Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 133
This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. 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 130 | Archive 131 | Archive 132 | Archive 133 | Archive 134 | Archive 135 | → | Archive 140 |
Talk:Transhumanist politics#Sources too closely associated with the subject
See the closing comment. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 12:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview A few editors disagree about whether a specific template should appear at the top of the transhumanist politics page. The template says, "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral." The supporters of this template say that the neutral point-of-view and verifiability policies are violated by the page, because some of its sources are primary sources, and the page purportedly gives a distorted perspective. The opposing editors claim that the page does not violate policy on these grounds, because these policies explicitly allow primary sources, and there is no body of reliable sources that disagree with the perspective of the page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? A lengthy discussion has taken place on the relevant Talk page. How do you think we can help? 1) Please judge whether the neutrality or verifiability of the page has been compromised as claimed. 2) If it has been compromised, please point out the offending sources, along with quotes from guidelines or policy that say why. 3) If it has not been compromised, please judge whether the template should be removed. Summary of dispute by Dsprc(Late to the show; am traveling at the moment and a bit jetlagged so if I'm not clear please _do_ ask follow-ups; it may take some hours or up to a day for me to respond.) The vast majority of the article relies entirely upon affiliated, primary and unreliable sources from a small subset of a fringe milieu which may not reflect mainstream positions or the reality of the subject. Numerous efforts to resolve this problem through discussion have proven unfruitful as a great deal of objections and roadblocks are raised by Single Purpose Accounts, with a lot of "I didn't hear that" and cherry-picked wikilawyering. This is largely fallout from a rejected Transhumanist Party article where meatpuppets and SPAs then redirected their attention toward shoehorning that poorly sourced content elsewhere. There is extensive discussion covering numerous issues and documentation on the article Talk page & archives as well as AFD and Draft of aforementioned failed article. (may have to consult WP:WAYBACK Machine) The dispute over the tag is but a minute fraction of issues which plague this article. Tagging was done to encourage inclusion of higher-quality sources which present a more varied view from organizations and individuals not closely affiliated with the subject; and to alert readers and contributors to some issues with the article they could possibly help to resolve. -- dsprc [talk] 02:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by DoncramPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADoncram&type=revision&diff=703706040&oldid=700702628 I was notified of this DRN, and during the 4th round have again been requested to comment]. I was reluctant to participate because I see no way in hell for there to be any resolution in this forum. I appreciate the good will of the DRN moderator who, correctly, wishes for focus on content not contributors. However the salient issues at the Transhumanist politics Talk page are behaviorial: obtuse and extreme I-didn't-hear-that behavior, after repeated in-depth discussion of the content, repetitively, again and again, involving considerable time and attention of all other editors.
For example, could (Redacted) acknowledge that their insistence of the existence of an American "Transhumanist Party" as a political party was wrong-headed, given the evidence--including Zoltan Istvan's own words--against that (in any reasonable way of construing what "political party" means)? How about acknowledging that interview mentions by Istvan or blog mentions of the "Transhumanist Party" term do not constitute any evidence at all of the existence of such a party (which should not be hard as again the non-existence is completely clarified by Istvan and some or all of the interviewers and bloggers).
and the moderator would correctly point out that pre-conditions like I ask for are not typically given here. However, the objections all stand, and this statement by me explains my non-eagerness to participate here. I will comment in the 4th round below, now. --doncram 19:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by David GerardThis is a tiny fragment of the actual problems:
Past talk page disputes on this issue: almost the entirety of Talk:Transhumanist politics and its archives. Seriously, read the talk page and both the archive pages (archive 1, archive 2). Multiple non-transhumanist editors have been exceedingly patient with Haptic-feedback in the past six months, painstakingly explaining why the terrible sources are terrible. The usual response is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. As you'll see from the archives, literally the same questions come up repeatedly. I've posted to WP:FTN (and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transhumanism) a few times asking for more eyes, but the problem is persistent editing with no understanding of Wikipedia sourcing. I can foresee any discussion here being a close copy of the discussions already on the talk page and in its archives. If you're interested in helping, reading through these will help a lot and avoid repetition of discussions. We can hyperfocus on this one tiny aspect, but that's what the actual root cause of the problem looks like here. I'm not quite sure what to do to alleviate this - David Gerard (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Gap9551On my talk page I explained I'm not involved in the dispute, but since my opinion was asked, I had a closer look at the article and the list of references. The latter is a combination of sources close to the subject and apparently independent sources. Despite partially relying on sources close to the subject, the article itself appears to be quite neutral and balanced. It provides contrasting viewpoints (with attribution), and mentions some disagreement and criticism. I don't see positive interest issues. However, that doesn't mean that there can't still be a conflict of interest. An important policy question to consider here is to which extent primary sources/interviews are acceptable as supporting sources (as independent sources should dominate). My advise to resolve the dispute more effectively: It should be pointed out which specific sentences are considered not neutral and why. Then better sources for those statements have to be found, or the statements have to be removed/rewritten. Ideally the article should be improved to the point where everybody agrees the tag is no longer needed. Gap9551 (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Abierma3Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Transhumanist politics#Sources too closely associated with the subject discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First Round of Statements
EditorsPlease comment only in your assigned section unless requesting a clarification. Remember to be civil and concise in your responses.
Second round of statements
Third round of Statements
Editors
Fourth round of Statements
Editors
Fifth RoundModerator's Closing comments (Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum)Hello again. I am going to close this discussion as I do not have the time anymore to help in resolving this dispute. I have provided what seems to be clear instruction on how to improve the sourcing for information which has been the crux of this 'neutrality' dispute. If any further areas need help, I would personally recommend using WP:RSN, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, to gain further help with sourcing and produce discussion. Refiling is welcomed, but a second attempt at discussion must be evident and in line with the guides listed at the top of the DRN page. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 12:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
|
Talk:Geopolymer
Premature. There has been one talk page edit by each editor, both of which are too long, didn't read. Before discussion can take place here, there should be discussion, preferably civil and concise, on the talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editor. Also, it isn't clear whether both editors actually want a good-faith discussion of a content dispute. One of the editors made a massive revert calling the other editor's edits vandalism. Since the edits were not vandalism, that is a personal attack, and a very serious one, and this noticeboard is not the best place for content discussion between editors who are not civil to each other. I suggest that, after further discussion on the talk page, if the editors are agreeable to content resolution, they file a request for formal mediation, where the mediators are more experienced in suppressing personal attacks and article ownership. If either editor is unwilling to engage in content resolution, this issue will eventually go to WP:ANI. The editors should bear in mind that having a dispute go to WP:ANI is not the best way to settle a dispute. Therefore please try to be civil and concise, or you might get taken to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Users JDavidovits and Johnprovis are both prominent scientists in the area of geopolymers, and have a fundamental disagreement regarding technical aspects of these materials, which led to JDavidovits staking (in my opinion) ownership of the page by reverting more than a year's edits by all editors other than himself. Request is for a third party to read the page history and ensure that proper Wikipedia policies are followed. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We have debated this in person and have reached an impasse How do you think we can help? Find a middle-ground in the edit 'war' which represents both viewpoints and upholds Wikipedia protocols Summary of dispute by JDavidovitsPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Geopolymer discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Dark web#New_section:_Size
General close. While the participants do not appear to have explicitly resolved anything, it appears that they are willing to close this discussion. Any further discussion can continue on the talk page, or, if that is inconclusive, a Request for Comments can be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview We are arguing about the following question. Are intranets an example of a darknet? If so, are web pages inside intranets part of the dark web? I say yes, two other editors say no. My original plan was to start a Size section on the dark web page. I managed to find a reference saying what percentage of deep web are intranets and planned to use it in my new Size section to estimate the size of this part of the dark web relative to the entire deep web. I then wanted to contrast this with the size of the Onionland, showing that intranets are huge and Onionland is tiny in comparison. My edit was reverted by Deku-shrub who wanted to discuss the aforementioned question. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to persuade other involved users that I am right by quoting the definition of a darknet from the dark web Wikipedia page and the definition of intranet from external source and claiming that they match. I also claimed that when the term darknet first appeared, it stood for what we now call intranet and supported it by another quote. dsprc did not participate in the discussion much. Deku-shrub keeps opposing my views from the beginning. How do you think we can help? Somebody who knows what the terms darknet, intranet, deep and dark web (should) mean could bring an expert opinion to the discussion. One of the opinions voiced in in the 9 August 2015 Requested move voting on the same talk page claimed that Dark Web stands for "criminal, malicious operation". This is probably inevitable shift in meaning given the connotations of the word "dark". Are botnets examples of darknets? What about lobby systems and matchmaking networks in multiplayer video games? What about the Skype P2P network? Summary of dispute by dsprcPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Deku-shrubTvojaStara is adding original research, claiming that: a) Intranets are darknets b) The dark web therefore extends to intranets. Not that this would follow even if this were the case, which it's not. He's not been able to cite either of these positions Deku-shrub (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC) Talk:Dark web#New_section:_Size discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN and, though I'm not sure I want to take the case, I do have a question for the filing party, TvojaStara: The burden section of the Verifiability policy says, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The "directly supports" in that quotation is well-established to mean that the source which supports the material must actually say what the source is provided to support. In this case, an assertion that intranets are part of the dark net must, therefore, be supported by a source which says that they're part of the dark net, using the term "dark net." The synthesis policy which is a type of prohibited original research expands on this, saying "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here." (Emphasis added.) So my question is this: Do you have a source which alone says that intranets are part of the dark web and does so using the term "dark net"? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
First statement by moderatorI will be opening this case for discussion. Here are the ground rules. Comment only on content, not on contributors. This noticeboard is for content issues, not conduct issues. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Uncivil comments or comments on contributors may be hatted. Overly long (non-concise) posts do not clarify. Do not engage in threaded discussion; do not address other contributors. Address your comments to this noticeboard as such. Do not make any non-minor edits to the article while this discussion is in progress. Avoid discussion on the article talk page while this discussion is in progress, because discussion on the article talk page may be ignored. Check on this noticeboard at least every 48 hours and respond to questions in a timely manner. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Will each editor please summarize concisely what issues they see? I see that at least one editor wants a Size section. I also see that there are issues about reliable sources and synthesis amounting to original research. I note that the existing article does address the inconsistency in use of terminology. Are there any issues about whether that should be changed? Please summarize concisely what each of you thinks the issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC) First statements by editors
My apologies, I'll abbreviate it. Intranets: I was unable to find a reliable source stating that intranet is a kind of a dark net. IMO it is an obvious consequence of one of the definitions, but no reliable source bothers to spell it out. I therefore accept that my assertion cannot be part of Wikipedia. Definition of darknet, in the article: It is unsourced by the references cited just after it. (refs #2 and #3) Definition of darknet, in general: There are many, I tried to list all I found on the talk page. I would like to reach an agreement that all those definitions exist, they are relevant to the article and that legality of darknets is an aspect to many of them. Size section: What I originally wrote was original research, therefore it is out of the window, and it made not very useful conclusions to boot. What I want to do now is to focus it on Tor sites, since them being part of the dark web is not disputed. Inconsistency in terminology: During the summer, there was an effort to unite the definitions (darknet/dark web/deep web/...) throughout Wikipedia.[2] My summary of the referenced article is that journalists started using the terms interchangeably, in response to that company Bright Planet has decided on firmly reestablish definitions for those terms. Now we have a dilemma, as the article puts it "Should denizens of the dark web and deep web attempt to fully claim the term ‘deep web’ from Bright Planet, or alternatively should communities start to move to more distinct terminologies?". This summer project molded Wikipedia content to follow what Bright Planet declared and in this way took an active step helping to resolve the dilema in their direction. Doing this seems to me worse than original research. Put in this way, it describes what amounts to an act of creating the substance matter. TvojaStara (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Dsprc
Deku-shrubI will admit these pages have been a personal research project and that the articles written about them are in fact synthesis. I stand by my position that intranets are not darknets - even if those writings (which isn't even cited) were to not be considered. Deku-shrub (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Second statement by moderatorSo is there agreement that intranets are not dark nets, because they aren't on the Internet at all? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Is there agreement among all of the editors to throw out what has been labeled as original research? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Can someone please explain what the Bright Planet issue is? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC) The article does refer to inconsistencies in general use of terminology. Does anyone think that it needs to be changed? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC) One editor wants to introduce a statement about the number of TOR web sites. Do other editors agree? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC) What else are the remaining issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Second statements by editorsTvojaStaraIntranets: There is no source saying "intranets are darknets", neither there is a source saying "intranets are not darknets". My interpretation (which would be likely considered to be WP:SYNTH) is that under some definitions of darknet intranets are darknets, under other definitions not. I concede that statement on the relationship between darknets and intranets cannot be part of Wikipedia, because it is unsourced. I consider this point resolved. The terminology is IMO not well established. For example, second-from-the-top result from Google Scholar (first open-access) results provided by Dsprc says We define this reverse side of the Web as a “Dark Web,” the portion of the World Wide Web used to help achieve the sinister objectives of terrorists and extremists." (Chen, Hsinchun, et al. "Uncovering the dark Web: A case study of Jihad on the Web.") This shows that individual researches feel free (in 2008) to ad-hoc define the term dark web for use in their article and do not feel bound by existing definitions. On the talk page, I listed a whole heap of different darknet definitions (that I copied from a linked review article in a law journal). Point #3 by Dsprc in first round: This is a misunderstanding. Some definitions (from the review article) explicitly say darknets are illegal. Some, e.g. the Microsoft paper from 2005, define darknets as filesharing networks for copyrighted content. Therefore (WP:SYNTH?) under this definition darknets are illegal everywhere there is copyright law in place. I remember reading once that Afghanistan does not (yet) have copyright law in place. But otherwise darknets (when defined the Microsoft way) are illegal in the rest of the world. What I think are remaining issues:
TvojaStara (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Deku-shrubA very strange proxy argument appears to be taking place. There is a dispute about the definition of darknet, which is fair enough, but it's being used to modify definitions of dark web. It's my belief that this should be an entirely separate discussion if darknet needs to be better defined. I accept there is a separate alternative use of dark web to mean 'various illegal stuff online' and that's a reasonable candidate for its own subsection in the article. Neither of these points have any bearing on the initial issue raised, so the argument appears to be based on sowing various uncertainty and doubt about quality of the article in order to allow in looser definitions. I continue to oppose such moves. Deku-shrub (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Third statement by moderatorWe don't seem to be getting much closer to identifying the issues (let alone working on them). Can each editor please identify any sentences in the draft that they think should be changed, and how and why? I see that there is mention of an alternate, more restrictive definition of "dark web" or "dark net" to refer exclusively to a particular illegal use, copyright violation. That isn't in the article. If any editor thinks it should be mentioned as an alternate, more restrictive definition, please provide a reliable source (e.g., Microsoft). (However, such a use isn't consistent with the article, which identifies multiple legal and illegal uses.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Is it agreed that the dark web consists of darknets? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Third statements by editorsTvojaStaraIn the dark web article:
The above should be changed because the given references do not support it. It should instead give an overview of dark web definitions actually found in reference material. In the darknet article:
This is unsourced claim. Here is an overview article that lists various sourced definitions of darknet.[5]
On page Computer_network#Darknet
The claim about "connections only between trusted peers" is nonsense. Claim about "overlay network" is unsourced. It relies to much on source [21] and does not incorporate other sources (that define darknet differently). (My personal impression from all I've seen so far is that darknet and dark web are shapeless terms that are (throughout the history) being slapped on anything fishy going on the Internet. First those were the closed off subnets in the 70's used by military, then everybody was crazy about copyright infringement on P2P networks, now terrorists and drug dealers (and "legitimate" stuff) on Tor. The Oxford Dictionary defines darknet as "a computer network with restricted access that is used chiefly for illegal peer-to-peer file sharing." I bet this was added to the dictionary before Tor became popular. The confusion is even greater when people use "net" and "web" interchangeably, e.g. this book. This being the case, I prefer to use descriptive terms, like "unassigned address space", "anonymity network", "Tor", "file-sharing network", "intranet" ;) , "virtual private network", ".onion sites") TvojaStara (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderatorA theme running through these comments is that unsourced definitions are being used, and then said to be unsourced definitions. I would suggest that the lede sentence should state that there are multiple definitions for Dark web and darknet, with some generic statement, unsourced, that sort of summarizes them. A section on Definitions and Terminology is then needed. Anyone who can provide a referenced definition should include it there. So the first question is: What is a good vague way to summarize the meaning of Dark web in the lede? Second, what should all of the sourced definitions be? The Definitions and Terminology section should also include the relationship between Dark web and darknet. Is the first made up of the second, or what? These are definitions and should be referenced. Provide your input below. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Fourth statements by editorsdsprcRE: round 2 since busy with life:
Direct any replies to above at my talk page, not here. (no manifestos!) Round 4 stuff:
TvojaStaraI agree with everything in round 4 so far (moderator and dsprc) except
TvojaStara (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC) Deku-shrubThis is my first dispute resolution, but I no longer see the fundamental connection between the original item raised and what we're discussing now. Do the varied definitions need to be better defined? Yes. Does this discussion need to happen here? Not in my opinion Deku-shrub (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderatorAt least one editor thinks that we can close this thread and take discussion back to the talk page. Do other editors agree? If so, we will close this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC) If not, please state again what the remaining issues are. Are they the multiple definitions, or something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Fifth statements by editorsdsprcTo avoid scope-creep: shut it down... Should any issues remain with definitions or claims of various sources, they can be addressed by vetting each individually on talk pages, through inquiries to WP:Library, Google Scholar (as suggested previously) and so forth, or through consultation of WP:RS/N if need be. -- dsprc [talk] 09:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC) TvojaStaraOK. TvojaStara (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
|
Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#Infobox
Procedural close. There is a Request for Comments running. This noticeboard does not consider issues for which there is another forum pending, including RFC. The original poster says that they have filed an RFC with no no avail. They need to let it run for 30 days, and then it will establish consensus. Just let the RFC run for the proper 30 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview A lengthy discussion regarding the type of infobox to be used on the page produced no consensus as to changing it, yet a faction of editors has maintained that such a consensus was produced and has been edit warring to maintain their version of the infobox on the page. These editors have ceased meaningful discussion on the talk page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried using the talk page to no avail and also opened up a request for comment with no results. How do you think we can help? To help determine whether or not consensus to change the infobox was reached in previous discussions. Summary of dispute by Panam2014Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Iryna HarpyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Volunteer MarekPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#Infobox discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach, later RfC
Wrong venue. To seek a formal closure of an RFC, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Once the RFC is closed, feel free to refile here if there are remaining issues in dispute, but be sure to note that it is the filing party's obligation to notify the other editors involved (see the top of the page here). — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview An RfC recently passed its 30-day time limit. First, I would like that RfC to be closed. There was a vote taken with outcome 3-2, so there was no consensus. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I proposed a compromise but so far no others have responded to it. How do you think we can help? Fountains-of-Paris had launched the RfC, not long after the closure of a previous one launched by the same user. But Fountains-of-Paris was last heard from on 25 January. How can the absence of that user be taken into account? Summary of dispute by Francis SchonkenPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Fountains-of-ParisPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by BuxtehudePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by SageRadPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by maunusPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach, later RfC discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Donald Trump
Conduct dispute. DRN does not handle disputes which are primarily conduct disputes. Speak to an administrator or file at ANI if you wish to discuss other editors' conduct. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Observed many complaints of POV / Recentism / Sync / and other issues. I submitted an edit to begin to address these issues through better use of transclusion. A few editors are blocking the edit without providing legitimate arguments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#Undiscussed_split If there is a good argument against transclusion as I used, I'd love to know it. In my recent edit [1] the main Donald Trump article reads identically before an after my edit. I still see no argument against transclusion, but a lot of talk about other unrelated concerns. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to understand others' concerns, but it seems I'm being stonewalled. I've asked for explanations, supporting Wikipedia policies, etc. The response is generally something like "you can't do that" or "we have to approve your changes first" I've tried to alter the edit to better accommodate and still stonewalled. How do you think we can help? I'd like to get a neutral party to either help guide me or help guide the others or both. I believe my bold and good faith edit improves the article. I also believe others' reverts are against wikipedia policy such as WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:TALKDONTREVERT and essays like WP:DRNC and WP:ROWN which are the consensus of wikipedia. Summary of dispute by Objective3000Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by SomedifferentstuffPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This user has engaged in mass blanking and has been reverted by 3 different editors [2] [3] [4] -- I have engaged him on the talk page here [5] but from what I can see he has no idea how WP:Weight operates. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MrXPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Donald Trump discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Lavdrim Muhaxheri
Procedural close. An RFC is currently in progress. Discussion here cannot take place while another dispute resolution mechanism, such as RFC, is in progress. The RFC is poorly worded, but it still precludes discussion here. If the participants want to discuss here, they will have to withdraw the RFC. Otherwise they can wait for it to run 30 days and be closed. See my comments below for additional advice. If there is disruptive editing of or about the RFC, it can be reported at WP:ANI, but read the boomerang essay first. Procedural close due to the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The dispute concerns removal of significant reference articles with court records, expert statements, and other relevant documents without an apparent reason. The editing is made without reaching or seeking consensus on the talkpage, often only commenting in the summary on the edit history page. Opinions have been reformulated to facts. Text has been rewritten to bias, under - representation, of the subject and significant information has been removed. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talkpage, Rfc, request for review How do you think we can help? By reviewing diffs between edits and versions versus what's been in accordance with consensus. Reviewing appropriate claims and formulations in Biography - articles. Summary of dispute by OhnoitsjamiePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ZoupanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TU-norThe filing editor opened a RfC about this article just a few days ago here. The filing editor has been adviced about forumshopping here. I suggest speedily decline. --T*U (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Lavdrim Muhaxheri discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Ježica
Procedural close. There has been discussion at the talk page, but there has been very little content discussion at the talk page, mainly complaints about the reverting of edits, and about the poor quality of the English by an editor. There should be more discussion of the content issues, such as why the edits should be included or why the edits should be reverted. Discuss the content issues, such as what should be added or what should not be added. This case can be refiled in two or three days without prejudice after there has been discussion of content. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I am trying to add content to Ježica page for one month, but user Doremo is deleting it every time. First he complained about my bad english and deleted everything. I agreed to correct my english. I corrected that, but again he deleted everything. He complained about my notes that I didn`t state. I corrected that too. Than he complained about what he thinks it`s unnecessary content. We agreed that I will wrote small adds in longer period so he will be able to correct my bad English and what is necessary. Since than we cooperated pretty good. Still he was changing a lot of my content, but I let him cause it was not significantly changed. Now again he became rougher and in my opinion, exceeded the bounds of acceptable. From his acts it is obvious that he has no knowledge about Ježica, he does not understand things about what I am writing and he has no interest in them, so he is keep deleting them, thinking he is right. Example: 1. bridge of Sava river branch was deleted three times cause he thought this is the bridge of Sava, which is mentioned in other title. But this bridge is far away from the first bridge and represents interesting information that Doremo deleted. 2. Russian Czar is famous Ježica inn. Everybody knows that building as part of Ježica even though it was part of Mala vas in the past. So he does not allow that Russian Czar is mentioned on Ježica page, cause it is already mentioned on Mala vas page. So if people would like to come and see Ježica and what is interesting there, they will miss famous Russian Czar, cause it is not mentioned on Ježica page. 3. List of cultural heritage: Bronze plate is on this list officially but not on wikipedia. Cause it is not allowed by Doremo that states that it can`t be mentioned because it is mentioned in upper content. He added bridge of Sava river branch to cultural heritage even though it is not mentioned as cultural heritage officially. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I talked to him on Talk:Ježica, I stated my opinion, but never succeeded. How do you think we can help? Stop him from deleting everything that people write, somehow. His acts look like he owns Wikipedia, let him get explanation that other people can write things and everything can not be deleted. Explain him that better than delete content is to improve it. Summary of dispute by DoremoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Grabyton has added welcome information to the article(s) in question, but it requires very heavy copyediting and tends to be repetitive (e.g., full paragraphs copy-pasted to multiple articles). He or she should be encouraged to continue making small additions (so that other editors can improve basic language errors) and to avoid copying information to multiple related articles or repeating information within articles. Doremo (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Talk:Ježica discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Rick Alan Ross
Moot. Filing party indefinitely topic banned from this subject matter. If other editors wish dispute resolution on this or related topics, they should feel free to refile a more focused request. Similarly, if the filing party's ban is lifted, then s/he may refile here as well. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The page is Rick Alan Ross. Ross himself is a long time advisor and advocate for content. His biography is defended by a group of editors, notably Ronz, Collect, Francis Schonken, and Jbhunley. The page now reads like resume for Ross, with a puff piece about his deprogramming career and advertisement of his current enterprise. But the subject of cult brainwashing and deprogramming is not accepted by scientific consensus. In a word, Ross is engaged in a pseudoscience. Ross was pleaded guilty to embezzling conspiracy, Have you tried to resolve this previously? Presented my logic, introduced many fully sourced edits over the last few weeks. How do you think we can help? Ross's friends argue always "consensus" and "BLP". Wider forum may recognize that this is misapplication of the Wiki policy. No other controversial figures get a free ride on Wikipedia to advertise their web pages, businesses, and philosophies, particularly when they are based on pseudoscience. Summary of dispute by RonzPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Probably best to just ask for Arbcom enforcement against Sfarney. Whatever policy issues there might be are obscured by a battleground mentality. --Ronz (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by CollectPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Francis SchonkenPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by JbhunleyI have said repeatedly, for more months than you have been on the page, that the article tends towards a positive POV but the crap you keep trying to insert is designed to create a negative POV not NPOV. TL;DR - your participation on the Ross article is a net negative and has forced editors like me who have been trying to move the article away from ROSSPOV towards NPOV to deal with your over the top POV pushing rather than move the article to NPOV. You also need to notify the editors you have named above and include Rick Alan Ross among the parties - he is by far the most prolific contributor to discussions. JbhTalk 11:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
talk:Rick Alan Ross discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
My bio at Wikipedia has a long history of being used by advocates for groups called "cults" (e.g. Scientology, Divine Light Mission) intent upon editing at Wikipedia for the purpose of personal and professional attacks. I have read and applied the Wikipedia guidelines to my input at the bio Talk page. My interest is that the bio be accurate, NPOV, totally factual and that it does not contain misleading or biased statements of opinion. I provide reliable sources for every one of my edit suggestions and at times have questioned certain cited sources that have ultimately proven to be unreliable.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
|
Eminata Group
Referred back to article talk page for additional discussion. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview This article contains the following sentence. “Eminata is chaired by Peter Chung, a man convicted in 1993 in California for defrauding students at a computer school he ran.” This sentence contains a defamatory term "convicted" which is not applicable given that it was a civil injunction. As you may know, in civil law, a judgment/injunction may be made against the defendant but it is different from a conviction which is applicable to criminal cases only. This is a dangerous entry as it harms the individual noted, and misinforms the layperson who may not know the difference between civil lawsuits and criminal charges. Similarly, when Mcdonald’s was sued for injuring Liebeck with hot coffee, the company (defendant) was ordered to pay $2.7 million to Liebeck. Now, this does not mean that the CEO of Mcdonald’s was convicted. (Liebeck v. Mcdonald's). As you can see in the history page, I (Amvan2002) have tried to make edits on the page as the page is filled with outdated and misinformed entries. However, it has been difficult due to the Conflict of Interest policy as I am an employee of the company. A particular user, Ronz, has been reverting my changes without willing to collaborate to rectify the situation. Below are the links of his “talk” page that shows my attempts to work with him with no success. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ronz#Regarding_your_changes_on_the_Eminata_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ronz#Eminata_Group_page_edits Despite my efforts, the only response I received was: “The solution is to provide sources. I've tagged the article as possibly being out of date. --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)” Although this was frustrating, I tried to accommodate his request by obtaining a clear criminal record check from Mr. Peter Chung, but I found out that “California Penal Code section 11142 prohibits you from giving your copy of your criminal record to an unauthorized third party. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I discussed with Ronz on his talk pages on several attempts, but he has not been receptive to my comments or arguments. He reverts my changes with simple remarks including "source required" and "violation of the COI policy" How do you think we can help? The individual noted (Peter Chung) is suffering damages because of this misleading entry claiming that he was "convicted." This is not even a matter of fact/false. This is a matter of a misuse of the term "conviction." Please pay attention to this matter to remove this entry. Summary of dispute by RonzPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Eminata Group discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avoiding dangerous climate change
NAC:Procedural close without prejudice. The page being listed by the filing party is a closed AFD with no consensus. The purpose of dispute resolution is to resolve issues about the content of articles, and so improve the content of articles. The parties listed are parties who commented at the AFD. All of them have been properly notified, but that doesn't change the fact that DRN is to discuss articles in article space, not deletion requests. Since the filing party wishes to discuss where to go with regard to the article, the filing party should discuss the article, that is, Avoiding dangerous climate change, on its article talk page, Talk: Avoiding dangerous climate change. If discussion there is inconclusive, a new dispute resolution case can be filed here. For now, this request is being closed to allow article talk page discussion to resume. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Article in question was originally about Avoiding dangerous climate change (2005 conference). We already have Climate change mitigation about the main matter. In 2011 the article in question was changed to be about the general concept of climate change mitigation, only under a different name. At the AfD it was pointed out that the different name isn't that common. The suggestion everyone but the changer agreed to after this was pointed out at the AfD was to revert back to the version before the change and possibly rename the article, adding (2005 conference) after it. Since this is a very unorthodox situation at the AfD and it had no relation to normal procedures, it was closed as simply no concensus. It would also be incorrect to relist, as this has nothing to do with deletion. The changer's stance to keep the changes to the article is so absolute that I see no room for discussion with the changer, based on experience from the past dealing with similar situations. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Asked closing sysop for instructions on where to to discuss this further. How do you think we can help? Just say your word. Summary of dispute by CoastwisePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Mr. Magoo and McBarkerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TigraanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by AnotherNewAccountPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by William M. ConnolleyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MaynardClarkPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by SatansFeministPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by JsharpminorPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ShritwodPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avoiding dangerous climate change discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:ResellerRatings
Procedural close as no response, without prejudice. Editor User:Techimo hasn't edited in three days and so hasn't responded. Editor User:Zamaster4536 is active, but hasn't responded. The two unregistered editors haven't edited for about a month. One of them has been blocked for block evasion. The other one probably has shifted. In the absence of responses, this case is being closed. The filing editor should discuss any changes at the article talk page, Talk: ResellerRatings. Avoid edit-warring. Comment on content, not contributors. If there is discussion there that is inconclusive, this request for dispute resolution can be refiled. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I am attempting to include well sourced data for a "Company Rating" and "Criticism" section of the ResellerRatings article. The data was originally provided by 71.235.154.73 who was involved in an edit war with Techimo over a year ago. 71.235.154.73 reappeared recently and added better sourced, more neutral data, which Techimo and 166.170.37.25 reverted, citing non-NPOV. His reversions were then reverted by another editor, citing that the original statements were well sourced. 166.170.37.25 then sent a message to that user, and his reverts were undone. Techimo then requested article protection by user CambridgeBayWeather who obliged, I believe, without actually reading the content. The changes have been discussed ad nauseum on Talk:ResellerRatings and consensus cannot be reached. In summary, I believe a "Criticism" or similarly themed section is appropriate for this article. Peer entities such as Angie's List, Better Business Bureau, and Trustpilot all have "Criticism" sections. There are valid, reliably sourced criticism of ResellerRatings which are appropriate for inclusion, to make the article well rounded and less like company PR. The data to be included describes the criticisms of the company and the actions the company took to address them. I believe that's fair. I believe the article already sufficiently describes the pro aspects of the business. Con aspects should be included to make the article more accurate and well rounded. A simple Google search reveals that there is quite a bit of criticism of this company, and the data provided reports on some of those aspects, from a reliable source. This is all well documented on the talk page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've discussed this with Techimo on the talk page. He is unwilling to compromise. I've discussed this with CambridgeBayWeather on his talk page, when I requested unprotection. The latter opted to bow out of the request and discussion, referring me to take my request up on the article's talk page. Historically, Techimo has removed anything from the article which he considers unflattering about this company. He also started the article on the company's founder, Scott Wainner. This points to a COI, in my opinion. How do you think we can help? Settle the dispute as to whether the data is suitable for inclusion. Summary of dispute by TechimoZeroShadows is defending content contributed to the ResellerRatings page by 71.235.154.73, an edit warring IP who posted the same (or versions of) critical attacks (citing user generated, not reliable sources) no less than 103 times in December 2014. This user then began another tirade of posts under the the username NotTechimo, for which he was blocked from Wikipedia for impersonating (me) by Mr._Stradivarius. The edit war continued from 32.211.179.232, so the ResellerRatings page was protected for 6 months until August 2015 by CambridgeBayWeather. Within hours of the Jan 21, 2016 edits by 71.235.154.73, ZeroShadows contributed several edits to the ResellerRatings and Better Business Bureau pages. ZeroShadows proposed "Company Rating" section sources are all user generated opinions and are not reliable sources per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. ZeroShadows' proposed section entitled "Criticism" has numerous issues:
Ultimately, companies routinely increase rates, and in the case of ResellerRatings, a b2b platform where consumers pay nothing and merchants optionally pay to participate, raising rates over time should be considered in the same light as any other businesses that adjust rates over time: largely immaterial to all except those few (in this case) directly impacted (of which, clearly ZeroShadows was, hence the heated emotional drive to insert the negative editorial commentary). Such "ordinary course of business" practices make for very uninteresting and immaterial content for such a notable encyclopedic reference as Wikipedia. For instance, there are dozens of articles about Netflix (b2c) raising rates for millions of people (consumers, in that instance) with a resultant stock price decline for a time, and none of that is even mentioned in the Wikipedia article save for a sentence or two such as "The price increase took effect immediately for new subscribers, but will be delayed for two years for existing members". Many customers "fumed" about the Netflix rate increase in 2011, but it was as irrelevant to Netflix's overall story as it is to ResellerRatings' overall 15 year history. Of note, there is no Criticism section in the Netflix page, despite quite a lot of press covering Netflix rate increases. No editor found that a Criticism section was warranted there: why is it warranted here? [1] Applying the Netflix logic here, one sentence presented in a disinterested tone in the history section, such as "ResellerRatings raised prices for some merchants in 2013." with a citation pointing to the Internet Retailer article might be the extent of what's appropriate, but I still disagree that it's relevant or useful info for anyone to add that and the addition of a Criticism section is wholly unwarranted. ZeroShadows' assertion that simply because some pages contain Criticism sections, that such a section is appropriate for this page or for all pages, is illogical. Certainly, the feedback from 3 online retailers interviewed for the cited source (compared to the thousands of merchants who are customers of ResellerRatings and the millions of consumers who have used the resource over the past 15 years) does not represent a sufficient level to suggest that there is a citable/sourceable preponderance of criticism about this company to warrant a Criticism section. Techimo (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by 166.170.37.25Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 71.235.154.73Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:ResellerRatings discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Resolving the Above DisputeAs the moderating volunteer, I would like to open a calm discussion to attempt to resolve this dispute. Would ZeroShadows and Techimo please calmly state their side of the story? Joel.Miles925 (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that the criticism section should not be added. I think that the best option here is to simply make the article read less like an advertisement. For instance, the first four paragraphs: "ResellerRatings is a web-based business that solicits consumer reviews of online retailers. As of 29 June 2013, the site claimed 1,940,596 user-submitted reviews for 60,229 stores. Consumers use ResellerRatings to check the reputation of online stores before buying. The site also lists deals, special offers, and other sales currently being offered at listed stores, as well as a forum for discussion. ResellerRatings operates a freemium business model. Merchants can participate to receive certain features for free, and can subscribe for additional features. According to Google, the stars ratings within AdWords ads, powered by ResellerRatings (among other ratings sites), lift ad click-through rates by 17%. "Shopping Review" websites like ResellerRatings or Angie's List are immune from civil liability prosecution for what its reviewers write due to the Internet Communications Decency Act protections which shields websites from what their users do or say." The article is clearly poorly written. I think before anyone adds a section, criticism or otherwise, the article should be rewritten to comply with wikipedia NPOV policy. I would suggest that the the section above be rewritten. I very much believe that the claims by Techimo that he is not affiliated with ResellerRatings are suspect at best. Please fix the POV issues and then consider expanding the article. Techimo, do not revert any edits that ZeroShadows makes regarding POV. ZeroShadows: please make your edits constructive. If either of you would like to say anything, please say it within 48 hours. Thank you. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that as soon as the NPOV issues are corrected, the criticism section would be fine. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC) DRN coordinator's note: This is somewhat unusual procedurally. This case was closed by the initial volunteer, Joel.Miles925, and then reopened by volunteer Robert McClenon after one party expressed dissatisfaction on the DRN talk page as to how the case was initially handled. The other active party has now also expressed dissatisfaction on the talk page and has agreed to continue mediation here with a new volunteer. In light of the objections of the parties, Joel will be deemed to have relinquished control of the case by closing it and Robert has agreed to take the case provided that the parties accept certain conditions set out by Robert on the talk page. Such conditional offers by a volunteer are acceptable under the "Control of mediation" section of the Mediation Policy. The parties' continuation in the process here will be deemed to indicate acceptance of Robert's conditions and Robert may close the case or withdraw as mediator if those conditions are violated (though he may, of course, give one or more additional chances before doing so). If Joel wishes to contest his removal as lead volunteer, he may do so on the DRN talk page. Since IP editors were listed above, Robert should give consideration to whether additional efforts to include them are needed, but I do not mean to imply anything either pro or con on that issue by making this comment. Finally, I would note that the "do not archive until" date has been reset to two weeks from today, an action with which I wholly agree. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
|
User talk:Lmmnhn
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires recent extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I want to list total seats of district councils of HK in each of political parties in HK, as the meeting of district council is held by NOT ONLY elected seats, but ALSO Ex Officio seats (Rural Committee Chairmen) and Appointed seats. Listing total seats is done on legislative council of HK. However, Lmmnhn is just revert, revert and revert my edits. Have you tried to resolve this previously? What is the point of listing ONLY elected seats, instead of total seats of district council of HK, as the meeting of district council is held NOT ONLY elected seats, but ALSO Ex Officio Member (Rural Committee Chairmen). Listing ONLY elected seats is very misleading to the readers. I have added Appointed seats according your request, but why you still revert??? How do you think we can help? Hope you can judge whether my or Lmmnhn`s actions are correct. Summary of dispute by LmmnhnPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:Lmmnhn discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
User talk:Exonerated_torturee
Conduct dispute. DRN does not accept disputes which are primarily conduct disputes. For conduct disputes speak to an administrator or file at ANI after carefully reading the instructions there. — TransporterMan (TALK) 06:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Jytdog has taken it upon himself/herself to "welcome" me by belittling me, insulting me, and assuming the worst about my intentions. Instead of giving me a helpful recommendation about citing my sources, Jytdog deleted my work and has been filling my talk page with accusations and veiled threats. It's a horrible welcome. Jytdog's issue is related to the Pharmalogical torture page, but my issue is with Jytdog's lack of Wikipedia:Civility, and what seems to be a COI with regard to information about the USA being included on the page, and with badgering me on my user talk page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have flagged the article for neutrality and asked the user to stop being so harsh toward me. How do you think we can help? Have some unbiased editors from a non-aligned country look at the edits I made and make appropriate corrections to attribution. The issue could have been resolved by simply informing me that linking to a well-sourced Wikipedia article was not enough. Summary of dispute by JytdogPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:Exonerated_torturee discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Peyton Manning
Closed as pending at another forum. After filing here, the filing party also filed at WP:ANI. We do not accept a case at this noticeboard that is also pending in another dispute resolution forum. See the essay about forum shopping. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The Peyton Manning article has cleaned of all references to the subject's sexual assault and PED scandals. This is clear NPOV violation and has been discussed extensively on both the article's talk page and on the NPOV noticeboard. This morning the NPOV discussion was closed by an admin who appeared to be accusing black people of "manufactur[ing]" the allegations against Manning. I have attempted to work with other editors to reintroduce at least some of the content in question back into the article, but very little progress has been made in this area. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The dispute has been extensively discussed both on the article's talk page and on the NPOV noticeboard without any sort of resolution. How do you think we can help? I would like the policy concerning the inclusion of well sourced controversial content to be made clear enough, so that that there is no doubt as to what should and should not be included. Summary of dispute by DHeywardPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Leo BonillaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ok, I'll paraphrase my last statement: "Alright. I made a big review. First of all I apologize if I took side with anyone's opinion and it was libelous. Now let me report: this is a case when a part of an article POORLY WRITTEN creates dispute. There are parts which concern more about Al Jazeera's credibility than Manning's involvement in those issues (in part due to he is not the only athlete mentioned), at least for now. Currently, there is a part on Al Jazeera's page related to the documentary and the posteriors reactions to its publication; and by the way, the "Performance enhancing drugs allegations" title could be totally rewritten as "Mention in The Dark Side: Secrets of the Sports Dopers documentary" whether in the 'controversies' or 'off the field section', or mention the event in his 2015 career year section (he gave an interview to ESPN talking about the issue) like it appears in Tom Brady's BLP with the Deflategate reference, as well as not write out on Manning's BLP parts which are included in AJ channels' pages. The part about media coverage of Manning's life MUST NOT be in the article as it concerns more the sources than the reports themselves, whichever relation Jim Nantz has with Manning should go at Nantz's BLP, and comparisons with Cam Newton's career coverage are JUST opinions which people can share or not. But I do believe the following facts should be included on Manning's article: the NFL, MLB and USADA investigations; why Manning hired Ari Fleischer; and the 911 call and the incident related. It's a considerable shorter recapitulation. Now let's talk about Jamie Ann Naughright. I think the incident related to her should be summarize with specific details of and related to the affidavit and not every version of the history, plus the 2000 Manning's autobiography reference and the posterior Naughright's sue for defamation (but no more than this specific fact) and the New York Daily News's publication. Now in that recapitulation wouldn't reduce the content in more than a 20% but I think would be more accurate than how it was. I HOPE I CAN HELP FOR THE CAUSE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED." How can I make a draft copy about what I think it's ideal to add on Manning's BLP? Leo Bonilla (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MeatsgainsPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Cla68Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ZetrockPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by AquillionPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Dsaun100Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by BagumbaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Mr ErnieParkH.Davis repeatedly makes BLP violations by referring to specific incidents as facts. These "scandals" were allegations. Nothing was ever proven. Just because news sources write about these events doesn't mean that they happened as alleged. That's the whole point of this dispute. We've told him repeatedly that he must refer to them as allegations. He has also been blocked for edit warring on this topic. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Peyton Manning discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Benjamin Disraeli
General close without prejudice. The filing party was told to provide an opening statement within 48 hours. In the absence of an opening statement, I am closing this case. The filing party, or any other editor, is welcome to refile, subject to any suspense times. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview This dispute resolution request concerns a short section in the featured Benjamin Disraeli article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Disraeli), and particularly the sentence “In 1878, faced with Russian victories against the Ottomans, he worked at the Congress of Berlin to maintain peace in the Balkans and made terms favourable to Britain which weakened Russia, its longstanding enemy” at the end of the introduction. In my opinion, the ‘maintain peace in the Balkans’ statement misrepresents the actual consequences of Disraeli’s actions (for which I believe I provided adequate sources), and suggested instead ‘to establish terms favourable to Britain which weakened Russia, its longstanding enemy and led to the destabilisation of the Balkans’, which I believe to be true, based on the turn of events and publications from historians (predominantly Bulgarian). I tried to change that a few times but my suggestion was met with disagreement by several editors. We tried to clarify and explain our views on the article talk page, but to no avail. Realising that my wording might be considered a tad too harsh, I changed my edit to the 2.0 version: “In 1878, faced with Russian victories against the Ottomans, he worked at the Congress of Berlin to contain conflict in Europe and made terms favourable to Britain which weakened Russia, its longstanding enemy.” This suggestion was not accepted either. Have you tried to resolve this previously? None, I am following what was suggested by the other participants in this discussion, as witnessed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:146.199.196.106 How do you think we can help? Since it would appear that we reached an impasse I would welcome any honest and objective contribution. Thank you! Summary of dispute by 146.199.196.106 (not registered - Dimitar Popov)Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
That is actually me - the person who raised the request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.235.93 (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by SchroCatPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Martinevans123Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Tim rileyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Benjamin Disraeli discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
• Hello! I tried to inform the parties about this dispute resolution request on the original discussion board, but it did not seem to work. I’ve sent a message to everyone on their talk pages now – hopefully I’ll get prompt replies. Kind regards, Dimitar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.16.1.254 (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC) First statement by volunteer moderatorI am opening this case for moderated discussion. Here are a few rules. I expect every editor to check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours, and to respond in a timely manner to any questions or requests for statements. I am still waiting for statements from the non-filing parties, so I expect them to make their statements in the next section. Please explain briefly what your issues are and how you do or do not want the article changed. Be civil and concise. Civility is mandatory everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long posts do not clarify the issues. Comment on content, not contributors. Comments on contributors, or uncivil comments, may be hatted. Will each editor please make a brief opening statement? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
First statements by editors
|
List of_scandals_with_%22-gate%22_suffix#Technology
Procedural close/conduct dispute. There are a number of additional editors involved in the discussion at the article talk page. All need to be included here and it is unfair to expect a DRN volunteer to have to add them and create summary sections for all of them. Also be sure to note that it is the filing party's obligation to notify each listed party by leaving a note on their user talk page (see the top of this page for a template which can be used for that purpose). Also note that DRN only handles content disputes, not conduct disputes. Whether or not an editor is a SPA or is refusing to do something or not is outside the scope of this noticeboard. Whether an article does not satisfy NPOV or whether certain proposed edits help create a NPOV in an article is within the scope here, but not the position or motives of the editors who propose them. If you do refile, please only refer to edits not editors. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview SPA accounts are refusing to allow NPOV summary of the scandal itself, rather than the controversy surrounding it. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Have attempted to be WP:BOLD and to discuss on the talk page. How do you think we can help? Providing an NPOV from un-involved users. Summary of dispute by User:DumuzidPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by User:PeterTheFourthPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
List of_scandals_with_%22-gate%22_suffix#Technology discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|