Fidel was a brutal dictator. This word "dictator" should be included in the lede sentence. There is a discussion on what constitutes a "reliable source". Some people say that press in China, Russia, and other places were there is no free speech are comparable to US sources. Some people want to express an unbalanced opinion on the issue by saying that if Fidel was not called dictator by some, that is enough for Wikipedia not to do it. Many other dictators are referred as such in the lede sentence or paragraph like Pinochet, Trujillo, Franco, Stalin, etc. Why should Fidel be different? Many articles have been provided showing the many murders that he was part of and ordered, yet these sources are not taken into account. I provided a database with victims listed. The ones that do not want to put that word in the lede, recur to name calling, ad hominem attacks, and belittling other editors. They do not provide evidence. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Removing subjectivity by providing a definition for what a dictator is. Provided articles and database that proof the atrocities suffered by the Cubans. How do you think we can help? Finding a way to apply the definition for dictator consistently across the entire encyclopedia. What should be satisfied for a person to be called dictator. What constitutes a reliable source? Same newspapers contradict themselves thru time. Newspapers from different countries contradict themselves. Maybe newspapers is not the way to go? Yet I see value in newspapers, good articles, good writers, truth seekers, yet other have an agenda to push thru. Summary of dispute by GuccisamsclubAn Rfc would be the best way to do it. Way too many editors involved and the topic is of interest to the broader community, not just those who've been participating in the relatively recent dispute. Otherwise agree with TFD. Summary of dispute by MelanieNAgree with TFD. We need to reflect the balance of world opinion, not just American sources or our own definition of what a dictator is. The article currently reflects that balance, saying in both the body of the text and the last paragraph of the lede that some view him a dictator, and summarizing human rights issues. The lede sentence correctly call him a "revolutionary"; all sources from all viewpoints seem to agree on that description. --MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC) (May I add that I am grateful to User:Jhaydn2016 for bringing this here. The edit warring had gotten so bad that the page is currently locked for a week.) Summary of dispute by emijrpJust give a look to Death and state funeral of Fidel Castro article which has plenty of references and a worldwide perspective of Fidel. The only world leaders that name him a dictator come from United States and Sweden (well, senators from USA aren't world leaders...). Revolutionary and other positive adjectives are among the most popular ones. ¡Hasta la victoria siempre! emijrp (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by ScaleshombreAgree with Jhaydn2016. Ample RS for decades refer to Castro as "dictator." WP uses the term for similar leaders. Scaleshombre (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by PudeoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by TFDWhether or not Castro was a dictator, mainstream sources usually do not refer to him as a dictator in their descriptions. They generally say his critics saw him as a dictator, his supporters did not. The examples provided where a person is described in the lead differ. Mainstream sources always refer to them as dictators in their descriptions and they had formally assumed dictatorial power: the constitution was suspended and they ruled by formal executive orders. TFD (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Stephan SchulzPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Also agree with TFD. As for Pinochet et al: See WP:OTHERSTUFF. "Finding a way to apply the definition for dictator consistently across the entire encyclopedia" is not what I'd consider a plausibly reachable goal. Better go for peace in Palestine. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Jacob2718Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by KaldariThe lead already describes Castro as a dictator with proper context: "Conversely, critics view him as a dictator whose administration oversaw human-rights abuses, the exodus of a large number of Cubans, and the impoverishment of the country's economy." Considering that Castro is a very polarizing figure, even within the U.S., I think this is the best compromise we can hope for. Describing him as a dictator in the lead sentence is just going to cause endless edit warring (as we've already seen). Reliable sources are all over the map as far as how they portray him. It would violate WP:NPOV (and arguably WP:BLP) for us to take a side in the lead sentence without qualification. Kaldari (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by CambalacheroI also think that a RFC would be the best venue for this dicussion. Cambalachero (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by TeeVeeedI think that we have enough reliable source English language references that describe him as a dictator, that it should be a non-issue. I've never heard of trying to include sources and references from Africa and China before, (and only because they do NOT use that word-so in a you cannot prove a negative sort of way)...using the fact that South Korea for instance, does NOT call-out castro as a dictator, and if for some reason they even did, how would we even know what that is in OTHER LANGUAGES? It is NOT "UNDUE by omission"? The discussion is absurd imo, but I look forward to whatever consensus is decided.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by TataralThere is clearly consensus on the talk page for describing Castro as a dictator, or his regime as a dictatorship, in the first paragraph of the lead. Dictator is a widely used term, both with reference to Castro specifically, but also more broadly with reference to non-democratic leaders who may have held formal titles which didn't convey the nature of their position (e.g. president, chancellor, prime minister, secretary-general etc.). The articles on right-wing dictators such as Pinochet seem to always include the word dictator/dictatorship in the first paragraph of the lead. Describing Castro as a dictator has certainly nothing to do with an "American bias" or anything like it; rather it the word used by all mainstream reliable sources across the planet, as firmly established on the talk page. The idea that we shouldn't describe him as a dictator because his following on Cuba objects to it is comparable to the idea that the article on Hitler shouldn't describe him as a dictator because it would offend old-guard national socialists who insist that he should only be described with his formal titles as "Leader and Chancellor." It's pretty much a non-argument with no basis in Wikipedia policy. --Tataral (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Talk:Fidel Castro discussionThis should be an RfC. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
|
| Closed. There doesn't seem to be any continuing interest in discussing this case. The filing party is cautioned not to edit against consensus. If the filing party wants to change what is seen as consensus, they may open a Request for Comments, but they should be aware that they are not likely to get a consensus to change "died" (in this world) to "attained immortality" (which presumably has to do with the next world). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview 1-It is basically about using Ji after the Guru's name. People are disagreeing on that but how is it possible to show disrespect to God? Using of Ji will only show the younger generation that we need to respect our Gods. 2- Second disppute is about using the word died for Guru. A Guru never dies but he/she attains immortality. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried talking to a few directly but got no satisfactory response. They rather changed my edit again and again as well. How do you think we can help? I need a moderator. People are ganging up. I need a fair person to hear me out as the topic is very near to me. It is my faith. Summary of dispute by Mike Rosoft
Summary of dispute by BonadeaI concur with what Mike Rosoft says above. In addition the editor is very new - their account was created today - and so they may not have realised that discussions on Wikipedia talk pages are not resolved in half an hour (which was the time elapsed before they created this DRN report). As regards "Ji", there are specific guidelines for that honorific at Project Sikhism, specifying that it should be used very sparingly. The user has been advised of this, both on their own talk page and elsewhere. My own involvement has been marginal. --bonadea contributions talk 21:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by KylieTasticI reverted this users edits first due to the large number of errors created breaking images, wiki-links and template parameters (such as seen here). The user complains of "disrespect to God" but this breaking of many article elements was I would have though a bigger disrespect to the subject. I answered the users query on my talk page here basically pointing out the errors they had caused, as well as additional reasons aka MOS:HONORIFIC and suggesting that they should not remove died/death etc but could consider adding that it was considered by their faith as meaning the subject had "attained immortality". I've not been involved further in their escalation. KylieTastic (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by David BiddulphParamdeeptung's edit warring on Guru Gobind Singh is typified by this edit (which broke links such as the image link in the infobox and broke infobox functions such as the date of death) and this one (which removed a number of references). His repeated disruption has been reported at WP:AIV, and at WP:AN3#User:Paramdeeptung reported by User:Arjayay (Result: ) (regarding Nanded where Paramdeeptung is now up to 7 reversions in 24 hours). When the effects of his disruption were pointed out to him by a number of experienced editors, his responses were Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mlpearc and this at WP:AN3. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by ArjayayI raised this at WP:Help desk#Changing "Died" to "Attained immortality" but User:Paramdeeptung started edit warring before we had a (sensible) response. I pointed out the general rules at their talk page and pointed them to the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sikhism the response on my talk page was that they did not agree with me, so I stated "It is not ME you are disagreeing with - it is members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sikhism - who drafted the guidelines." But this was not accepted (their later posts on my TP deleted by others). Clearly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - (Also went to WP:DRN + WP:SPI within 9 hours of opening an account). - Arjayay (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MlpearcTalk:Guru Gobind_Singh, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nanded&oldid=751314497 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed. This case has been frustrating to this volunteer because it has hard to know what the filing party wants. It now appears that the filing party wants to use a Request for Comments, and that is a reasonable way to resolve a content dispute. If there is any other content dispute, it can be discussed on the article talk page or via the RFC. The filing party is advised that they might be better off to edit a Wikipedia in their own language, because their difficulties with English seem to be a barrier to discussing content issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Stereotypes such as savage, pagan, inferior, enemy, bad people, heathen, ready to kill and brutal are added in an ethnic-group article. These are terms usually seen in propaganda leaflets to provoke ethnic violence & their importance were discussed in the articles talk-page as per WP:ONUS with no consensus. Editor's reasoning for adding them is to explain the reason for name change in which non of the sources used precisely said the old name was changed because of these but most likely (while still non of the sources also did precisely mentioned it) it was changed because it is not how they identify themselves. People have the right to identify themselves by names they choose but what is the importance of adding those stereotypes that were also associated with African ethnic-groups name in the very past, though they continued to refer themselves by their ethnic name inspite of it being associated with those kind of stereotypes.[3] Simply put disputed content is somehow similar to the topic should we add the phrase: "Muslims view Americans as heathen or infidel people"[4] on American people or add "White South Africans or Americans used to view Zulus or muslims with the above mentioned stereotypes" on Zulu and Muslim people Wikipedia article by quoting a Reliable source? Yes it is true there are some muslim Americans who have these kind of view but should it be included anyways? Second issue is which source is appropriate to define the term Galla, the journal or Hassan? Hassan did not see the dictionary himself. If the dictionary is widely circulated then why not get the book from a nearby shop/library & proof himself instead of quoting another source printed in a printing organisation in which it's address is not found in Google? Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussed in the articles talk page How do you think we can help? Various editors provide their opinion and discuss the issue then provide their proposal or recommendation. Finally, we will edit the article as per WP:GOODFAITH, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:ONUS and WP:DUE in collaboration and by consensus. Summary of dispute by Ms Sarah Welch[1] The allegations raised by @EthiopianHabesha, in part, are incorrect. Here is the relevant article's section. The relevant talk page section is here, with context, and replies. [2] Oromo people were referred to as "Galla", and not as Oromo, in extensive historical literature before 1893. The word Galla was the reference for them and it remained in active usage through 1970. The first part of the dispute is whether the old pre-1970 name of Oromo people should be censored in wikipedia. If the answer is no, and we mention "Oromo is relatively a new word, they were called Galla", then the obvious question in the reader's mind is why Galla name for a long time, why Oromo name now, why the change, what is the meaning of Galla, what is the meaning of Oromo? [3] @EthiopianHabesha's view: WP:ONUS somehow implies 'don't answer these questions'. My view: per WP:CENSOR and WP:COMPREHENSIVE, the article should answer these questions, summarizing from scholarly reliable sources the reasons why, the when, the how of the historical persecution and name change of Oromo people. That is the dispute. (That is not the only dispute though; see article's edit history, WP:3O and restore by admin/arb-member @Doug Weller: and remarks to @EthiopianHabesha on the talk page). [4] I do not understand the second part of @EthiopianHabesha's submission above, "Second issue is which source is appropriate to define the term Galla, the journal or Hassan? Hassan did not see the dictionary himself." The "Hassan source" was published by Cambridge University Press, and its review has been published in a scholarly paper here. It meets WP:RS requirements (fwiw, the article cites second sources). How can @EthiopianHabesha allege, "Hassan did not see the dictionary himself"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Doug WellerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I've been struggling to understand the filer. I have asked them to be more specific, to avoid discussing other articles or make the sort of comparisons he is making. When I first ran into this dispute the editor was suggesting getting a 3rd opinion. I offered one and was still told there was no consensus. He disagrees over reliable sources but hasn't gone to RSN as requested over the dispute as to whether we should use a 1924 journal article by a British colonial administrator or a Cambridge University Press book which a review in the journal of the Institute of Ethiopian Studies calls "a fine scholarly work".[5] The pagan bit is I think about a quote that states that ""Gadaa Melbaa has noted that 'the Abyssinians attach a derogatory connotation to the Galla, namely "pagan, savage, uncivilized, uncultured, enemy, slave or inherently inferior". And 'heathen' in this context means "non-Muslim". At the moment the article says "Scholarship that followed Barton, states that the label Galla for them, in historic documents, is a stereotype and has been translated by other ethnic groups as "pagan, savage, inferior, enemy",[19][20][21] and "heathen, that is non-Muslim".[22][23] The Oromo never called themselves Galla, and resist its use."and " Different groups have attempted to reconstruct a speculative origin theories, wherein either Oromo are presumed "heathen and expansionists who displaced another ethnic group", or the Oromo are presumed to be original people who were "displaced by others". EtheiopianHabesha's talk page is worrying and this may be some sort of ethnic/nationalist argument whose details have eascaped me. Doug Weller talk 17:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Oromo people discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed due to no response in 72 hours from one party. The issue appears to have been the removal of content, and the editor who responded most recently was advocating the retention of the contested content. Editors are advised that the removal of sourced but otherwise questioned content should be discussed on the talk page. If there are any further content issues, a Request for Comments is suggested. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview In an edit here, I added information about the ancestry of Shah Mir as narrated by a Kashmiri historian Jonaraja. The narrative is sourced to a recent historical article. Barthateslisa has repeatedly deleted or modified this content saying that it refers to "mythology". Stating that the narrative is attributed to Jonaraja and that we also point out that is likely a "concocted genealogy" made no difference to this editor. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on the talk page. The article has also been full-protected by admins for 10 days due to edit-warring. How do you think we can help? Decide whether this content should be retained or omitted. Summary of dispute by BarthateslisaOn the page of Shah Mir, who is a historic figure, some users including Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) and some IPs, have been editing his early life section as per, what seems to be their POV. The dispute is over selective addition of a widely dismissed theory about Mir's origin, which declares Shah Mir, who again is a historic figure, to be a descendant of a mythological character from an ancient Indian epic. Shah Mir's origin is uncertain and has many theory, but some users are pushing the aforesaid theory, apparently its their preferred one. The funny part is that the citation mentioned to back the theory is also quoted selectively, as it dismisses the theory itself. I have objected to this as I believe half information will lead to misinformation about the subject among the Wikipedia users. During the talk page discussion it became evident that other user is well aware of other theories regarding Shah Mir's origin but is only focused on adding his/her preference. I hope we can have a balanced editing on the page, which doesn't lead to misinformation. Barthateslisa (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Talk:Shah Mir#Jonaraja's description discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderatorI am willing to open this case for moderated discussion. Please see User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules for the ground rules. Now: Will each of the editors please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issue is? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC) First statement by Kautilya3I hope Barthateslisa will focus on content, not conduct. The only issue from my point of view is that the opposing party has repeatedly deleted sourced content. The source provided The Regions of Sind, Baluchistan, Multan and Kashmir is part of the UNESCO series on the history of Central Asia. It is availabe online as PDF, and I have specified the precise the page numbers (311–312). The opposing party has not contested the reliability of the source in any way, but just stated that they do not believe it. (I suppose that is what they mean by "mythological".) They do seem to suggest that the source has been misrepresented in some way, but this has not been explained. The ball is in their court to make the case. By the way, the relevant version of the article is this one. The dispute is concerning the section "Early life". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC) First statement by BarthateslisaUser Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) and some IPs have been adding misleading sentences about early life and origin of Shah Mir, a historic figure and the subject of the page. The user is selectivity quoting the source, which apparently suits the user's POV. The source mentioned here clearly dismisses user's preferred theory about Shah Mir's origin, which the user is trying to put in the early life section. No consideration for NPOV is visible in the edits. The source is not even a matter of dispute, its selective use is. Adding one dubious theory about a person in the first line of the section is misleading and unfair towards the readers. Also may I add, that the source also dismisses the theory which the other side is trying to add on the page in the very first line. BTW, the whole "relevant version" stressed by the user is again a matter of POV. Barthateslisa (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Second statement by moderatorComment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC) The issue appears to be that one editor objects to certain content and has removed it and the other editor thinks that it should be included. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, without naming names or complaining about conduct, what they think the content issue is? That is, what content should be included, and why, and what content should be excluded, and why? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Second statements by Kautilya3The Rafiq article [6], accepted by the opposing party as a reliable source, mentions two historical records that deal with Shah Mir's ancestry (pp. 311–312): one by Jonaraja, a medieval Kashmiri historian, and the other Persian chronicles. Both are mentioned and, I believe, should be mentioned in our article. To be perfectly clear, I copy below the content as I wrote it originally:
I do not think that there are any NPOV issues with this text. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Second statements by Barthateslisa
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed as forum shopping. A request for formal mediation was declined because the other editors declined to participate in mediation, which is voluntary. There is no need to go through the procedures of starting informal mediation to decline it for the same reason; the other editors do not see the need for mediation. The filing party is advised not to try to edit the article against consensus, but may use a Request for Comments. The editors are all advised not to edit-war, and to observe the 3RR rule. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Traian Vuia's flight described as "Power Hops" although the wording is not used in similar achievements from other pioneers of flight.He has flown by the very definition of flight. Some other editors try to invent other terms for his achievements, such as "power hop", not explained anywhere, and not used for similar achievements of other pioneers. My proposal to change the text is accurate and it was documented and properly referenced. The "claimed a powered hop" passage is a logical fallacy, and the correction would not require a discussion in a group of normal persons. He would have never claimed "I have powerhopped, yuhuuu!!!". He would have claimed "I have flown". Have you tried to resolve this previously? Used the talk page, edits were rejected, request for mediation was rejected How do you think we can help? Additional knowledge and information other users could provide could be useful. Summary of dispute by BinksternetPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Thomas.WPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Andy DingleyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by DonFBPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Traian Vuia discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I first placed this information within the Editor Assistance section and was advised I may have to submit a disput resolution. I have been editing the RATT band page to include the latest legal battles. Yesterday, the page was reverted back to what it was many months ago, stating that this was the last stable version of the band. I hadn't noticed in the Talk:Ratt section that they had decided over a year ago to wait to update the page until all legal resolutions were made, but these legal issues have been on going for over a year. On RATT's talk page, I discussed the changes with Sabbatino, who did the revert, and User:Mlpearc replied asking me "WTF" about the legal information I was referring to. I explained what I was referring to and provided now two references. Sabbatino and I came to a consensus that I could revert the page back and make it so it was similar to Jack Russell's Great White (as their situation is similar). Mlpearc came back and said good luck. I reverted the changes, and was in the process of applying the changes to make the page similar to Jack Russell's Great White, when Mlpearc immediately reverted my changes back without any discussion about this on the RATT talk page and then sent me two messages posted to my talk page accusing me of an edit war, when he saw that Sabbatino and I came to a consensus. I replied to him explaining once again that Sabbatino and I came to a consensus and that he had said 'good luck,' but then he reverted my changes. He stated that what he meant was he had no wish to discuss the issue. Now I'm afraid to do the reversion because I don't want to be kicked off of Wikipedia, but what he did was completely unprofessional. A consensus had been made, and yet he took away (once again) all of my changes and then accused me of being in an edit war. I have no idea what to do now. I'm afraid to make any changes because he'll make more accusations against me. Thank you! Have you tried to resolve this previously? I spoke with him on the RATT talk page and on my personal talk page, but he has refused to communicate. How do you think we can help? I would like the RATT page reverted back to 26 November 2016 as was decided upon with the consensus with Sabbatino (the person who did the initial revert) and I. I just now noticed there's now an admin hold on the page. Then I can make the page to be like Jack Russell's Great White, as was decided upon on the consensus. Summary of dispute by MlpearcOh my goosh, just move on Dijares which I tried to do at ten o'clock this morning You need to concentrate on gaining your consensus. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Talk:Ratt#Reverted Changes discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The Wiki pages related to Laura Albert have been disorganized and poorly written (vague references, personal accusations, etc.). Much of the content was created by Msturm 8, under various IP addresses. NVG13DAO, a specialist in transgender studies, tried to work on the page, but gave up. PacificOcean (me) went on Live Chat for guidance- first step was to edit requests. SwisterTwister and Huon helped, but their help was reverted by Msturm 8. I did a major overhaul of much of the Laura Albert content, and posted it as an edit request for 3 weeks. No objections; and so my guides told me to note the objections and post it. I also made similar changes to the JT Leroy page. On JT Leroy Talk page thereafter, Msturm 8 posted objections. I responded, and Msturm 8 responded without getting into content, but mainly just repeating that Laura Albert is a fraud. In the section on the Lawsuit, the civil case against Laura Albert was addressed, but she is not criminal and was not convicted of fraud for being an author, using a pseudonym, and creating a public persona. As you can see in the repartee at the top of the Comments section of this article, Msturm 8 has accused Albert of stealing, embezzlement, and is determined to burn Albert at the stake for these claims.. but attempt for intellectual discussion went nowhere. (http://forward.com/culture/351569/how-to-kill-a-butterfly-like-elena-ferrante-or-jt-leroy/) I believe I am labeled as having a conflict of interest simply because I mentioned that I have met Laura Albert in person, but Msturm 8 made a film "The Cult of JT Leroy" and has a conflict of interest in painting a negative portrait of Albert to sell her film. The most recent edit that Msturm 8 is adamant to maintain is "Many others have felt differently,"When Albert’s fraud was finally exposed (after she wrecked the credibility of several publications, book companies, a film studio—plus many gullible readers)..." Who is "many"? These accusations seem inappropriate. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Posted edit requests before making edits (there were no objections), discussed my thoughts on the articles on Live Chat and sought guidance from Volunteer Editors, tried to respond to Msturm 8. How do you think we can help? Hopefully you can provide clarity on what needs to happen next. Obviously I can't continue editing the page without getting myself entangled in an editing war since most of what I've tried to do, even with the pre-discussion with volunteer editors, has gotten reverted by Msturm 8; who seems vehemently opposed to any changes and not really able/willing to discuss the content rationally. Thank you. Summary of dispute by Msturm 8Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I was not aware of the recent edit disputes taking place or I would have chimed in earlier. I became aware after all of my recent contributions to the page were eliminated. I have been aware that the "JT LeRoy" page over a period of many years was a misrepresentation of the issues and facts at hand, but only fairly recently decided taking on an understanding of Wikipedia to fix it. Some of my changes were not logged in, and were from my IP address by mistake (sorry about that) but otherwise I am forthright and in no rush at all to work with whomever to make sure the JT LeRoy page represents the controversy that people are going to the page to get clarity on. Pacific Ocean just cited a page that was written by Laura Albert. This is the problem at hand, and what has constituted the problem for many years. Laura Albert created the fraud of JT LeRoy. She is not one we can go to to seek an explanation of it. Keep in mind, Laura Albert successfully committed a fraud that overlapped with writing for the New York Times, HBO, books being published in twenty languages, and many other publications and media outlets. This Wikipedia page is not going to be immune from her actions. Laura Albert's "JT LeRoy" has been proven in court to be a fraud for various reasons. These reasons are all facts. There was much public outcry by literary agents, close friends, and others who were closely involved with "JT LeRoy" including one of the participants in the fraud, Albert's ex-partner Geoffrey Knoop. This is a fact. I had included citations from various top-notch newspapers. I have left a comment on the Talk page so I won't repeat it all here, but the overall point is that this page should not look like just another page for a writer without explaining the controversy and the fall-out. The headlines all say "Pseudonym" after it was proven in court that JT Leroy was not a pseudonym. This is clearly misleading. JT LeRoy was proven to be a fraud. "Hoax" is also not the correct word. According to your very own, Wikipedia page, "A hoax is a distinct concept that involves deliberate deception without the intention of gain or of materially damaging or depriving a victim." With the case of JT LeRoy, a corporation was set up to run the profits of "JT LeRoy" without letting those involved understand Jt Leroy's true identity. For over ten years, many people did not understand that they were talking to a grown adult impersonating the voice of a child on the phone who was homeless and HIV positive and from a West Virginia truckstop. Again, this is a fact and not an opinion. The page is in serious need of revision to include the factual controversies at hand. It is a misleading and confusing read at the moment, as it always has been. For years, people have cited the page to me and I have not had the time or energy to bother with it. I am willing to work with whomever in a slow and patient way to make sure the page reads correctly. I am not looking to promote my film on the topic. We could eliminate all mentions around both documentaries and other 'inspired' works and so forth. I do not care. I want to this page to read clear and simple. Maybe absolute brevity would be best at this point considering the years and years of "JT LeRoy"'s intention to protect her public image as best as possible. And I will reiterate, "personal opinion' only comes into this topic if you think that Laura Albert's personal story and background justifies her actions that were found to be a fraud. That is a choice. But that doesn't refute the FACT that a massive number of people felt hurt or betrayed and they are commenting publicly within the last few months in major newspapers like the New York Times and The Guardian. The Wikipedia needs to address the emotional fallout and how the fraud was conducted and not be a misleading source of information. I believe strongly that TRUTH matters, and shouldn't constantly be spun. Thank you for your time. Msturm 8 (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Talk:JT LeRoy#Discuss_with_User:_76.21.32.54 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
| No resolution reached, suggesting move to formal mediation |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Keysanger on 14:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview In the LEDE of the article, MarshalN20 has
this the first step after the article talk page. How do you think we can help? You can moderate a open discussion about the issues. Summary of dispute by MarshalN20Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Keysanger has been harassing editors in articles related to the War of the Pacific for the past decade or so. Most of these editors have given up, and administrative action in these articles has been inconsequential. I was topic banned from articles related to Latin American history due to a naming dispute on the article Paraguayan War—this ban was lifted over a year ago, but I have since been very busy with graduate school work and research. I still am busy, but can certainly take time to participate in this discussion. I am the author of three featured articles (Peru national football team, Pisco Sour, and Falkland Islands—which I co-authored with WCM). A central part of the problem is that Keysanger does not write according to the guidelines of Wikipedia:Manual of Style. It's not that he is ignorant of them, but rather he consistently refuses to accept them. Plainly speaking, he is an incompetent writer who refuses to improve as a writer. This also makes discussions with him very uncomfortable, especially when he resorts to long statements and ignoratio elenchi (in both questions and responses). Evidence: [7], [8], [9]. Lastly, I am also extremely concerned at Keysanger's research. He holds an open partisan stance, often dismissing authors who are either non-Chilean or that disagree with the Chilean version of events. Moreover, he often demonstrates to not know the historiography about the War of the Pacific, giving undue weight to fringe perspectives that fit his particular point of view. Having said all of this, I can properly reply to the points made by Keysanger:
Talk:Treaty of Defensive Alliance (Bolivia–Peru)#Name discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview two editors not engaging in discussion or even bothering to respond to my direct questions asked. second time i have put a request here now as i read about dispute resolution being useful. want others to engage rather than threaten i first tried to put an attempt here on 05:21, 16 November 2016 however they were not interested they know best it appears to me not sure why the first attempt was taken off here without action
Have you tried to resolve this previously? i have kept trying to engage and offer dispute resolution asking questions that are ignored asked if they would participate in calm dispute resolution instead i get threats How do you think we can help? just someone objectiv to intervene and say hey lets talk eh and solve instead of threaten arrogantly that would sure help eh Summary of dispute by iss246Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I observed that Happydaise deleted (e.g., social psychology) from and added topic areas (e.g., sociobiology) to the "contributing disciplines" section to the entry on organizational behavior. He made changes without justifying them. I first thought that the nonjustified changes reflected his being unfamiliar with WP because he had made no prior edits. When I restored the deletions such as social psychology and deleted topics he added such as sociobiology, he reversed my edits. I would be okay with adding, say, sociobiology if it were justified but it is not. He also showed that he had more understanding of the working of WP than I would anticipate of a newcomer with no prior experience with WP (e.g., use of this noticeboard). I suspected the he is trojan horse for someone who had been previously banned from WP. I want to be clear. I am okay when an entry is edited and those edits are justified. But I am not okay when meritless wholesale edits are made or an individual simply provokes a needless dispute. Iss246 (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MjolnirPantsPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. organizational behavior discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderatorI am willing to open this case for moderated discussion. See User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules for the ground rules. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think that the issues are? Be civil and concise, but I already said that. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC) First statements by editorsThats great thanks for answering the call - My view would be just keep it to disciplines as in economics, sociology, psychology and so on - but not sub - disciplines of these base disciplines.Happydaise (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Often a subdiscipline of a more general discipline is a contributor to organizational behavior. But another subdiscipline is not a contributor. For example, social psychology is more intimately related to OB than another subdiscipline of psychology such as biological psychology. There is a good deal of evidence, including from the OB WP entry, that social psychology is an important contributor to OB. I could find no evidence that biological psychology has contributed to OB. In the interest of accuracy, and in terms of helpfulness to readers of the encyclopedia, a subdiscipline such as social psychology should be included. Because psychology is such a vast field, it would not be helpful to include it as a contributing discipline because only a small number of its many subdisciplines are contributors. We want to be helpful to readers, particularly university students, by accurately identifying the contributing subdisciplines. With regard to other general fields such as anthropology and its subdisciplines, I would need to understand the situation on a case by case (discipline v. subdiscipline) basis. We need to think in terms of how accurate we are and how helpful we are being to the users of the encyclopedia. Iss246 (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Second statement by moderatorIt appears that the issue has to do with the listing of disciplines in the Contributing Disciplines section. Is that correct, and are there any other issues? It also appears that the issue has to do with when to list subdisciplines within a discipline. One editor thinks that only main disciplines should be listed, and the other appears to be saying that a case-by-case basis is needed. Is that the issue? If so, will each editor please explain why they think that their position is better? Is there room for compromise? (Why not sometimes list specific subdisciplines that are directly relevant?) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Second statements by editorsSocial psychology should be listed as a contributing discipline because evidence from the OB article itself implicates social psychology in OB. Biological psychology should not be listed because of the lack of evidence for a connection between OB and biological psychology. Using the psychology sidebar, I counted about 40 subdisciplines within psychology, all of which are not related to OB. Including psychology among the contributing disciplines to OB can leave a reader with the mistaken impression that most of the subdisciplines within psychology contribute to OB when that is not the case. Of course another subdiscipline of psychology, industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology, is closely related to OB, and I favor including it among the contributing disciplines. But I disfavor including psychology itself because it is such a wide umbrella discipline that one could claim that it is related to a thousand different entries. As for other more general fields and their subdisciplines, I favor examining them on a case-by-case basis depending on the generality/narrowness of parent discipline and the subdiscipline. Iss246 (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC) Why not just list what is already said in the history part of the article and list just disciplines? History "As a multi-disciplinary field, organizational behavior has been influenced by developments in a number of allied disciplines including sociology, psychology, economics, and engineering as well as by the experience of practitioners." there are no sub-disciplines in that list.Happydaise (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I am focusing on one discipline because that is a discipline I know very well. I am a professor of psychology. By carefully examining one discipline, we can develop some insight into how to address other disciplines and/or subdisciplines. Two subdisciplines of psychology are clearly relevant to OB, social psychology and i/o psychology; many other subdisciplines of psychology, however, are not. A careful examination of the other listed disciplines and subdisciplines is in order. Regarding the placement of the list, I need more time to think about that matter. Iss246 (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC) Third statement by moderatorThere has been a suggestion that the problem here is that including a list of disciplines and subdisciplines at the beginning of the article is a little strange, and sets up controversy. Do the editors agree that perhaps either eliminating the list or moving the list would be appropriate? Please address this concisely, and please state any other issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Third statements by editorsYes - just eliminate the list solves all the problems. its un-sourced and its already in the article anyway isnt that enough - and why the repetition- too much emphasis is placed on a list of historically contributing disciplines and away from other parts of the article.Happydaise (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we should eliminate the list. It would be better for readers if the list were placed in a lower position. It serves the purpose of reminding readers that the subject known as organizational behavior did not appear ex cathedra out of the mind of some great authority but has roots in the social sciences. I explain above which two subdisciplines of psychology are clearly relevant to OB, social psychology and i/o psychology. Those two subdisciplines should remain on the list. We should delete psychology itself and the remaining subdisciplines of psychology (e.g., personality psychology, counseling psychology). Retaining social psychology and i/o psychology pinpoints just where psychology has contributed to OB. As I wrote earlier, I support retaining sociology because of the influence of sociologists such as Max Weber on OB. We should retain anthropology but not political science. There is no mention of political science in the OB encyclopedia entry; by contrast, the article implicates anthropology in OB. Iss246 (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderatorIt appears that both editors are agreeable to having the list of contributing disciplines moved to a lower part of the article. Can it also be given a lower-level heading? What is I/O psychology, anyway? (To an information technology person, I/O is input-output, and I don't think that is what is meant.) Please do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editorsI think anthropology is just as important and sub-disciplines of anthropology should be listed as well if the un-sourced list is included twice in the article, once in the list and the second time in the history section. And political science and mathematics are definitely as important too alternatively - if the list was just removed, the mention of a few contributing disciplines are still there under the history section - isn't it enough to mention contributing disciplines just once in the history section instead of repeating it again in the form of some un-sourced list and us arguing over which disciplines and sub - disciplines to include in this un-sourced list - maybe just expand the bit already there in the history section of the article?Happydaise (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
If we include a subdiscipline of anthropology, we should not include anthropology itself. For example, if it there is evidence that ethnology contributed to OB, then we should delete anthropology because subdisciplines of anthropology such as physical anthropology are not contributors to OB. In this way, we more precisely indicate what aspect of the discipline has contributed to OB. Iss246 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderatorWhat part of the request not to engage in back-and-forth discussion wasn't clear? Will each editor please make a list of everything that they would like to change about the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Fifth statements by editorsI would like to place the contributing disciplines section just above the journals sections. I would like to shorten the contributing disciplines to look like the following. Contributing disciplines
Iss246 (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you that the article should include references from researchers who are identified with subdisciplines. For example, Kurt Lewin and Solomon Asch, two notable social psychologists, are mentioned in the text. Therefore, social psychology should be in the list of contributing disciplines. On the other hand, almost all the lists that I have found in WP are not footnoted. I would refrain from footnoting the list. Iss246 (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Sixth statement by moderatorFirst, do the parties agree that we need a stand-alone list of disciplines (and possibly subdisciplines) at all? Could the disciplines be listed in the course of a more general discussion of the subject? If we do need a list, should it be moved to lower down in the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC) What else do the editors think needs to be changed in the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Sixth statements by editorsI dont think that there is any need at all for a stand-alone list of sub-disciplines and disciplines - especially given it is an un-sourced list - with many other sub-disciplines and disciplines that could equally be added to such a list. There is already mention in the History part of the article of contributing disciplines and sub-disciplines - so truly, why not just get rid of this un-sourced list of disciplines and sub-disciplines and be done with it. esp. as the reliable sources just don't mention a list like this- so why is it in the article at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happydaise (talk • contribs) 10:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Seventh statement by moderatorOne editor wants to move the list further down in the article. The other editor thinks that the list is not necessary. Are the two editors willing to agree on moving the list down? Are the two editors willing to agree on omitting the list? Also, are the two editors willing to rely on a Request for Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
We should limit the list, where possible, to the subdisciplines that made substantial contributions to OB. The list conveniently--for readers--locates OB in the wider universe of research but not in such a wide a universe as to include every discipline and subdiscipline in the social sciences. I gave an example of what such a list would look like in the section of this colloquy entitled "Fifth statements by editors". Iss246 (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed. There has been inadequate discussion at the article talk page. The filing party's opening statement alleges issues beyond the scope of this noticeboard (fraudulent information and libel). The editors are requested to discuss further on the article talk page in a civil manner. If there are edits by unregistered editors or new editors who do not discuss their edits, registered edits may request semi-protection. If discussion at the talk page is extensive but inconclusive, another request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview user newenglandyankee is posting fraudulent and untrue information that is defamatory to Kenny Vance. This process is so convoluted I cant even figure out who to contact to this regard. Can someone please just tell me how to actually tell someone that this person is posting mis-information regarding Mr. Vance's career, profile, and history? All i keep getting is link to link to link. Who can actually monitor the posts and keep Mr. Vance's record STRAIGHT? Have you tried to resolve this previously? Contacted, tried to explain that his information is libel and fictitious How do you think we can help? Block this user from editing content on this page due to the fictitious nature. Summary of dispute by NewEnglandYankeeOn December 9th, a (new) user registered as "Amymichelle229" made a large-scale text replacement on Kenny Vance. The edit summary was "users enter material that was untrue, corrected with the assistance of Kenny Vance himself". User:bonadea left a conflict-of-interest notice on User Talk:Amymichelle229. In response the user claimed that he/she "just took his biography from him and posted it. I'm a website manager, I don't really care about him." My feeling was, and is, that the article isn't a very good one. I said as much on User Talk:Amymichelle229. I think my first message was a little bit too censorious, so I tried to tone it down afterwards. My point, however, stands: neither "the assistance of Kenny Vance himself" nor "just took his biography from him and posted it" sounds like a reliable source. It doesn't do Wikipedia any good to replace a substandard article with another substandard article. Since then the same edits have been made by two other anonymous users: 2602:304:CEAE:8BB0:28AA:639D:DE1E:66CA and the IP address 69.75.101.130. The latter address subsequently used the User talk:Amymichelle229 page to say that "Kenny is willing to take police action against you". Among other things, this level of excitement makes me feel skeptical about the claim that "I'm a website manager, I don't really care about him." The user has since denied having said "I don't really care about him" and tried to delete that quote from Talk:Kenny Vance. Here is the diff showing the quote: [12]. The user also wrote, on User talk:69.75.101.130, that "I am his website manager", but then changed that to "I am a website manager" (emphasis added). [13]. This still looks to me like a conflict of interest. Also, the user claims that the article is defamatory. I don't see any defamatory content--just a lot of unreferenced essay-type material, all of it positive in tone. I have added no content to Kenny Vance; I have only restored (perhaps too many times, considering 3RR) the content that was there beforehand. In my opinion, there's a strong case to be made for deleting about 90% of the article entirely, unless someone comes up with a lot of sources, but I know nothing about the subject. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC) 69.75.101.130 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| General close for multiple reasons. First, discussion is also pending in another forum, the neutral point of view noticeboard. Second, this filing does not list other editors. Third, this filing is badly malformed and needs to be closed to avoid breaking the bot. Fourth, the filing party appears to be requesting action beyond the scope of this noticeboard, including arbitration and blocks. The filing party is advised to read the dispute resolution policy. This dispute can be dealt with for now at the neutral point of view noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview It has been argued before that the Crown Heights riot should be mentioned in the article for Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The riots and his relationship to them merited mention in his obituary in the New York Times, his hometown paper. All the retrospectives on the riot, mention Schneerson, if only to note, the car involved in the inciting accident was in his motorcade. Different reviewers delete it without providing verifiable independent reasoning Have you tried to resolve this previously? There has been a prior archived discussion on this that appeared to resolve that the riots should be touched upon in the article. How do you think we can help? There are issues that perhaps only third party arbitration can fix. The discussion, much like the debates after the riots, devolve into the use of terms like racism, anti-Semitism, bias, and pogrom. I am not interested in that. I would just like to have a line in the article, somewhere that states: "A car in the motorcade of Rabbi Schneerson inadvertently hit pedestrians; this led to riots that underscore tensions in the community between Blacks and the followers of Schneerson." Menachem Mendel Schneerson discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. I strongly urge editors of wikipedia to arbitrate changes in this article. There are some members of Wikipedia that will delete anything, even the most well sourced point, from this hagiography. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Rococo1700 (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Schneerson and Crown Height riotsNotice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussionHello, Dispute resolution noticeboard. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I am closing the discussion here. This is not a dispute which can be mediated. I have sought administrator input into the lack of mention in the article that an accident by a car in the police-led motorcade of Schneerson caused the death of a Black child, and triggered the riots, and that he had no comment on the events or the death of a Black child. I have faced recurrent deletion of well sourced material by Kemal Tebaast, Debresser, and Bus Stop. They do not seek to resolve the issue. This is due to a bias by these editors to delete mention of this events linked to Schneerson. Rococo1700 (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed as abandoned. On 9 December the editors were advised to discuss further on the article talk page. There has been no further discussion on the article talk page. The editors are again advised to discuss on the article talk page. Only if there is discussion and it is inconclusive can there be a new case request here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The steel plant of Calarasi was closed in the 90s and left to its faith. Organized groups of thieves started to dismantle the steel plant Selling its machinery and buidlings as scrap metals. The poorest and most excluded people in Romania (according to all statistics) are those with Roma origin and it was mostly Roma people that handled the hard work of dismantling the factory physically while they sold the scrap metals to other companies (mostly with ethnic romanian owners). Romanian media, including mainstream media, does often mention the ethnic origin if the criminal is Roma but does not mention the ethnicity if the criminal is of other ethnic origin. The article Biruitorul is defending that explicity single out the ethnicity of the scrap metal collectors but no other ethnicity of those involved (all people in decision making positions were of ethnic romanian origin). This is a usual way of reporting in the romanian press but should not be accepted in Wikipedia. The issue of ethnicity is NOT relevant to mention for the story of the steel plant. The user Biruitorul insist on including it and refuses to have a sincere discussion on the issue although i invited him several times. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have invited the user Biruitorul to have a discussion Before he engages in a editing war but he refuses to have one. How do you think we can help? 1. Make the user understand that racial biasing of one ethnicity is not accepted. 2. Make the user understand that ethnicity is only Worth mention if its relevant to the story. Summary of dispute by BiruitorulPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The source on which I draw, perhaps the most respectable of Romanian newspapers, does indicate that the thieves in question were Roma. The fact was reported by a newspaper that we accept as a reliable source; it is therefore relevant. We are not censored, and despite the other user's continual raising of red herrings ("racial bias!" "irrelevant information!" "what about the owners!?"), there is no good reason for the information not to stay. - Biruitorul Talk 03:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Talk:C%C4%83l%C4%83ra%C8%99i steel_works discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed as declined. The other two editors have both indicated that they do not see the point in discussion here, when discussion on the article talk page was limited and when the filing party was advised to try a Request for Comments. Try a Request for Comments, or continue discussion on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview In November 2016 Hope not Hate published a report on hate crime following the death of a UK MP. An accompanying press release stated that 'More than 50,000 abusive and offensive tweets were sent celebrating MP Jo Cox’s murder'. At least four national newspapers in the UK repeated these claims as did the report authors themselves and the campaign twitter account. In December 2016, Evolution AI commented on the original report, suggesting that the claims could not possibly be true and detailed 'severe methodological errors' in the report. The UK newspaper, The Guardian, after being contacted by Evolution AI, retracted their story, stating: 'This article has been removed. It was based on a press release from anti-racism campaigners Hope Not Hate which it admits contained incorrect information.' The Economist newspaper also corroborated the Evolution AI analysis. Eventually the Hope not Hate campaign retracted their original claims - claiming a mistake in their press release. The editor Snowded has reduced my edit detailing these facts to a single sentence as the 6th sub section in a section entitled 'Changing focus'. I believe these criticisms should be recorded in a 'Controversy' or 'Criticism' section rather than a 'Changing focus' section. When scientists retract articles this is generally recorded in a controversy section (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haruko_Obokata). A high quality article should be easily navigable: readers have a reasonable expectation that they will quickly be able to find information that will help them decide whether the Hope not Hate campaign are a reliable source of factual information. I believe it is not the editor's place to make value judgements on whether an organisation is an unreliable source - the editor's role is to record facts from a neutral point of view. The facts are that a credible source has made technical criticisms of the Hope not Hate campaign's methodologies, which have been accepted by two UK newspapers. Disclaimer: I am an author of the Evolution AI report Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion on the talk page How do you think we can help? I would like my edits to be reinstated. Summary of dispute by SnowdedThe editor calling for this dispute has a commercial interest in promoting the story as his consultancy company was involved. He has not called for an RfC, he has not allowed any time to elapse to allow other editors to engage. He also appears to be a single purpose account, only one other edit some years ago. A waste of everyone's time and and I'm not engaging unless he gains some support on the talk page. ----Snowded TALK 11:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Doug_WellerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The editor suggested asking for a third opinion. I gave him one. His response was to come here instead of raising an RfC as was suggested. Perhaps he thinks the role of DRN is to make a conduct decision. In any case, I don't think this belongs here. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC) Talk:Hope not_Hate#New_controversy_section discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. Also, conduct allegations, such as sockpuppetry, are not within the purview of this noticeboard; consider SPI or ANI — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview This page has a correct and sourced edit regarding the four appearances of Hattie Jacques on Juke Box Jury. The BBC's archive is provided as the source and each entry is invididually, accurately sourced. Yet the editor Cassianto keeps removing the correct data and the sources to revert the page to an incorrect earlier edit. Cassianto used to be known as SchroCat and repeatedly made the reversion under that edit name too. I have attempted to ask them to stop this malicious editing, but they ignore it and continue to make incorrect adjustments to this page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have asked them to stop making the reversions How do you think we can help? Cassianto (and/or SchroCat) need someone else to intervene Summary of dispute by CassiantoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Hattie Jacques_on_stage,_radio,_screen_and_record discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|