Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 131

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 125Archive 129Archive 130Archive 131Archive 132Archive 133Archive 135

Talk:Canadian dollar

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Talk:Gog and Magog and Talk:Koka and Vikoka

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

User talk:RyanTQuinn

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Talk:New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany#up to now

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Laksa

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Talk:Daniel Holtzclaw#Recent_changes_.282.29

– 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

My contributions are being rapidly reverted with only vague justifications. No attempt to work toward a compromise.

WP:CRYBLP and WP:ROWN ?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

1. Talk, 2. modifying my contribution, 3. requesting suggestions

How do you think we can help?

offer suggestions instead of just quickly deleting, find some compromise consistent with WP policy and goals

Summary of dispute by Jess

I'm not sure DRN is necessary at this point. Oiudfgogsdf has replied only twice on the talk page, and he has yet to even respond to the most recent comments. Jumping to DRN is likely premature.

That being said, the content in question is here. To summarize the article subject, Hortzclaw was recently convicted of several counts of abuse, and a great many sources indicate he targeted his victims because their credibility would be undermined in court. Oiudfgogsdf's edit attempts to do just that: selectively quote a source to say that the victims are not credible, and imply Hortzclaw was wrongly convicted. We don't have a RS which says Hortzclaw was wrongly convicted, and so must be careful not to engage in original research to imply it.

Between the two paragraphs, the first inserts disparaging remarks about the victims worded with a clear POV in mind. The second paragraph boils down to "Hortzclaw's teammate was surprised by the allegations," but is again worded in such a way as to imply his conviction doesn't make any sense and is totally out of character. The substance of that paragraph seems insignificant, and I don't see substantial coverage of it in other reliable sources.

So basically: WP:BLP and WP:DUE.   — Jess· Δ 01:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Grayfell

This is premature at best, as Jess says above. Counting myself, there are four editors who have removed the contested content from the article. The essay CRYBLP is not applicable, as the BLP policy connotations should be obvious here. ROWN is an essay which giving advice which may be useful in context, but is not a free pass to restore content. WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:NPOV, and WP:EW are all policies. Grayfell (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Oiudfgogsdf

Never fear Jess, I am responding now, so that makes 3 times. For you to say that the 2nd paragraph in my edit (regarding the comments of Cortland Selman) just boils down to "Hortzclaw's teammate was surprised by the allegations," is a perfect example of how this page is over-simplifying the subject to fit it into a neat little box. Nevertheless, you continue to argue that not even that major over-simplification would be acceptable to you as a contribution. If you read the content carefully, it is obvious that Selman said a whole lot more, sorry, i.e.;

  1. he knew Holtzclaw on a personal level
  2. he came 100s of miles to speak out
  3. he knows him as a caring, sincere, passionate individual
  4. in "all" the time he knew him (sounds like a while) racism never surfaced
  5. he sees Holtzclaw as a "brother"

Those words are his, not mine. Sorry if they don't fit into your narrative. I would be happy to shorten it a bit if you and other contributors find it too detailed, but you have not even offered that as a compromise. This content was included almost verbatim from the reference I cited; for you to imply that I have "worded (it) in such a way as to imply his conviction doesn't make any sense and is totally out of character" is your personal interpretation of the passage and makes no sense because I did not write it. And Yes, I do offer it as a counter-balance to the flat narrative presented in the remaining 2497 words of the article which make only the slightest mention (1 sentence?) that Holtzclaw ever even had family or friends, or that anyone had anything good to say about him or was surprised by the trial, instead focusing on minute details of the victims' testimonies, exact dates during the trial, activists, media reaction or lack therof, the blogosphere - anything other than the subject of this supposedly-biographical article. Neutrality and balance of views on a subject is to be achieved as a whole with the article, not on an individual basis with each contribution. That is what I am trying to do here. This is not original research.

Grayfell, I'm not sure what you mean by "premature." WP:DRN states that the only requirements are that 1) "the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page", and 2) a recommendation that more than 2 contributors be involved in lieu of requesting a 3rd opinion instead. Furthermore, your comment that "the BLP policy connotations should be obvious here" leads me to believe that you are staying within the bottom levels of the Graham's Hierarchy instead of the recommended top 3. It highlights what I have experienced throughout this dispute - your justifications for quick deletions are that my edit is "undue", "transparent", "too lengthy" with no real explanations or alternatives. "ROWN is an essay which giving advice which may be useful in context, but is not a free pass to restore content." ??? That article seems to focus more on editors who revert others contributions with no attempt at compromise for dubious reasons:

Revert vandalism upon sight but revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration. It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Furthermore, your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit WP:ROWN

I reverted your reversions (thus restoring my contribution) once, and only after discussing on the talk page and revising my content in an attempt to address your concerns. You reverted in minutes (Jess twice) with nothing more than an edit note WP:BLPZEAL ? I am now reaching out to WP:DRN to avoid WP:EW . Is it fitting to the integrity of WP that an article remain so tightly controlled that not even the shortest counter-balancing contributions be allowed that do not strictly adhere to some obviously-slanted narrative? Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Daniel Holtzclaw#Recent_changes_.282.29 discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

I posted notices to the involved users' talk pages and added the 3rd user here. Hopefully I did it the right way? Let me know if I didn't. Thanks. Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

It isn't entirely clear from the above responses whether the other editors are agreeing to participate in moderated discussion, so I am opening this case with two questions. First, are you willing to participate in moderated discussion? If at least two editors agree to take part in discussion, this case will continue. If not, since moderated dispute resolution is voluntary, this case will be closed. ub, It doesn't appear to me that discussion here is premature. However, discussion here is voluntary. Second, what do each of you think should be changed in the article, or do you think that the article should be left as it is? Here are a few ground rules. Be civil and concise. Civility is mandatory in Wikipedia, especially in dispute resolution, and overly long statements do not clarify. I will check this case at least every 24 hours, and I expect every editor to check on it every 48 hours. Do not edit the article while dispute resolution is in progress. (If there is edit-warring, I will fail the case.) Discuss the article here rather than on the talk page, so that this is a centralized place for discussion. I do not claim to be an authority on the subject; it is up to the editors to explain the subject matter to me. So: Are the editors willing to engage in moderated dispute resolution? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

First statements by editors

  1. Yes I would like to participate in a moderated discussion, thanks for volunteering to help.
  2. The subject of the article being disputed here is former Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holtzclaw; the article is a biographical piece on a living person. I'll be brief with my summary.. Holtzclaw was the subject of an investigation into allegations of sexual assault by 13 OKC-area women. The jury in his trial found him guilty in half of the 36 charges and recommended he be sentenced to 263 years in prison. He had no previous criminal record or complaints of misconduct before this trial. During the trial his former girlfriend and a former teammate spoke out in defense of his character. There is some controversy regarding the case - a) all 13 women were black, b) most had criminal records for prior or active cases themselves, c) some activists believed not enough attention was given to a case of white police misconduct against black women and wanted to make sure justice would be served, d) the only "hard" physical evidence presented during the trial other than testimony was skin DNA and GPS proving that Holtzclaw had been at the scene of the alleged crimes. There were no rape kits, 3rd-party-witnesses, or fluids such as semen, e) most of the accusers did not come forward until they were contacted by investigators. Some of the accusers testified they had been afraid to come forward or believed nothing would be done. Sorry I hope that is not too lengthy.
  3. My objective with this dispute and for the article is to present the subject in a complete, balanced manner. I feel that up to this point the article overly concerns itself with the political context of the subject rather than the subject itself. Every attempt I've made to add content to the article to create balance and render the complexity of the trial and Mr. Holtzclaw's story have been met with instantaneous reversions with little explanation other than an edit note with vague justifications. I want to open this article up to a more mature, complete analysis.

Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I still think the move to DRN is premature. I'm happy to continue discussing the topic at the article talk page, which Oiudf seems to have abandoned, but I don't have a limitless amount of time, and continuing here is likely to prolong the dispute. I can't speak for Greyfell... if he wants to participate, then that's great. But I don't believe moderation is warranted (at least with respect to my involvement at this stage), and I'd prefer to keep my participation on the article's talk page. Oiud, if you could respond to the comments I made there last week, I'd be happy to continue discussing. In summary, we need sources showing significant coverage, so tracking those down would be helpful. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ 00:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Talk:Swami Maheshwarananda#Sexual_Harassment_Allegations

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Talk:List of state leaders in 2015

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Talk:Jewish Defense_League#Organizations_designated_as_terrorist_in_North_America

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Talk:Immigration and_crime#Neutrality_and_Censorship

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Talk:tvOS

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Blitzkrieg

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Talk:Bangladesh#Latest removals

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach,, many non-archived sections

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Talk:Communism

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion

Talk:NCIS (franchise)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion