Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 162 - 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 155 | ← | Archive 160 | Archive 161 | Archive 162 | Archive 163 | Archive 164 | Archive 165 |
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed as not discussed in the right place. There has been marginally adequate discussion on the user talk page, but there has not been discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Por amar sin ley, which is the required place for discussion prior to coming to this noticeboard. The requirement that discussion be on the article talk page and not on a user talk page may seem like a nitpick, but it has a reason, which is that an article talk page may also be watched by other editors who may choose to respond. Please discuss the content issues on the article talk page. If discussion on the article talk page is extensive and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2018 (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 The problem is the following, I proceeded to eliminate certain actors from the list "Special guest stars" of the article Por amar sin ley, since they are not notable actors and did not play an important role in the series, many only say three words and it is a lot, others only participate as additional actors. And because it's a telenovela and, obviously, it will have too many episodes, and in each episode several actors are credited as guest actors, this would make this list too long and it would be full of names of people that are not very well known, that even They did not play an important role in the telenovela. I spoke with Telenovelafan215 on its discussion page, but he does not seem to agree, and says that they should be included only because they are accredited in the opening topic. What I am trying to do is to see if there is any way of ignoring this, these names of these supposedly not remarkable actors or if on the contrary they should stay there. but being sincere it seems unnecessary to include so many names in that section, since the article itself will become a long list of names, as the episodes pass, more invited actors are included. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've asked Geraldo Perez for help, and then he mentioned this to me. How do you think we can help? Trying to avoid introducing names of non-notable actors in the list of invited actors. But I do not know if it would be right. Summary of dispute by Telenovelafan215Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User talk:Telenovelafan215#Por_amar_sin_ley 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 premature and poorly filed. This doesn't seem to be a content dispute in the usual sense as much as a vague complaint. The filing editor has apparently not tried to list the other editor correctly, which doesn't leave much hope that they will be able to participate in a case. Continue discussing at the article talk page. If there is extended inconclusive discussion, a properly filed case can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2018 (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 Please review recent edit summaries and the talk page for List of Christian rock bands. There are multiple problems with this article from secular artists being added (and their articles not claiming they are even Christian which doesn't automatically make them inclusive), to individual singers (solo acts) being added who are not credited as a band/group, to poor or no sourcing/cites, to basic errors with capitalization and punctuation or not correctly linking to related articles, to WG reverting productive edits yet blaming others for the mistakes, poor "definition" of what is considered Christian rock, to over-linking genres, etc. etc. Unsourced bands should be removed. It amounts to nothing more than an article of favorite bands/people even though they do not qualify. Thank you for your time. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page topic and edit fixes per summaries How do you think we can help? remove unsourced bands and individuals or secular bands not technically "Christian rock" Summary of dispute by walter gPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. List of Christian rock bands 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 Anonymous users with Belarusian and Polish IP addresses have been removing properly sourced information from the article about the Belarusian oligarch Vladimir Peftiev. From their language and actions they pretty much sound like Peftiev's PR people (just like the article itself very much looks like written by his biographers). The information being removed by the anonymous users has links to the following sources:
Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have been discussing with them on the Talk page but without any will to compromise from their side
How do you think we can help? Restore properly sourced information, block the article from editing - at least by anonymous users
Summary of dispute by 46.216.6.175Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 93.85.46.104Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 94.254.224.84Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Vladimir Peftiev 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 for a Manual of Style Request for Comments. Since the issue is stated as being a recurrent one about multiple rail lines and so multiple articles, this is best handled by a Request for Comments. If assistance is wanted in formulating a neutral Request for Comments, please ask on my talk page. Be civil with regard to the RFC. Disruption of the RFC may be reported at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2018 (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 The dispute is over the naming of pages about named railway lines - many railway lines, including all railway lines in Korea and Japan, are given names much like roads are named in Anglophone countries. Per the rules of English, all words in a proper name, such as "Sunset Boulevard", should be capitalised. However, there are some who are arguing that this is irrelevant, and that the WP MOS regarding capitalisation should trump the rules of English spelling... there are several hundred pages about named railway lines in the "XYZ Line" format, and instead of having this argument at every page, I think a dispute resolution is needed, because I don't think the two sides are ever going to come to an agreement on their own. For my part, I think the rules regarding the capitalisation of proper names should trump our (arbitrary!) style guides; those in favour of decapitalisation have thus far refused to even acknowledge the possibility that railway lines can be named as streets etc. are. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've tried to explain the fact, numerous times in numerous ways, that these names like "Jungang Line" are proper names in the same way that "Sunset Boulevard" is a proper name; these explanations have for the most part been ignored with "MOS" being cited as being more important than anything else. How do you think we can help? I think the only possibility for a resolution to happen here, and to avoid this argument being repeated every time a proposal is made to move a page (there are hundreds of pages about named railway lines), is for a decision to be made by people not already involved in the debate. Summary of dispute by SawolPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by feministPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by SMcCandlishPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by DicklyonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by DAJFPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by DekimasuPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by SmokeyJoePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Jungang line 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 |
|---|
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 1. Almost all of the tracks on the album Fantasma are named after existing bands (sourced) 2. One of them is called "The Micro Disneycal World Tour" (sourced in liner notes) 3. One of the album's contributors is Sean O'Hagan, who offered a remix of "The Micro Disneycal World Tour" (sourced in liner notes) 4. O'Hagan was a member of a group called Microdisney (sourced) If I try to add point #4 to the article, the other editor instantly removes it, calling it "original research". See this diff Have you tried to resolve this previously? none How do you think we can help? Determine: 1. whether it's original research to note a band that an individual musician hails from (with refs) 2. whether it's encyclopedic to note that O'Hagan was in a band called Microdisney, given the nature of the album's track titles Summary of dispute by 153.205.69.164Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Fantasma (Cornelius album)#Microdisney discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
| Closed. It is very hard to figure out what the editor is requesting. The editor doesn't have any discussion on their user talk page, and there doesn't seem to have been any discussion about Javier Bertucci. I don't see any evidence of a content dispute or conduct dispute in the English Wikipedia. There may be a dispute in the Spanish Wikipedia; I don't know Spanish and can't determine whether there is a problem. If there is a problem in the Spanish Wikipedia, use its dispute resolution procedures. If another volunteer knows enough Spanish to determine what the issue is, any help that they can give to the filing editor will be appreciated. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
– General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Edugraph on 15:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC). 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 Please read my page, Edugraph, for details. I feel that I'm being bullied by editors when talking about the Venezuelan president candidate Javier Bertucci. These user are involved in authoritative measures instead of embracing healthy logical discussions. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I wrote on my own page to start discussion. I tried to write in their pages, but they blocked me How do you think we can help? By bringing more editors that can argued logical arguments by reading the history of editing on my own page and recommend a solution. Summary of dispute by TaichiPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by AntoFranPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by tarawa1943Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by BernardPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario discusi%C3%B3n:Edugraph 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 Editor Surtsicna insists that Aleksa Šantić should be described as "Yugoslav poet". They justified their position and consequent edits with consensus reached at talkpage and wikipedia guidelines Multiple other editors, in fact all editors who participated in discussion at talkpage, disagreed with Surtsicna and describing Šantić as Yugoslav poet pointing that there is actually no consensus for their position (on the contrary) and that wikipedia guidelines actually do not support their position.
Discussion at talkpage and at talkpage of admin who blocked Surtsicna recently. How do you think we can help? I would appreciate if somebody uninvolved would be so kind to close discussion about the lede at above talkpage with conclusion if Surtsicna managed to gain consensus for their "Yugoslav poet" position and consequent edits or not. Summary of dispute by SurtsicnaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 23 editorPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by PonavljamSePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Aleksa Šantić discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderatorOkay. I will try to act as the moderator. Please read the rules and follow them. I haven't deep-dived into the history of this dispute; I expect the participants to explain the facts to me. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think needs to be done to improve the article, or alternatively what they think needs to be left as is in the article? The issue is only improvement of the article (or leaving it alone), not the other editors. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC) First statements by editorsThe first sentence is very important in every article. This article presents Aleksa Šantić as "Yugoslav poet". I think that multiple editors reached consensus that it is wrong and explained why on article talkpage. Therefore it is necessary to respect consensus and remove word "Yugoslav". The text of the first sentence should be grounded in wikipedia consensus, which is not the case with "Yugoslav" version..--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC) Second statement by moderatorIt is true that the first sentence, the lede, is important, and normally defined among other things the ethnicity or nationality of the subject. The nationality of Yugoslav didn't exist during his lifetime (only the pan-ethnic dream of unity of the South Slavs, a dream that he held). Should the lede describe him as a a Herzogivinian Serb poet? Either we can agree on some characterization of either his nationality or his ethnicity, or we can use a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC) Second statements by editorsUntil the consensus is reached what is correct characterization (trough RfC or some other way), it would be good to close discussion at article's talkpage and remove wrong characterization (Yugoslav).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Not within scope of this noticeboard. No dispute on English Wikipedia and, in addition, this is a conduct complaint and this noticeboard does not handle conduct complaints. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Edugraph on 12:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC). 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 Bullying case from a group in Wikipedia ES (Spanish) in editing articles related to the Venezuelan presidential candidate Javier Bertucci / And the Wikipedia ES does not have a Dispute resolution noticeboard Respectfully, I have to contact a Wikipedia administrator, because I noticed a bullying on Wikipedia ES. The pages involve are in Spanish, but I'm adding translations Link. Here was what I wrote to the user in his English Common page (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Taichi), he blocked me Spanish page and I couldn't talk in his Spanish page because he put in place restrictions such as blocking me or requesting more than 50 edits to edit in his page. Please read his discussion page that will direct you to the other pages with translations in English. I can explain more as you request it from me. Thanks Have you tried to resolve this previously? Emeal some members but they haven't answered How do you think we can help? To aneble a Dispute resolution noticeboard in Spanish http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario discusi%C3%B3n:Edugraph 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 due to lack of notice. The filing party has not notified the other parties of this filing 72 hours after filing here and 48 hours after being reminded of the need to notify the other editors. Resume discussion at the article talk page. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI or the edit-warring noticeboard. See WP:DISCFAIL if discussion fails. In the meantime, resume discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2018 (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 plot and cast/character details. P.S. If I have added too little info to start on then I am sorry about that. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We discussed this matter between the 26/2/2018 (Using day/month/year) and 8/3/2018 (likewise in the same format- no rudeness meant there) but since then we have not reached any further resolution than where things currently stand. I have tried to take into account the points of the others (notably 2668 bytes worth of disputed content was reduced to at most 683 bytes worth i.e. only 683 bytes worth of content is still being disputed) but as of the 12/3/2018 I am still confused of what is wrong. How do you think we can help? I understand that this is not a way to force anybody to do anything but if it could be encouraged but not compelled to get the other editors to explain what they are still concerned about where things currently stand, it would help greatly. If not at least get the opinions of others as to who is in the right which may help resolve the matter. P.S. Not trying to force the other editors to say that I am in the right here. Summary of dispute by DoniagoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by TheOldJacobitePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Fantastic Mr._Fox_(film)#Cast_and_plot 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 premature. Each editor has commented once on the article talk page. That is hardly enough of an effort to resolve any content issues by discussion. Please resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. If an editor edits without discussing, see WP:DISCFAIL. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI or the edit-warring noticeboard. Resume discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2018 (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 An editor 1292simon revised the landaulet page creating a number of careless errors. While they have been fixed this editor is anxious to have landaulet (in its true form, the carriage) covered on the landau page instead of on the landaulet page because he/she wishes it. While it is true there is a clear link between landau and landaulet just a link is all that is necessary on the landau page. However as an inclusionist (and wishing to 'lower the temperature') I have not removed 1292simon's insert. Landaulet carriages used a body-style transferred (briefly) to motor vehicles. The carriage form of landaulet is more notable than the car form which had died a natural death by the end of the 1920s except for occasional parade vehicles for heads of state (now disused). A landaulet is a landaulet and should be covered on the page named landaulet, particularly when it is the more notable horse-drawn not motorised form. 1292simon seems not to recognise this. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page How do you think we can help? Don't know unless it is to explain to 1292simon that the subject landaulet should be covered in the article landaulet. Summary of dispute by 1292simonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Landaulet 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 now pending at WP:ANI. I have offered my opinion both there and here that it is inappropriate for paid editors to complain that User:Spintendo is not sufficiently diligent in servicing their edit requests or is spending too much time actually researching the requests, and that in general paid editors should not complain about the quality of the service that they get from volunteer editors. However, we will let the matter be resolved at WP:ANI. Once it is resolved at WP:ANI, resume discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2018 (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 Spintendo and I are in disagreement over the appropriate use of a staff writer's article from Forbes magazine and potential information to include in the History at Broadridge Financial Solutions. Our discussion has focused on a question over how the author of the Forbes article discusses moves by ADP (the company that Broadridge was a division of before its spin-off in 2007) that ultimately led to the creation of Broadridge. Part of Spintendo's concerns appear to be around what is considered WP:OR on Wikipedia, and whether this journalist's work is OR and therefore needs additional sourcing from the time of the events within ADP. My take is that an in-depth retrospective journalistic article about the company is a good source and supports inclusion of details about the formation of the company, prior to its spin-off. Spintendo's take (as I understand it) is that sourcing from the time is needed to show that the developments within ADP are important for Broadridge. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I asked editors on WikiProject Companies for their insight. Editors AmericanAir88 and Whoisjohngalt both replied they have used Forbes as a reference with no issues. Both also said that historical information can be used in company articles to provide the reader with background. How do you think we can help? Additional voices are needed to help Spintendo and I come to an agreement on how to proceed, especially thoughts from editors who can clarify what counts as OR and what sort of information is appropriate to include for a company history when that company was formed as part of another then spun off. Summary of dispute by SpintendoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I'm sorry for including all of that information in my comments, but it was important for others to see the breadth of what is being asked to be placed in the article, an article about Broadridge. Note that no less than eight events are desired to be added to Broadridge's article, all events which took place before Broadridge became an independent company. Forbes' counterfactuals notwithstanding, these events occurred in the ADP era, and there already exists a Wikipedia article for ADP. Spintendo 23:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC) Talk:Broadridge Financial_Solutions#Revised_edit_request:_History discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
In the complicated times in which we live it is sometimes necessary to go back way before a company is formally created to get the true history of the company.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Spintendo: What I meant is that accuracy requires a ton of outside research in order to prevent "Original Research". The history of a company can be hard to find an accurate reading on. You need to find sources, then build off them to prove their accuracy. AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
First statement by moderatorOkay. I will see what I can do. Please read the rules and follow them. Be civil and concise. I do not know much about the dispute, and I do not plan to do a lot of research. I expect the editors to provide me with all the details that I need. Comment on content, not contributors. Can each editor tell me, in no more than two paragraphs, what the issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC) I am re-opening this case as requested. I expect the editors to state, in no more than two paragraphs, what the issues are, within 36 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC) First statements by editorsHere's the easiest way I can describe the dispute: I have been proposing changes on the Talk page and not editing directly, because I have a financial COI with this company. Spintendo has been the most active responder. I proposed a new History section for this article, citing a Forbes magazine article (written by a staff journalist) that explains how Broadridge was formerly the proxy services division of ADP, and which recounts some important events that led to the spinoff in 2007. It's fairly straightforward, well-sourced, non-promotional information. The section as I have most recently proposed it can be found here. Only Spintendo can say why they do not believe it should be accepted. I do not understand why they have insisted the Forbes article is WP:OR, I do not understand why they have asked for WP:PRIMARY sources from the time of the events in question, and I cannot make sense of their interpretation of Wikipedia's content guidelines, even after many rounds of going back and forth on the discussion page. At least one other editor on the page agreed with me that the source was useful, but did not take action. Because I do not edit pages where I have a financial conflict of interest, and Spintendo was unwilling to change his mind, this process has stalled. The opinion of an uninvolved editor is badly needed. Danilo Two (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC) From 1962 to 2007, ADP Securities Brokerage Services Group was a part of ADP, and any claims to its activities before 2007 belong in the article on ADP. The timeline here is what should determine claims made in the article, because the timeline is unambiguous. Let's say I work at a company. The work that I perform there, is performed in the name of the company. I have less of a right to ownership of that work than the company does. If I work for ADP and am paid by ADP, then my work product is "ADP-ian" in nature, because that is work which I did while in their employment. If I decide to branch out on my own years later, am I entitled to revist history, and claim that the work I performed years earlier under ADP is and always was "Spintend-ian" in nature? That is the crux of what is being said here. The claim is that the events which occurred under ADP were so Broadridgian in nature that Broadridge — which did not become a company until 2007 — should now have claim to those activities, though these events occurred before the company was created. This is supposedly sourced by the Forbes article — and the author does use the term Broadridge exclusively in the article. But one must understand why those words were used. One explanation is that Forbes was using those terms because they know that the work performed in 1992 was so Broadridgian in nature, that they should now claim that work as their own. This would be work that the Forbes author did not witness, making it ultimately a hypothesis which exists only in the mind of the Forbes author. Another explanation is that the author used the term because it was semantically convenient, lessening the possible confusion for readers who may not be entirely aware of the period as having been under ADP. It certainly goes without saying that it would benefit Broadridge to suggest that interpretation to the Forbes author during their interview. Which possibility is the truth, the article does not specify. If, 20 years from now, Broadridge sells a part of itself to the Tyler company, does the Tyler company get to claim work done in 1992? How long does the aggrandizement continue for, or is there a cutoff point? Sadly, the Forbes article doesn't specify that, either. Spintendo 02:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC) Second statement by moderatorI must admit that I am getting a little confused by the level of intricacy of the argument over whether a Forbes article is OR and whose history belongs where. I wonder if we are getting bogged down in incidental reasons and losing sight of the issue of what should be the article content. Can each editor please specify, in no more than two paragraphs, what they think is the article content issue? The question should be how to improve the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC) Second statements by editorsIn short, multiple sources (of which Forbes is the most detailed, but there's also this 2012 story from The Globe and Mail and this 2007 story from Securities Industry News) document the origins of Broadridge Financial Solutions as a division of ADP, and the Wikipedia article currently lacks detail on this. Adding in a brief overview of how the company began as part of ADP would fill in some encyclopedic background on the company’s history. The present company did not just pop into existence in 2007, but developed from steps taken by leadership (mainly the same individual, the now-CEO of Broadridge) while the business was still a division of ADP. Danilo Two (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC) Placing the information in Broadridge's article fills it with the aggrandized-encyclopedic information of a different company from a different era. The Forbes article documents activities concerning ADP Securities Brokerage Services Group. Broadridge became a company in 2007. Their NYSE ticker symbol, BR, was instituted in 2007. Any information regarding ADP belongs in the ADP article. Spintendo 03:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Third statement by moderatorI may have wasted the time of the volunteer editor, User:Spintendo, by trying to mediate this. On further reflection, I see that Wikipedia policies and guidelines create an awkward situation with regard to paid editors, by allowing paid editors to request edits to articles, so that then the paid editors may think that they have a right to have their requests granted, when in fact the volunteer editors who act on the requests are providing a voluntary service, and it is not appropriate for the paid editors either to ask that the first volunteer editor do more, or to ask that a second volunteer editor mediate. User:Danilo Two is asking User:Spintendo to edit the article on their behalf. Spintendo has no obligation, and does not assume any obligation by providing a service, and, if they decide that they have done enough, they have done enough. It is true that this places the paid editor in a disfavored position. That is exactly what is intended. Paid editors are being done a service by being allowed to make edit requests, and should not complain when the volunteer editors stop dancing to the music. I will leave this open for comments, but this noticeboard should not be used as a way for paid editors to re-litigate edit requests that they have made that have not been fully serviced. They do not have a right to have their requests fully serviced, only a right to make requests. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Third statements by editors
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed as also pending at another forum, WP:ANI. I have said both there and here that I do not think it is appropriate for paid editors to complain that a volunteer editor, User:Spintendo, is not providing them with the service that they are requesting on their requested edits. However, we will let that issue be resolved at WP:ANI. After that issue is resolved there, resume discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2018 (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 I've been working to improve the Iteris article on behalf of the company, disclosing COI appropriately and not editing the article directly, working via talk page suggestions + edit requests to implement changes.
I have proposed replacing unsourced content with an overview of the company's products/services, including brief descriptions of specific projects that have received coverage in reputable secondary sources. Spintendo's response to my initial request asked for a long list of edits going well beyond what is needed to satisfy content guidelines. After I had made these edits, they replied with confounding new criticisms, and now have done so a third time. After responding carefully and trying my best to address Spintendo's feedback, they have only added a couple of bullet points about the products/services, without explaining why they have ignored the rest. (I've noted to Spintendo bullet points are not preferred according to the MoS.)
In short: I'm simply trying to expand and improve the existing article with appropriately sourced and neutral facts, but Spintendo keeps responding with increasingly complex reasons (with no references to any guidelines) why they will not accept it. I think a healthy skepticism about COI/paid editing is appropriate, but in this case, my requests to add simple facts are not being taken seriously. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've tried rewording content and explaining how my proposed additions follow content guidelines, without success. I have reached out to WikiProject Transport and WikiProject Agriculture to look for editors with knowledge of the topic area, but none have weighed in. (I suspect they are put off by the lengthy and confusing replies.) How do you think we can help? I would like a volunteer to review my suggestions and Spintendo's feedback and offer a clear way forward. I have a very successful history of working w/ editors to improve articles, but no progress is being made here. My goal is still for my proposed updates and improvements to be implemented as appropriate. Summary of dispute by SpintendoThe edit requests that the editor opposite has had to submit are numerous because there are several different layers of approval which must take place. There is not one guideline, but many. If the information fits past one guideline, that doesn't necessarily mean it will fit past the next guideline, and so on and so forth. The editor opposite has taken this to mean "stonewalling" but I'm not the one who built the wall, I'm only the one who ensures that everyone equitably crosses it. The individual arguments for each request submitted by the editor opposite are well documented by numerous back and forth discussions, too many to list here and be placed under the text limiter. The reviewing editor will have to roll up their sleeves and dive into the diffs to see individual reasons. I stand ready to address questions over individual requests, if need be. Regards, Spintendo 03:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC) Talk:Iteris 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 |
|---|
Filed by 146.198.36.221 on 23:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC). 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 Left wing bias and false accusations on Gavin Williamson article, I removed them, the user in question then made false comments and and reverted my edit, I then told him I would seek third party resolution, and he then said I made a legal threat(to which I did not) I am the second person to say the Gavin Williamson article is bias, therefore please could you investigate. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried to agree a third party resolution to it, but the user money emoji got threatening and abusive. How do you think we can help? Look at the article, and read the article talk page, several concerns of bias. I fail to see how an MP's voting history is relevant to Wikipedia. Summary of dispute by Money emokiFirst of all, my name in Money Emoji. Second of all, I have no "Left wing bias"; I just reverted an edit where the above ip removed a large part of the article, which was entirely reliably sourced with stuff from The Independent and The Guardian, without a consensus. Third of all, the user repeatedly said that he was going to resolve this with a third party, which seemed like a leagel threat to me; I didn't realise he was talking about this place. Fourth of all, I'm American and have no bias when it comes to British politics. Fifth of all, The "False accusations" was me using the wrong twinkle template after I reverted the initial edit, accidentally saying that he provided no edit summary to his reversion; I meant to say that he didn't provide a legit reason for taking away so much from the article. Everything this ip has claimed is untrue or nonsensical exaggerations. This is frivolous, please dismiss; I have no prejudice against this editor. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 01:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC) User talk:Money_emoji 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 |
|---|
Filed by AldezD on 01:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC). 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 Udar55 is adding lists of celebrity guests who appeared on a daily television game show which aired over 1,000 episodes. The source for the list is a site that does not meet WP:V guidelines. Additionally, guidelines in WP:GNG and specifically WP:EPISODE address why a list like this is not appropriate for inclusion either as a stand-alone episode list article nor within a section of a television article. The content violates WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTCRUFT. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I posted both on the user's talk page and the article page links to WP guidelines why this content is not appropriate for inclusion. Following additional discussion at WP:AN3, I am submitting a request for additional feedback here. How do you think we can help? Provide determination of source presented as it relates to WP:V. Offer advice regarding list of episodes added as it relates to WP:GNG and WP:EPISODE. Offer advice regarding argument that this content does/does not violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTCRUFT. Summary of dispute by Udar55Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Tattletales#Episode lists 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 for lack of interest. The other two editors do not appear to be interested in discussion here, and discussion here is voluntary. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If an editor edits without discussing, see WP:DISCFAIL. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2018 (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 plot and cast/character details. P.S. If I have added too little info to start on then I am sorry about that. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We discussed this matter between the 26/2/2018 (Using day/month/year) and 8/3/2018 (likewise in the same format- no rudeness meant there) but since then we have not reached any further resolution than where things currently stand. I have tried to take into account the points of the others (notably 2668 bytes worth of disputed content was reduced to at most 683 bytes worth i.e. only 683 bytes worth of content is still being disputed) but as of the 12/3/2018 I am still confused of what is wrong. How do you think we can help? I understand that this is not a way to force anybody to do anything but if it could be encouraged but not compelled to get the other editors to explain what they are still concerned about where things currently stand, it would help greatly. If not at least get the opinions of others as to who is in the right which may help resolve the matter. P.S. Not trying to force the other editors to say that I am in the right here. Summary of dispute by DoniagoNot much for me to say here. ArchAngel made changes to the Plot section that I didn't feel were improvements. TOJ agreed with me on that. No other editor expressed an opinion to the contrary, and despite some effort by me to discuss why the edits weren't improvements AA continued to express confusion and potential WP:IDHT problems, and thus we find ourselves here. DonIago (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by TheOldJacobiteI have nothing to add to what Doniago said above, except to ask why I'm here. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC) Talk:Fantastic Mr._Fox_(film)#Cast_and_plot 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.
| Futile. One responding editor has stated on his/her user talk page that s/he does not care to participate and there's been no response by the other RE though they've edited extensively since receiving notice. No one is required to participate in moderated content dispute resolution if they do not care to do so. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Sharkslayer87 on 22:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC). 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 The Raju article doesn't reflect reality. It has a lot of non factual stuff. I am ready to provide evidence that conforms to wikipedia standards. I also admit that I didn't follow wikipedia rules initially as I was new to Wiki. I am in the process of learning wiki rules and I apologize for all the mistakes I did. I am willing to provide good sources and involve in civil discussions with the admins and work towards changing the content of the article so that it will reflect reality. I started a new section and requested a response but nobody has responded which is really painful. I promise that I will involve in a civil discussion and will provide sources that conform to wiki standards. All I need is responses from admins related to that page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I requested Sitush to respond but he/she hasn't bothered to reply to me. How do you think we can help? I request a response from unbiased wiki admins with a neutral point of view so that I can involve in a civil and meaningful discussion and explain to them the inconsistencies and mistakes in the present article and correct it so that it will reflect reality instead of some admin's personal POV. I beg you to give me this opportunity. I once again apologize for any mistakes that I might have committed uknowingly. Summary of dispute by SitushPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Kautilya3Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Raju 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. One of the editors, Soupforone, has declined to take part in dispute resolution, which is voluntary. The filing editor has failed to notify the editors. Please resume discussion at the article talk page. If discussion is unsuccessful, please see WP:DISCFAIL. Also see the note to the effect that this noticeboard is not staffed by administrators and does not adjudicate content disputes. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2018 (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 There have been previous concerns in the talk page archives about this article; namely that: a) Information about the diversity of sub-Saharan African people is missing. The consensus found here [1] at the infobox supports this. b) The article is entirely focused on the "slavery" narrative. See [2] In this regard, I attempted to clean up and rationalize the entry viz adding new material and merging some text into the appropriate category. I also attempted to insert images of Bandar bin Sultan, Ivan Gannibal and Raphael Hadane in the appropriate section. -The edits were reversed by an editor. There is prima facie evidence of WP:TAGTEAM with the other editor here [3] -There is prima facie evidence of an editor attempting to delete previous consensus unilaterally and attempting to subvert the process of consensus here [4] --Citations from the University of Alabama [5]and Pulitzer Prize winner Jared Diamond [6] have been dismissed by an editor as "Afrocentric". Have you tried to resolve this previously? -Extensive discussion on the talk page has not resolved the issues. -I filed a mediation request which was rejected because the aforementioned editors refuse to accept mediation. There are elements of WP:OWN and WP:TE as evidenced in the talk page.[7] How do you think we can help? I request administrators to consider and adjudicate / decide on the following questions:- 1. Should the article be balanced with more information about black people other than slavery? 2. Should photos of Bandar bin Sultan, Ivan Gannibal and Raphael Hadane be added to the appropriate sections of the article? 3. Should the article have more information on the diversity of peoples within Africa, e.g. Khoisan, Bantu, Pygmy, etc? Summary of dispute by SoupforonePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. (a) The regions in Africa where a "black" social construct exists are already discussed. There was also no consensus for the phrase on "Khoisan...", which was actually appended without discussion back in 2007 [8]. (b) As noted on African diaspora, slavery was the primary mechanism through which most of the global "black" populations dispersed. The files of Prince Bandar, Raphael Hadane and Ivan Gannibal are inappropriate since they are not examples of the "black" social construct in their respective global regions. Bandar is instead officially recognized in his native Saudi Arabia as ethnically Arab [9] [10], Raphael Hadane is likewise officially classified in Israel as an ethnic Jew as per the 1973 Law of Return [11], and Gannibal's ethnic origins are unknown [12]. The claim of "tag-teaming" is unfortunate and untrue given that WP:APPNOTE specifically allows messages "on the user talk pages of concerned editors[...] who have made substantial edits to the topic or article", such as Jamie Tubers and myself. As explained above, there was also no established consensus for that "Khoisan..." phrase in the first place. Additionally, the claim that the Jared Diamond url was dismissed as Afrocentric is false; neither I nor Jamie Tubers even mentioned Diamond. On the other hand, the Journal of Black Studies is indeed an advocacy publication, whose founding editor is the Afrocentric writer Molefi Kete Asante ("The department also serves as home to several Afro-American Studies/Afrocentric journals: The Journal of Black Studies, edited by Asante" [13]). Such publications are not considered reliable because they are Template:Partisan sources (ex. [14]). Discussion on the talk page is ongoing and actually has not been extensive, which is partly why I declined the earlier voluntary mediation attempt. This voluntary dispute resolution process is for the same reason superfluous. WP:CIVilized dialogue should instead continue on the talk page until it naturally reaches its conclusion. Soupforone (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Jamie TubersPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Black people 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 Robert's Rules of Order is a parliamentary authority which has a history going back to Gen. Henry Robert in 1876. As such the copyright has long since lapsed and there are numerous current versions. One version claims without foundation to be the official version of this public domain work, which has no official version, and has made the entire article about this one version, referring to the other works only to briefly denigrate them, while frequently parroting in the article their unsubstantiated claim to official status. This seems quite contrary to the Wikipedia ethic of neutrality and balance. Have you tried to resolve this previously? This is my first action to appeal the matter after some reverted edits. How do you think we can help? There is a commercial interest involved here and based on my experience in discussing the matter on the Talk page it doesn't seem that RONRuser is interested in compromise. I think ultimately it will need to be adjudicated. Summary of dispute by KlundarrPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by RonruserRobert's Rules of Order is a book on parliamentary procedure. Henry Robert wrote the original book and then later revised it several times. After his death, his family took over his work and published further revisions. The latest edition of this series of revisions is stated as the official edition. Independent experts on parliamentary procedure have stated that this edition is the official version of Robert's Rules. Ronruser (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC) Talk:Robert%27s Rules_of_Order discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer's note: There's been plenty of talk page discussion, but it's the filing editor's obligation to notify the other parties on their user talk pages. A note just on the article talk page will not suffice. At the time of filing, the filing editor was IP-only (2604:2000:1481:C1D1:1C66:3ABF:A680:B0AE at the time of filing), but has now registered the account noted above. This request will be closed if no notices are given within 48 hours after this note; see the top of the page here for a template which can be used for that purpose. I am not either "taking" or opening this filing for discussion, other than filling in the sections above, at this time. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC) >> Thanks for your assistance. I have placed notices on the user talk pages as requested. Sakuranohi (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Sakuranohi
>> I've made proposals. I haven't heard any indication of compromise from the other editor. If there is no movement I will move to the COIN noticeboard. I'll give it a couple of days. Sakuranohi (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
As for the suggestion of conflict of interest, I am a layman with no involvement with the Robert's Rules Association. My username was chosen based on that I have read the RONR book and have found it to be a useful source of information on parliamentary procedure. Ronruser (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC) >> I suggest you find your additional sources. The multitude of alternate publications speaks volumes, and your citations are few. - Sakuranohi2604:2000:1481:C1D1:F19A:4807:D0E7:8963 (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC) And once again, I request providing sources which support your argument. No such sources have been provided. Ronruser (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC) First statement by volunteerOkay. I will try to work with the editors. Please read my standard rules. Please do not engage in back-and-forth discussion with each other; that already has been tried, and merely results in more back-and-forth. Be civil and concise. Now: It appears that one user says that "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised", which is maintained by an organization, is considered by various authorities to be official or authoritative. I would like each editor to state, in one paragraph, what the issue is. Wikipedia relies on what reliable sources have written. Will each editor please state, concisely, what they think the issue is? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC) First statements by editorsRobert’s Rules of Order is a set of parliamentary rules first published by Henry Robert in 1876. There were two revisions in his lifetime. All three of these publications are out of copyright and in the public domain. As such, there have been numerous revised versions, including by his grandson and his associates who claim to publish the “official” version, “Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th Edition” (RONR). Among the other versions of Robert’s Rules of Order, in addition to the publications by General Robert which are still widely sold, there are “Robert's Rules of Order - Masonic Edition”, “The New Robert’s Rules of Order”, “Robert’s Rules in Plain English”, “Webster's New World Robert's Rules of Order Simplified and Applied”, and “Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised in Brief” (from the same publishers as “Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised”). Robert’s Rules of Order properly applies to all of these books, most particularly to the original editions from Gen. Robert (who btw retired as Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers). While RONR may be the most prominent and for many people the most authoritative modern update, since the original text is public domain, there is no such thing as an “official” version. The article about Robert’s Rules of Order tries to suggest that RONR is the only legitimate version, and denigrates and doesn’t even individually mention the other publications, going so far as to state right at the top of the article that RONR is synonymous with Robert’s Rules of Order. The article heavily uses the word “official” to try to buttress the claim, and makes reference to the “official” website etc. Because RONR is a respected publication, there are a couple of neutral parties (among the large number who cite the publication) who have signed on to the claim of “official” status pushed by the publishers. The only legitimate such claim is that it is the official version of RONR, not Robert's Rules. This theme is propagated in many other wikipedia articles with contributions from Ronruser, which cite Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised but only link the Robert’s Rules of Order part of the name, showing the consciousness of the editor that the two are not, in fact, synonymous. Sakuranohi (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Second statement by moderatorI asked the editors to be concise. One was. Just a comment. I will point out that there is a legal reason why it may be important to know what is the official version of Robert's Rules of Order. Disputes between two factions in a (usually non-profit) corporation, both claiming control of the organization's property, are not uncommon, and sometimes have to be decided by courts. If, as is usually the case, the organization's bylaws state that Robert's Rules of Order is the parliamentary authority, that determines whether action that was taken, such as to sell the property, or to fire the officers and appoint new officers, was legally valid. So it is important to have an official version of Robert's Rules of Order. Now, will each editor please explain how their view on this content dispute relates to the occasional need to know what is the official version of Robert's Rules of Order?: Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC) Second statements by editorsSince there is an official version of the book, the Wikipedia article should state so. Having some of the content of the article based on the official version seems to be reasonable. Ronruser (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC) >> The need for a formally designated version of Robert's Rules is addressed by the Robert's Rules Association, editors of RONR, here: http://www.robertsrules.com/authority.html. Calling for "Robert's Rules" is insufficient specificity when there are so many versions, which is why an authority such as RONR must be specifically adopted. The Wikipedia article doesn't address the need for a specific authority to be officially adopted, confusing Robert's Rules with RONR, a mistake the RRA website doesn't make. Sakuranohi (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC) Third statement by moderatorIt looks as though the above statement about the need to specify a particular version of the parliamentary authority almost resolves the question. Do we agree then that the Wikipedia article should acknowledge that there are multiple books that are called Robert's Rules, just like there are multiple dictionaries that are called Webster's, and that it is important to specify a particular version (just like specifying a particular dictionary)? Can we focus on how to word that clarification of the need for precision? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC) Third statements by editorsI am comfortable with this statement: "The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is considered to be the authoritative work on Robert's Rules according to professional parliamentarians, the American Institute of Parliamentarians, the National Association of Parliamentarians, and the Robert's Rules Association." I think the article should retain the essence of this statement. Ronruser (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC) >> I don't think the Robert's Rules Association should be a source of authority for its own book. But I think Ronruser's proposed text can be worked with, and appreciate the willingness to compromise. I expect we still disagree on how to characterize other works and how to place RONR in context with them, but one step at a time. With verifiable citations, I would be comfortable with "The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is considered to be the most authoritative work on Robert's Rules, according to the American Institute of Parliamentarians and the National Association of Parliamentarians." (I haven't seen the appropriate citation from the AIP, and would want to review the citation from NAP but I think it's sufficient to support the NAP claim). If supported by strong enough citations from both organizations I could be persuaded to drop the word "most". -- Sakuranohi 2604:2000:1481:C1D1:A4FE:7FD2:9CBE:9B0C (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC) >> I think this statement is supportable based on the provided reference: "The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is the most widely used reference for Robert's Rules." http://www.parliamentarians.org/about/faq/ Sakuranohi (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderatorAre the editors willing to agree to either the Ronruser wording or the Sakuranohi wording? Is there an even more middle wording that can be used? Fourth statements by editorsTo find better wording, I want to look at what the sources have said: 1. http://www.jimslaughter.com/roberts-rules-of-order.cfm As noted on the website, the article is excerpted from the following book: 2. https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Parliamentary-Procedure-Fast-Track/dp/161564220X/ref=sr_1_11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1521870365&sr=1-11&keywords=parliamentary+procedure The excerpt containing a statement on the book could be found on page 3. 3. http://www.dummies.com/careers/business-skills/what-are-roberts-rules-of-order/ The author of this article also wrote the "For Dummies" book: 4. https://www.amazon.com/Roberts-Rules-Dummies-Alan-Jennings/dp/1119241715/ref=pd_sbs_14_3?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1119241715&pd_rd_r=NFR0A09FS3NYK3JDEYCH&pd_rd_w=3BFd7&pd_rd_wg=WToWN&psc=1&refRID=NFR0A09FS3NYK3JDEYCH On page 2, the author makes a strong statement about the book. 5. https://www.nancysylvester.com/articles-scripts and the article, "The New Version of Robert's and Why You Should Care", which is a link to this: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/671d4f_2d064ad497c94168abca4131f8803ab3.pdf In addition, there are professional parliamentarians who have made RONR synonymous with Robert's Rules of Order: see page 6 of this issue (https://issuu.com/parliamentarians/docs/nap_np_76-3-d) of the magazine from the National Association of Parliamentarians. Looking through the available issues, Robert's Rules is referred to exclusive as RONR. Also, the American Institute of Parliamentarians mentions "Roberts" and then lists "Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised": https://aipparl.org/member-benefits/ . I think what I wrote earlier is a fair statement given these sources. Ronruser (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Starting with #5, the author states that "If the bylaws of an organization state that the organization’s parliamentary authority is “the current edition of” Robert’s, then the 11th edition is now that organization’s parliamentary authority." This is really bad information. As the previously discussed RobertsRules.com page makes clear, the authority should be indicated as the "current edition of RONR" since there are multiple versions of Robert's Rules. Claiming clarity where it doesn't exist reflects badly on the author and is potentially harmful to anyone relying on the claim. The author of Dummies states "The Robert’s Rules Association, the National Association of Parliamentarians, and the American Institute of Parliamentarians recognize Robert‘s Rules of Order Newly Revised as the authoritative work on parliamentary procedure whenever Robert’s Rules is designated as the parliamentary authority." This statement at least doesn't go so far as to make the wrong claim that Sylvester makes, but it's bad form to quote the RRA as an authority on their own book, and the other claims are not supported. Again, if you provide actual support from the NAP and AIP for this claim, I won't object to using it, but please provide a direct source. Slaughter, your first author, claims official status for RONR, while the RRA properly states that RONR has to be specifically cited as an organization's authority (implicitly acknowledging that the claimed "official status" lacks practical meaning). If you can produce a strong statement from the NAP and/or the AIP it would be very helpful. In my view, two of these authors make claims that are unsupportable, while the third (Jennings) is unsupported. Sakuranohi (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC) >> I want to find language that properly recognizes the important status of RONR. The language I proposed was adapted from NAP. Sakuranohi (talk) 05:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderatorThe above statement is lengthy. Please be concise. Will each editor please provide one or more statements that they consider satisfactory, without any explanatory language? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Fifth statements by editorsHighly qualified experts in parliamentary procedure regard the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised to be the authoritative work on Robert's Rules. Ronruser (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC) >> "The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is the most widely used reference for Robert's Rules." Sakuranohi (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC) >> "The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is the most widely used Robert's Rules authority." Sakuranohi (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC) Sixth statement by moderatorIt was already noted above that sometimes it is important to know which version is considered authoritative. Will either editor agree to any of the other wordings? If not, the answer is a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Sixth statements by editorsI am willing to combine our statements: The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is regarded by experts to be the authoritative work on Robert's Rules and the most widely used reference on parliamentary procedure. Ronruser (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC) >> The authoritative version is the one which is adopted by the assembly, according to General Robert himself, according to RONR, and according to the RRA. RONR is a well-regarded work, but it is not the only respected update to Gen Robert's work. It is one version of Robert's Rules among many: Robert's Rules of Order, the Modern Edition, for example. We should find language that provides due respect to the other works. It seems that Request for Comments is the appropriate next step.Sakuranohi (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC) >>How about this: The original works by Henry Robert are now in the public domain. There are many updated versions of Robert's Rules, most having been composed to provide a briefer and more accessible manual of rules. The current edition of RONR, a work of over 700 pages published by Robert's grandson and associates, is widely considered to be the most authoritative version.Sakuranohi (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Seventh statement by moderatorSince it appears that the editors won't agree on a single compromise wording, we will use a Request for Comments. Each editor will provide their own wording, and then we will go from there. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC) Seventh statements by editorsThe current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is regarded by experts to be the authoritative work on Robert's Rules. Ronruser (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC) >> The original works by Henry Robert are now in the public domain, and remain in use. There are a number of updated versions of Robert's Rules, including Robert's Rules of Order Modern Edition and Robert's Rules of Order in Plain English, which have been composed to provide a more accessible manual of meeting rules. The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, a reference work of over 700 pages, is widely considered to be the most authoritative version, but draws criticism for being difficult to use. All sources agree that adoption of a specific chosen authority for meeting rules should be formalized by the organization using them. Sakuranohi (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
|
Dispute resolved successfully. 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 IP and another user wants the line however this is contested by the songwriter Ray Heffernan, who claims he wrote a significant portion of the song himself. removed from the article. Myself and Jonie148 think it should stay as it is the lead and covers the section in the actual article that talks about the dispute in writing credits as per MOS:INTRO. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page is only bit. I did leave a message on Ritchie333 page as I made a mistake thinking IP and MAXXII12 maybe the same person as MAXXII12 was banned. Ritchie333 has protected the page in the mean time How do you think we can help? Decide if the sentence should be in the article. Summary of dispute by MAXXII12Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 124.106.139.19The content regarding the dispute over who actually wrote the song is not very notable, and consists mainly of some "he said, she said" claims. As such, it is not notable or reliable enough to be on the lede. There has been no legal action regarding this situation and no proof offered by any of the involved parties. All we have to go on are the official writing credits. If you look at the Stairway to Heaven article (a song that actually had a court case over copyright claims) there is no mention of these claims in the lede, despite the media attention to the court case and it being a far more notable song. We can't give content the prominence of being in the lede, every time someone makes an unsubstantiated claim - it's a borderline BRD issue, it's undue weight. If at some time in the future, there is a court case that decides someone other than the officially credited writers wrote the song, then it might deserve to be in the lede. Until such time there is no need for anything more than a sentence or two later in the article. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Talk:Angels (Robbie_Williams_song)#Writers_for_the_song discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderatorI will try to act as the moderator for this dispute. Please read the ground rules and follow the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content only, not contributors. Now, will each editor please state, in no more than two paragraphs, what they think the issues are? I do not have any particular knowledge of the subject matter and do not intend to research it. I expect the editors to provide me with any background information that I need. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC) First statements by editorsThanks for agreeing to mediate this dispute Robert McClenon, I can see from having watched this page for a few days that you have a large workload. As stated above, I believe the current article lead (which reflects the fact the song's authorship is disputed) accurately summarizes the sourced content in the 'Writers' section of the page. The page has been subject to drive-by deletions of this consensus and well-sourced material for years now, with the parties who seek the deletion of the content usually being unwilling to engage in discussion. In my opinion, another relevant piece of background information is that Robbie Williams gave a recent interview corroborating that Ray Heffernan was involved in the song's writing process. Please see goo.gl/gkGcPS to watch the relevant section of the interview. Finally, would you mind notifying the other involved editors that this discussion has now been opened please? I would do this myself, but I don't want to open myself to accusations of playing the system, etc. --Jonie148 (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Second statement by moderatorIt appears that the real question is whether to leave the sentence in the lede paragraph that says that the authorship of the song is contested. Are there any other content issues? An interview on an unreliable video source is, well, unreliable. Interviews are normally not considered reliable secondary sources anyway. Is any editor willing to propose a compromise? (I don't know what one would be.) Also, are all of the editors willing to submit to a Request for Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC) If the contested authorship is well-sourced, and it appears to be, then it seems that those who want to delete that material need to provide a policy-based reason for the deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC) Second statements by editorsIt does seem the most deleted part of the dispute is about taking it out of the lede. My feeling is the dispute is still well sourced in the article and the lede is suppose to be summarising the article then this is part of it. I'm not sure really what a compromise here would be, as it says officially says who are credited with the writing and its just that it is disputed by someone else. Then you can go into this further in the article writers section. I'm happy for a request for comment to be submitted. NZFC(talk) 05:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Ditto. Although the editors who were contesting the need for the sentence in the lead seem to have decided not to engage in the mediated aspect of this discussion, I feel like an RfC would help to more firmly establish consensus. --Jonie148 (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Third statement by moderatorIt appears that there is agreement that a Request for Comments will be used concerning including a statement about the question about authorship in the lede. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC) Third statements by editorsYes I'm happy with a RfC on the articles talk page. Doesn't appear that the other two users that disagreed with the lede are participating in this discussion but I'd like to get a clear consensus either way so in future we can avoid the content warring on the page. NZFC(talk) 00:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
|
– 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 I think the first table in this article should have initial alphabetic sorting, which according to Help:Sorting#Initial alphabetical sort versus initial sort by rank order seems to be the preferred way of sorting. But the user Fylindfotberserk says that the initial sort should be according to the date in which the research study pertaining to each row was published. I do not understand how sorting it according to the study's published date could be helpful to any reader. Fylindfotberserk gave many arguments but I don't understand how any of them makes sorting it by the article date more beneficial than initial alphabetic sorting, whereas initial alphabetic sorting has various benefits: (i) if the reader doesn't know to sort manually (ii) even if the reader can sort manually, still groups like Bengalis would not appear together because some of them are labeled as West Bengalis, but in initial alphabetic sort they can be put together (just like how Kosovo Albanian is mentioned at the start with all other Albanians in the article Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic group) - this article has such groups throughout the article, for example Indian Shia vs Iranian Shia vs Shia, Madhya Pradesh Gonds (India) vs Uttar Pradesh (South) Gonds (India), Gujarat Bhils, Sunni vs Indian Sunnis. Most other articles on Y-DNA frequency in ethnic groups use Initial Alphabetic Sort:
Have you tried to resolve this previously? We discussed extensively. How do you think we can help? Please allow me to edit it so that it has initial alphabetic order. Summary of dispute by Fylindfotberserk
So either we get ethical and build an "All Encompassing" table with columns like Country, Caste, Tribe, Region which will only make our work cumbersome and future edits more difficult. Or we can sort as per Time of Publication and rid us of unnecessary hassles like this. After all, the sources are mostly primary and it is better to represent them as it is as per WP:PSTS.
Summary of dispute by A145029
I don't understand how Fylindfotberserk's arguments about the complexity and ambiguity of South Asian groups are related to sorting the list in a certain way. I think he is bringing in arbitrary arguments to support his point. Besides, ethnic groups in other parts of the world mentioned in other articles also display the same amount of complexity and ambiguity as South Asians do and those articles still use initial alphabetic sort. These are some examples from Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic group:
It is reasonable to bring together "Marathas(an ethnic group), Marathi Brahmin(a caste), Marathi Konkanastha Brahmin(a sub-caste), Marathi Tribals, Marathi Muslims" because they are all linked to the Marathi ethnicity which is a very strong type of connection in India. Even if they all had different origins, they have mixed with each other making them all somewhat linked, and ethnolinguistic ties tend to be very strong in India.
Talk:Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of South Asia#Initial alphabetical sort 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. DRN cannot accept a case that is also pending at another content forum or at a conduct forum. A dispute between two of these editors is also pending at WP:ANI, which is a conduct forum. This thread is closed. The editors should resolve the matter at WP:ANI. If there is a content issue after the conduct issues have been adjudicated, refiling here may be an option. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2018 (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 There is an edit dispute about one small paragraph where accurate, encyclopaedic and well referenced material is continuously removed. We are talking about Lithuania#Corruption. As far as the dispute is concerned, the primary question seems to be *not* if the paragraph's content is accurate or appropriate, but whether it should be included or removed. Reasons to keep the paragraph are:
Discussion on the talk page. However, one of the disputing parties (Ke an) explicitly requested involvement from an external party. How do you think we can help? Provide your opinion if the paragraph is be included or removed. Summary of dispute by Ke anThe issue involves improving the structure of the content according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and avoiding frame in or Spin methods. I see 2 main points here:
I have asked to add a warning for the reader regarding the poor or unfinished content (Ke an 20:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)). It was ignored.
Summary of dispute by PofkaCorruption covers only three articles in the Criminal Code of Lithuania: 225, 226, 227 (http://www.infolex.lt/portal/start_ta.asp?act=doc&fr=pop&doc=66150) out of 330 articles. So comprehensive analysis about each crime genre would result in about 100 separate sections. This would definitely be too detailed for a country-level page. In my opinion, such comprehensive analysis of each crime genre may only be discussed in a separate newly created article Crime in Lithuania (other countries has this one, f. e., Crime in the United States). I have rewritten this section and integrated two important sentences about corruption from the Detektyw z Wilna "Corruption" section to the newly created "Lithuania#Law enforcement and crime" section, which was based on the "United States#Law enforcement and crime" section (named as a Good Article). These sentences are: "According to a European Union Anti-Corruption Report, Lithuania had the highest proportion of citizens - 29 percent, who have been asked or expected to pay bribes in the preceding 12 months of any EU country, with 95% of citizens considering corruption to be widespread and a major problem.[176] Though, according to local branch of Transparency International, corruption levels have been decreasing over the past decade.". Also, part of the information from the old section was split to the newly created "Lithuania#Law" section, which is based on the "Germany#Law" section (named as a Featured Article). Highlighting of problematic fields and boasting it over other less problematic fields (f. e., contrabanda, which in 2017 decreased by 27.2% from the 2016 numbers) in a separate extensive section in a country's article qualifies more as a Black propaganda for me than a censorship. In conclusion, I think two sentences about corruption, together with other popular crimes in Lithuania, is enough and comprehensive analysis should be done only in a newly created Crime in Lithuania article sections (similar to "Crime in the United States#Homicide" and "Crime in the United States#Gun violence"). -- Pofka (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Lithuania#Corruption 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 In the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hunyadi he is described as an hungarian, even tho there is no proof, reference anything that links him to being a hungarian. Other articles on the wikipedia with references and proof that he was a romanian like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunyadi_family where John Huniad is described as Voyk's son, John Hunyadi, bore the nickname "Olah", meaning "Vlach", in his youth, which implied that he was of Romanian stock.[2][3] The court historian of Voyk's grandson King Matthias Corvinus, Antonio Bonfini, explicitly stated that John had been "born to a Vlach father".[6][7] Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III likewise knew that King Matthias had been "born to a Vlach father", and a Venetian man, Sebastiano Baduario, referred to the Romanians as King Matthias's people.[8][9] The world vlach is an exymonim, like calling an iranian persian. So calling John Huniad a romanian is backed by some references. Calling him a hungarian is backed by nothing, the only refenrece is linked to the Kingdom of Hungary... like all KOH kings were automaticaly hungarians, which was not the case. But the article is agresively protected with fale information by the wikipedia administrator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Norden1990 and other brigaders that cannot understand that a wikipedia historical articles should have some historical proof, and references should be allowed, not only brigating your nationalistic agenda. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I cannot take any steps, all are ignored and reverted by the hungarian nationalists. How do you think we can help? Im new to wikipedia overall, i just hope other administrators would at least put a warning message on paragrafs with no proof or disputed. Just brigating your opinion into articles with no references what so ever will make wikipedia lose credibility. Talk:John Hunyadi 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 In Greek wikipedia a user posted two sections that are clearly an Original Research in the Greek version of the article Criticism of Christianity. He then tried to translate these sections and post them in the English article as well but they were removed as OR. However the admins in the Greek Wikipedia have not only refused to listen to my and other user's pleas to remove the sections but have also protected the article. I threatened them with legal actions and now I am blocked for 2 weeks and the OR remains in the article. I am aware that this is a different wikipedia project but I really don't have anyone else to report this issue to. Could you help me deal with this issue please? ΕρΚιλλ (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried to discuss it in Talk Page and in the Community portal How do you think we can help? You could help me deal with this situation or contact a global admin (if such thing exists) Summary of dispute by ΤζερόνυμοPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Skylax30Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Glucken123Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by MARKELLOSPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Criticism of_Christianity 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 An editor removed these two entire sections, 1959 Iraq and 1963 Iraq, from the "US Involvement in Regime Change" article. As can be seen on the Talk page sections, numerous sources are cited. The editor alleged that these sources are "fringe" and "garbage" or based on unreliable sources, and posted these sections on the WP Fringe Theories Noticeboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#NYCJosh_on_CIA_activities_in_Iraq There, the editor was told by the administrator that no fringe issue has been raised and the discussion on that Noticeboard was closed by that administrator. I then re-added these sections to the article. The editor again removed them. The editor claims that s/he has gone through the scholarly literature on the subject and that the scholarly consensus refutes the statements of all the sources I posted. He cites no source for the proposition (1) that the scholarly consensus is what the editor claims, Or (2) that the sources I provide are refuted in any way. So as I see it, the editor has done some major OR which in the editor's mind renders as "garbage" or "fringe" such sources as PBS Frontline, UPI, Boston Globe and several scholarly works cited and others. The editor cites sources that state that based on their review of US govt documents and other sources, they have no evidence that the US was involved. But given the nature of US covert operations, including the important doctrine of plausible deniability to protect senior US officials, one would not expect to find readily available documentary sources or other "smoking guns." Given the covert history, the fact that I could find a single RS should be sufficient. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page discussion, WP Fringe Theories Noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#NYCJosh_on_CIA_activities_in_Iraq How do you think we can help? Provide clarity on usability of sources cited for the sections and whether they support the 1959 section and the 1963 section. Provide clarity on whether the sources provided by the editor in the talk page section refute the sources cited or refutes the content of the two sections. Summary of dispute by TheTimesAreAChangingPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There are well-documented cases of U.S. covert intervention, notably in Iran and Guatemala. This isn't one of them. I'm not going to rehash my arguments from here and here, other than to reiterate that there is a large gap between what scholarly sources say about this matter and what NYCJosh's preferred, er, "sources" say. NYCJosh cites a New York Times op-ed prominently labelled "opinion," a url ending in .org, a Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq mailing list email by a random person, The American Spectator, ProCon.org, a deadlink to Salon's "35 Countries Where the U.S. Has Supported Fascists, Drug Lords and Terrorists," and a Boston Globe op-ed by two nonspecialists while entirely ignoring and dismissing academic sources like the following:
NYCJosh compounds his use of poor sources like ProCon.org by asserting that Summary of dispute by GPRamirez5Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. As far as quality sources on the scholarly consensus, we need look no further than the Cambridge University Press textbook for the International Baccalaureate Diploma: —Mike Wells, Nick Fellows, History for the IB Diploma, Paper 2: Causes and Effects of 20th Century Wars (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), p. 222. Talk:United States_involvement_in_regime_change#1959_Iraq and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#1963_Iraq discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|