Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 181
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 175 | ← | Archive 179 | Archive 180 | Archive 181 | Archive 182 | Archive 183 | → | Archive 185 |
Talk:Israeli settlement#Irish_bill
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Closed. A Request for Comments is being used to resolve the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Song Thang massacre
Closed. Filed by a now-blocked sockpuppet account. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:List of American Horror Story episodes
Closed. This dispute has been closed with a civility warning to one of the parties. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution, and incivility may result in a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Siddha medicine#Ministry_of_AYUSH_is_a_governmental_body
Closing per Steven Crossin's comments, nothing for DRN to do here as the discussion has reached a consensus that is compliant with Wikipedia policy. For more information on relevant policies and guidelines, see WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. signed, Rosguill talk 21:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
2020 Summer Olympics and the 2015 Pan American Games opening ceremony
There were two problems with this case, lack of notice and lack of discussion. The other editor has been notified, but there has still been no discussion on the article talk pages. Discuss on the article talk pages. Sometimes discussion on the article talk pages works without needing to request a volunteer. If the other party does not discuss, but edits disruptively, read the discussion failure essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:People%27s Mujahedin_of_Iran#Recent_revert_by_Mhhossein
Closed. Participation at this noticeboard is voluntary, and it appears that User:Mhhossein does not intend to take part in discussion here. Continue discussion on the article talk page. If Mhhossein does not discuss, read the discussion failure essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:T. S._Wiley
Closed as premature. There has been no discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor should make a request on the article talk page. The fact that the filing editor is an unregistered editor working for the subject of the article does not change the rule that discussion should be on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
User talk:Koavf
This does not appear to be a content dispute about a particular article or articles, but a question about policies and guidelines. The filing editor should ask the question at the Help Desk. If there is then a content dispute about a particular article, a new case can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Hunter Biden
Closed. Not a content dispute between two or more editors, but a general complaint without a specific content change. If the filing party is requesting a change to the article, discuss it on the article talk page. If the filing party is requesting changes in policies or guidelines, the Teahouse would be a starting place for advice as to what policy forum to go to. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Tariff of Abominations
Closed. The page has been semi-protected against edit-warring by unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
International Society for Krishna Consciousness
Closed. See the statement by volunteer User:Rosguill. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
2020 London mayoral election
Closed. As stated, this is a request to lock a page in the "right" version. Wikipedia doesn't have a procedure for locking a page in the "right" version. If the filer is willing to have the page locked in the "wrong" version, the forum is Requests for Page Protection. If this is a request for some other sort of administrative intervention, the forum is WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Saini
Closed. There doesn't appear to be a dispute between two active editors but between a current editor, Sitush, and an editor who has been indefinitely blocked for battleground editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Saini
Closed because filed by now-blocked sockpuppet. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Italian language#Official minority language in Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Italian language#Official minority language in Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- DavideVeloria88 (talk · contribs)
- Springpfühler (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages protects the Italian language in Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina as a minority language; however, few people actually speak it in these countries. So the question is: should they be included in the infobox as countries where Italian is recognized as a minority language or not? According to some, Romania and Bosnia-Herzegovina must not be entered in the infobox as only this card says that, but the Template:Infobox language says the parameter minority is for "countries in which it is a recognised/protected minority language" and that is "intended for legal protection and de jure recognition".
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Talk about it with other users, but no solution has been found.
How do you think we can help?
Checking whether Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina can be included in the infobox of the Italian language as done on other pages.
Summary of dispute by Springpfühler
Talk:Italian language#Official minority language in Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina discussion
- Hi, I'm a mediator here at DRN. I'd recommend notifying the other editor of this discussion. I've read over the discussion page and have some input. I'm happy for an open discussion to take place here. The Italian language article currently lists Croatia and Slovenia as countries Italian is a recognised minority language, and this is backed up by their articles - Croatia#Languages writes Minority languages are in official use in local government units where more than a third of population consists of national minorities or where local legislation defines so. Those languages are Czech, Hungarian, Italian..., and then for Slovenia#Languages, it says Hungarian and Italian, spoken by the respective minorities, enjoy the status of official languages in the ethnically mixed regions along the Hungarian and Italian borders, to the extent that even the passports issued in those areas are bilingual. So we have clearly defined recognition by the government of the country. Do we have sources from the Romanian or Bosnian/Herzegovinan governments about the recognition of Italian as a recognised minority language? That seems to be the bar that has to be met here. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 13:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages has been signed and ratified by the government of Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sources: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. And according to thei articles: Bosnia and Herzegovina#Languages: "the 1992 European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, Bosnia and Herzegovina recognizes the following minority languages: Albanian, Montenegrin, Czech, Italian [...]"; and in the page Romania it is listed in the Infobox country as Recognised minority language. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- The Template:Infobox language says that Minority language is "intended for legal protection and de jure recognition"; that Treaty has been signed and ratified by Romania and Bosnia. Also, previously Romania and Bosnia were added in the Infobox with the word "(de jure)" to indicate precisely that they are recognized by the treaty. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- User:Springpfühler, User:DavideVeloria88 - Is there still a content dispute about Italian as a minority language, or has this matter been resolved? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon- No, it hasn't been solved yet. No one else has responded at the moment. I'm still waiting. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm back around, sorry, have been away a bit. Let me look into this one and respond within 24hr. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 08:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Quickly butting in, but when it comes to Romania both the Council of Europe and the Romanian government explicitly recognize Italian as a minority language in Dobruja (easiest to ctrl-f for "italian"). That one, at least, seems fairly straightforward. ‑ Iridescent 09:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm back around, sorry, have been away a bit. Let me look into this one and respond within 24hr. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 08:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon- No, it hasn't been solved yet. No one else has responded at the moment. I'm still waiting. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- User:Springpfühler, User:DavideVeloria88 - Is there still a content dispute about Italian as a minority language, or has this matter been resolved? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I do not have anything agains listing Italian in another country, provided that it is officially recognized. The issue is that it is not such in Bosnia, absolutely not, and apparently in Romania neither. If someone can provide proof of Italian being officially recognized by the Romanian Government, then we will put it. About Bosnia, it is impossible - such proof simply doesn't exist because in the country there is no recognition of Italian and no usage of this language too. This list of minorities languages so many times mentioned IMHO is not enough, because it is not a proof of a real recognition, protection or support for a given language. This list was made once, and I have no idea whether it is being updated or not. In this list, a lot of countries included many languages, 10, 14, or even more...of course they are not officially recognized by the respective governments. On the contrary, it is well-known that countries like France or Italy have not ratified this charter yet. Nevertheless, they do have minority language on their soil, that is evident. Italy does not only have German, but also Slovenian, French, Sardinian, Friulan...they are all, at different levels, co-official in the respective regions (in the case of German in South Tyrol, it is as official as Italian is or maybe more); French has Breton, Basque, Corsican... So, this charter does not determine which languages are really official or minority in a certain country. It is, IMO, a plain list of languages who are or have been sometime spoken by a certain minority in the country. "Minority" language means just that: language spoken by a minority. It DOES NOT mean that it is officially recognized. A minority can be even 100 persons - that is clearly not enough to say that this language is official or protected in a country. I see that we, not only in the English Wiki but in others too, are trying to put flags only for languages who are either official in the whole country or co-official (officially recognized) in some parts of the country. Of course there are cases where we could remove some flag, but we are slowly doing like this. Putting a flag of a country where a language has neither importance nor diffusion or officiality brings just confusion and it is basically a false information. For these things, for mentions of languages like this one of Italian in Bosnia and Romania, a mention in the article is a good solution: we do not want to hide the fact that a language is included in a list of "protected" languages in a country, but it does not mean that is officially recognized by the national or any local government of that country, so it is not worth putting a flag for it just for the sake of putting it (knowing that this language is not recognized). In the case of Spanish, for example, we have really put just the country where it is official, and not others where it was or it is mentioned somewhere. That's why the Philippines are not on this list. The only three countries where Spanish is not first language are Belize, but Spanish is official there, Andorra, but Spanish is first spoken language there, and the USA, but Spanish has like, well, 50 million speakers there, plus it is officially accepted by the Government of New Mexico, plus is first official and primary national language of Puerto Rico, which is a US dependence. So, nothing to do with Italian in Bosnia or Romania, which is more or less a phantom...Apparently there was in Bosnia just a single village originally populated by Italian immigrants, for a total of a couple of hundreds of persons, but nowadays not even they are still there, and Italian has no official recognition. Concerning Romania, on the contrary, the link you provided from the Council of Europe says that Italian is taught in Bucarest and there are 257 pupils in an Italian school, plus some hundred more in other schools - but that, apart from being a very low amount, does not mean at all that Italian is an officially recognized language there! You can find schools of a specific language everywhere - here in Vienna you can find a French school, a Polish school, a Russian one, probably also an Italian or Spanish one, and many more, without counting English schools, which are everywhere. You'll find such schools in all European cities. Does it mean these languages are officially recognized minority languages? Of course not. Further the report of the COE says that " However, Italian is not yet taught in Greci (Tulcea county) in Dobruja, a traditional stronghold of the Italian speakers"...Well, THIS sentence, according to me, proves that Italian is not official and thus not an officially recognized minority language. That's why a mention in the article where we put a link to these pages would be fine - without putting a flag like we would do if Italian was official in Romania, unless we find some proof that it is indeed. A mention in the article would inform about the fact that in Romania there is a small Italian community, or immigrants, what of course does not mean their language must be officially recognized. About Bosnia, as I probably already said, I havent'found nothing at all. --Springpfühler (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC) |
User:Springpfühler, User:DavideVeloria88 - Is there still a content dispute about Italian as a minority language, or has this matter been resolved? If there is still a content dispute, I am willing to act as the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon It hasn't been solved yet. No one answered: can Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina be included in the infobox using ECRML as a source? DavideVeloria88 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
|
First statement by moderator
Okay, let's try one more time. Read the rules that are in use. Other rules will be in use by other moderators. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Be concise. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what the issue is? Do not provide lengthy explanations. They will be ignored. Be concise. If the issue can be summarized concisely, it is likely that this can be answered based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If the issue can only be summarized in 300 words, then it may never be answered. Be concise. Please state in one paragraph what the issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
You are right at one point - other rules will be in use by other moderators, in fact we always use long texts, they also use very LONG texts, much longer and much more complicated that this one of mine, because you can't "summarize" anything, as you seem to believe. So, it is a thing of yourself. For the rest, I have always been civil, so it is not a point. Comments are on content, if you read it you'll see. Nevertheless, my answer is there, even if you collapsed it, so I am sure other people will read it. It is difficult to summarize this topic, but I'll try to do it when I have time --Springpfühler (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
First set of concise replies by editors
Lengthy statements and back-and-forth discussion
Second statement by moderator
I am no longer acting as the moderator for this dispute, because at least one of the editors is not willing to be concisechose not to be concise even when asked to do so the second time. I will request another moderator. I am not optimistic that another moderator will be found, unless the previous moderator returns. I will keep this case open on hold for at least one week. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Second statements by editors
I am sorry but it's not correct. Writing that "I am not willing to be concise" is false, it is your personal yet arbitrary conclusion. I said before, very clearly indeed, that sometimes, depending on the topic, is not easy to be "concise" as you would expect. That means, I do will to be concise, but I haven't managed that for two times in a row. That's exactly why I wrote that content, not because it was my pleasure, but because the topic did not allow me to be more concise. Nevertheless, I also said clearly, in my last sentence, that I will try to summarize what I wrote. I don't live on Wikipedia, so I haven't found time yet, but I will. Nevertheless, what I wrote remains, with the motivation why Italian is not official nor minority language in Romania and even less in Bosnia, and thus the flags of those countries do not belong among the countries where Italian enjoy some status. As I said, I'll try to summarize it again--Springpfühler (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
The summary can be: There is no evidence that Romania and Bosnia currently officially recognise the Italian Language as a minority language. Therefore, no flag should be put in the infobox. TheTrainNoch (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC) I think the evidence is there for Romania. TheTrainNoch (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, very shortly it could be like that. I am 100% sure about Bosnia, as there is not a single piece of paper coming from this country where Italian language is ever mentioned. I think it says it all. About Romania, myself I said that I am less sure, but...We found some sources coming from Romania where Italian is mentioned, yes, nevertheless more like a language spoken by a (relatively small) community of people on Romanian soil, not like an officially protected language by the Romanian Government. Italian cannot be compared to Hungarian or German, which enjoy complete official or co-official status in some Romanian regions, and therefore are "recognized minority languages". The paper (in Romanian) where all languages present in the country are mentioned lists Italian among those which do not enjoy any enhanced protection. And the paper of the Concil of Europe provided above states that Italian is not even taught at school in the municipalities where most of the Italian community is based. International Italian schools subsidized by the "Istituto Italiano di Cultura" or "Dante" are special schools, like English or French language centres, and not a proof of the language being used at a public school as a teaching language. On the basis of that, I would say that it would be more logical that someone writes a mention about the presence of the Italian language in Romania, as there are lines or paragraphs about the presence of Italian in other countries too, instead of putting a flag just for the fun of it. --Springpfühler (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Nevertheless, if there is a majority wanting to include the Romanian flag in the Italian box with a founded motivation, I don´t have anything against it. However, I see that normally the sole fact that a given language is spoken by a certain minority (mostly if a small one, but often even if it is a large one) in a country does not represent a criterion to include that language among the "(officially) recognized minority languages" of the country - otherwise there would be thousands of "minority languages". In addition to that, sometimes not even an official mention of a determined language is enough. For example, Spanish is even mentioned in the Constitution of the Philippines as a historic important language for the country, nevertheless it is not included among the officially recognized regional or minority languages in the Philippines. Surely there are articles who need to be corrected, where there are flags that were put for countries without a reliable source attesting that they are protecting, teaching, promoting or recognizing the language in question, in a few cases merely because of a mention of such language in the European Charter for Minority Languages, but most of these cases were already amended, there are just a few left. --Springpfühler (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The Daily Caller
There are three problems with this case. The first, and least serious, is that the filing party has not notified the other editors of this filing. That can be resolved by notice. The second is that the filing party has not attempted to discuss this on the article talk page. That can be resolved by discussion, but this case should not have been filed without discussion. The third is that this appears to be a request to establish ownership of an article by its subject, and to lock down the article to prevent both vandalism and editing. This is not rocket science, but that is not the way Wikipedia works, and it can probably be sorted out by Wikipedia editors, but not by locking down an article at the request of its subject. The filing party is advised to register an account and discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Film in 2019, Film in 2020
There are multiple problems with the filing of this case. The names of the two subject articles are incorrect, because they are not the names of articles. (They may be reversed, but with other problems also, I do not intend to correct them.) The other designated editor is also not an editor; their name may have been misspelled. This case is closed. The filing editor is strongly encouraged to register an account, and may file another dispute resolution request here that names the article or articles and the users correctly. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Map projection
Closed. This appears to be a four-to-one dispute. Moderated discussion in such cases is not often useful. The filing party has two choices. They can submit a Request for Comments to seek a larger consensus. Or they can accept that a local consensus is against them. Editing against consensus may be reported at WP:ANI, but read the boomerang essay first. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Timeline of_investigations_into_Trump_and_Russia_(2019)
Closed. The filing unregistered editor has made no attempt to discuss on the article talk page, which is a prerequisite to filing here, and has not stated what sort of dispute resolution (e.g., compromise) they are asking for here. The other two editors are advised that if there is any more disruption by unregistered editors, they may request semi-protection of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Steve Huffman
Closed. There are two related problems. The filing editor has posted to the article talk page, but has not really engaged in discussion, only in using the article talk page as a forum. Try to engage in actual discussion. Second, the filing editor is making what appear to be conduct allegations against another editor. Conduct allegations should be taken to WP:ANI. A new thread can be filed here if there is lengthy and inconclusive discussion on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Manzanar
Closed. This was never the appropriate forum to request closure of the Request for Comments. That is done via Requests for Closure. The RFC has been closed anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Natalia Toreeva
Closed. The filing editor has not listed the other editors or notified them. It is the responsibility of the filing editor to list and notify the other editors. A new case can be filed after the other editors are listed and notified. If you are having difficulty presenting your dispute in English, please ask another editor to present your dispute for you. It is difficult to discuss a dispute with an editor whose English is limited. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
ah bagdadi death
The issue presented here does not appear to require dispute resolution. The IP that posted has not (as far as I can tell) made any other edits to this project, the page that is the focus of the dispute does not exist, and no other user is listed as being involved. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019
Closed. The filing editor has not listed and notified the other editors. It is the responsibility of the filing editor to list and notify the other editors. Two of the other editors have replied (although they were not notified) and appear to be saying that they are not interested in moderated discussion. Edit-warring can be reported to the edit-warring noticeboard. The filing editor may refile this request after listing and notifying the other editors, but participation in discussion here is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Intermittent fasting
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 addition of 2 sentences is being disputed under WP:MEDRS, more details:[11]. Summary:
- 1st disagreement is on the influence of intermittent fasting on IGF-1 levels, which is a result from a 2019 systematic review on human randomized clinical trials (journal with impact factor 8.973).
- 2nd is on the mention in "Mechanism" section of the 2 main hypotheses for the established health effects of intermittent fasting: are they due to simple weight loss, or to a specific biological mechanism dubbed a "flip switch" activated by temporary fasting? These two opposing hypotheses are well discussed in the literature and several MEDRS reliable sources are provided (they are already used elsewhere in the entry).
In both cases, one of the editors (Signimu) argues they are of interest, while the other (Zefr) argue they are not pertinent/adequate.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Latest: Talk:Intermittent_fasting#Disagreement_2, Oldest: Talk:Intermittent_fasting#Disagreement, a Third Opinion was requested but no volunteer showed up, Zefr did not respond in more than a week, the issue is stalled and avoiding edit warring is preferable.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Another pair of eyes to evaluate whether these additions may be pertinent would be very helpful
Summary of dispute by Zefr
Intermittent fasting discussion
Thank you to @Zefr: for replying. The diffs can be consulted, they have little to no pertinence, some arguing the source is not reliable (?), others arguing WP:NOTEVERYTHING, so I still have no idea what precisely Zefr is really arguing, and they unfortunately do not precise here either. Also, there is no consensus, it's only 2 editors (me and Zefr) until now, hence this request. --Signimu (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Addendum: 2nd point is now supported by 4 notable reliable sources (instead of 3 before). --Signimu (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- @DRN volunteers: Can someone help us? Thank you very much in advance! --Signimu (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Signimu, I am in; please wait. ∯WBGconverse 16:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you! Just to clarify, please don't bother too much with the long and old Talk:Intermittent_fasting#Disagreement, the points there were settled (except for one of the points above that started there). Talk:Intermittent_fasting#Disagreement_2 and the latest diffs have all the infos required and it's way shorter --Signimu (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Zefr obviously does not intend to participate; so you need to seek other dispute resolution measures. I will shut down this thread but might chime in over the t/p, in my editorial capacity. ∯WBGconverse 14:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oh wow, I did not expect that. Thank you for having a look! I'm not sure what to do next, but I'll try some more peaceful approaches to resolution, if at least he would discuss I think we could come to an agreement --Signimu (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- User:Signimu - Read the failure to discuss essay. Also note that the other editor suggested the talk page of Project Medicine. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Ah great! I did not know this essay, thank you very much! Yes I have taken this to WT:MED, this request can thus be closed, thank you both for your advices --Signimu (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- User:Signimu - Read the failure to discuss essay. Also note that the other editor suggested the talk page of Project Medicine. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oh wow, I did not expect that. Thank you for having a look! I'm not sure what to do next, but I'll try some more peaceful approaches to resolution, if at least he would discuss I think we could come to an agreement --Signimu (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Zefr obviously does not intend to participate; so you need to seek other dispute resolution measures. I will shut down this thread but might chime in over the t/p, in my editorial capacity. ∯WBGconverse 14:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you! Just to clarify, please don't bother too much with the long and old Talk:Intermittent_fasting#Disagreement, the points there were settled (except for one of the points above that started there). Talk:Intermittent_fasting#Disagreement_2 and the latest diffs have all the infos required and it's way shorter --Signimu (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Signimu, I am in; please wait. ∯WBGconverse 16:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- @DRN volunteers: Can someone help us? Thank you very much in advance! --Signimu (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Template:Effective altruism
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Bodole (talk · contribs)
- David Gerard (talk · contribs)
- Xodarap00 (talk · contribs)
- Sir Paul (talk · contribs)
- RyanCarey1 (talk · contribs)
- Homo.deus (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
There is a difference in opinion regarding who should be included in the list of People in the effective altruism template, particularly Jacy Reese. Reese was very involved in the early days of the EA movement and the development of its ideas and continues to be one of the most prominent figures associated with EA, including writing many essays and one of a handful of books that exist on the topic, founding an EA organization, having leadership roles at other EA organizations in the past, and being one of the most popular (if not the most popular) EA social media personalities. He is also the only person listed in the template that is primarily focused on animal welfare, which is one of the main topics EA addresses. The list Sir Paul has forcibly switched the template to is heavily focused on artificial intelligence and existential risk, which is just one of several topics addressed by EA. Therefore my opinion is that Jacy Reese should be included in the list, or the list should be cut down substantially to only include the most prominent figures closely associated with EA: Holden Karnofsky, William MacAskill, Dustin Moskovitz, and Peter Singer. Also at the risk of ad hominem I respectfully add that the people who disagree with me here seem to all in a certain EA clique focused on artificial intelligence, which I believe might be contributing to the bias in the new list.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Effective_altruism#Jacy_Reese
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
You may want to revert and lock future edits for now. I'm not sure. It might also be useful to get an RFC. Currently the discussion is very close to an edit war if not already there. Please redirect me to the appropriate forum if this is not the right place to resolve this dispute.
Summary of dispute by David Gerard
The area is plagued with editors who openly describe themselves as advocates of Effective Altruism. That's fine - but I think a lot of the perceptions applied to the editing lead to wishing to make EA look good and presentable.
The dispute comes from an EA advocacy editor (characterised as such by his edits this year), User:Sir Paul, removing the name as a "compromise" solution, when it was clearly not a compromise, and was literally the point of dispute.
Jacy Reese's name being removed from the template was supported by various blog posts concerning him to claim he'd left the movement - but all of these posts were strong evidence that, as much as EA and Reese may not want to be associated, he clearly was deep in the heart of the movement, and is absolutely relevant to the movement: diff, diff Further evidence is discussed on the page.
The template has also had a pile of stuff added to it that comes across as an ambit claim - various charitable aims that are attributed as somehow connected to EA-the-movement rather than just charitable causes in general. Editors were then adding this template to all sorts of articles that didn't mention "Effective Altruism" at all, let alone evidencing a link to the movement.
Basically - EA advocates seem to more want a template that advocates what the movement advocates - rather than a navigational aid for uninvolved readers of Wikipedia.
The EA movement per se has strong links to various WP:FRINGE movements - particularly LessWrong and the "rationalist" subculture, and transhumanism more broadly. (Eliezer Yudkowsky of LessWrong is frequently attributed as having coined the name of the movement, "effective altruism". SirPaul's discussion of Yudkowsky should be viewed as an inside-EA argument.) Fringe movements are notoriously bad at separating out advocacy from description of themselves. (As such, I've notified WP:FTN of this discussion.)
So basically, the entire area, including this template, need more eyes, and uninvolved and mainstream editors closely assessing the editing that's going on here.
Summary of dispute by Xodarap00
- Jacy Reese has publicly described himself as a "cofounder" of Effective Altruism. Based on this self-description, a previous editor added him to the Effective Altruism navbox.
- An article was published showing that it simply isn't possible for Jacy to have been a cofounder (among other things, he was not an adult at the time the movement was founded, and the organizations he says he worked with make no mention of his work). On this basis, I removed him from the list. [A blow-by-blow of these facts can be found in the talk page.]
- This triggered an edit war.
To be honest, I struggle to understand the argument for including him. As best I understand it, Jacy represents a faction that Bodole wants to see represented in the navbox (they believe the current list is too focused on "artificial intelligence and existential risk"). I am sympathetic to the desire to represent this faction (animal welfare), but Jacy just is not a notable figure in Effective Altruism. I, as well as Sir Paul, have suggested other people who we feel are notable and would represent this faction, and would be excited if Bodole or others created articles about them.
But the basic fact still remains that Jacy just exaggerated his involvement, and simply is not notable enough to include.
(It may be worth noting that about half of Bodole's edits are about Jacy, Jacy's organization, Jacy's book etc.)
Summary of dispute by Sir Paul
The dispute concerns whether Jacy Reese is a Key Figure in the effective altruism movement, understood as belonging to the list of half a dozen or so individuals most important in the movement's history. While (I believe) all parties agree that Reese is a notable person, his intellectual contributions to effective altruism aren't significant enough to merit inclusion in that select group, and are comparable to those of many other effective altruists who have entries on Wikipedia but aren't included in the Infobox (including Oxford professor and Global Priorities Institute director Hilary Greaves and poker player and television presenter Liv Boeree).
The representation of animal welfare in that list is, I believe, entirely congruent with the importance the effective altruism community currently accords to that cause area: the most recent version of the most authoritative survey of EA in existence found that animal welfare is rated as the fifth most important cause among respondents, and two of the nine people included in the current compromise version of the Infobox are noted for their seminal contributions to animal welfare: Peter Singer, widely regarded as the founder of the modern animal welfare movement, and Yew-Kwang Ng, widely regarded as the founder of welfare biology. By comparison, there are also two individuals on that list noted primarily for their contributions to AI safety (Nick Bostrom and Eliezer Yudkowsky), and according to the survey cited, AI safety is the second most important cause area within EA. (For what it's worth, I note that I have been an ethical vegetarian for 20 years, that my only talk at an effective altruism conference has been about animal welfare, and that the charity I have donated the most money to is Animal Charity Evaluators (one of the charities, incidentally, that Reese worked for). I'm also on record as being very critical of Eliezer Yudkowsky and the quality and importance of his writings on AI safety and other topics. So I'm puzzled by the allegation that I'm part of "a certain EA clique focused on artificial intelligence", and I would ask Bodole to either substantiate or retract this accusation.) Pablo Stafforini (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
EDIT: One more thing. In his initial comment David Gerard writes: "How best to list him, if not in "People"? 'Cos it's obvious he warrants a listing." I agree that Reese warrants a listing somewhere on Wikipedia, so I support RyanCarey1's suggestion of creating a "list of people associated with effective altruism" and listing Reese there, together with all the Key People, Greaves, Boeree and other notable people like Nick Cooney, Dylan Matthews, Ben Dello, Peter Adeney, Cari Tuna, and others. This would exactly parallel the approach with Utilitarianism (a close cousin of EA), which restricts the nav bar to a list of five Key Figures and has a separate list of utilitarians for all the notable individuals associated with that movement. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by RyanCarey1
The effective altruism template has a list of "people" consisting of several eminent professors and founders, and one wp-notable but less prominent person (Jacy Reese) who has written one book related to effective altruism. The hope is to agree to a list of people who meet some roughly consistent relevance bar (the dispute is not about wikipedia-notability). The chronology:
- Jacy was removed from the list
- Bodole reverted this change
- I implemented a compromise list of "key figures", to match Template:Liberalism and Template:Utilitarianism, excluding Jacy and a few others, based on the logic that you do not want a template on Christianity to include all adherents of Christianity, just those that readers would reasonably wish to click through to.
- Bodole reverted this change
- Bodole proposed a new compromise - a very short list, which I agree to using for the time being, given Toby Ord (a movement founder) is added.
- Sir Paul reverted Bodole's revert
On the meta-level, I note that half of Bodole's edits are about the same person (Jacy).
I think the best resolutions, in order, are: 1) the original list without Jacy, 2) my compromise, or 3) the modified version of Bodole's compromise.
Summary of dispute by Homo.deus
Template:Effective altruism discussion
- Question - Would this content issue better be resolved by moderated discussion, or by a Request for Comments? The usual advantage to moderated discussion is that it permits compromise. If this is a yes-no question, a Request for Comments may work better. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- I would be fine with a yes-no on "should Jacy Reese be considered a 'Key Figure' in Effective Altruism?" Xodarap00 (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- It depends. There are several issues in the discussion and one of my concerns is that people are applying different standards to Reese's inclusion relative to the inclusion of other people. This has already happened on the talk page, where Reese was judged for not having as many Twitter followers as Liv Boeree and not having as many EAG talks as Will MacAskill. All of these figures have different types of involvements in EA and we need consistent standards applied to each. I worry that a yes-no question for Reese's inclusion would lead to exactly this issue. However it might help the discussion be more concrete. Bodole (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm also happy with a yes-or-no question on whether Reese is a Key Figure (understood as a figure at least as central to EA as the other individuals on the nav bar). Note that Reese's number of Twitter followers was mentioned as a response to Bodole's claim that Reese "is the most followed EA on Twitter", and that Reese's number of talks was mentioned as a response to Bodole's claim that Reese "has more talks listed online about effective altruism than anyone else I know of." These were the standards Bodole themself proposed. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- That's quite an unfair characterization. You're selectively leaving out key information that is evidence against your viewpoint. I already acknowledged the Twitter claim may be off base, and I qualified the claim when I originally made it because I wasn't sure. I think it is debatable whether Liv Boeree counts as EA given she is much less involved, but I accept that she would probably identify as such. Regarding talks, I was not referring to EAG talks. I was referring to talks "about effective altruism" in general and that claim was also qualified, but I have yet to see reason to think it is incorrect. In both cases, this is not evidence that Reese is not a Key Figure even if you are right. Bodole (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm reluctant to start a new thread here, since we have already discussed this in the 'talk' page. I'm happy to continue the discussion there. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- That's quite an unfair characterization. You're selectively leaving out key information that is evidence against your viewpoint. I already acknowledged the Twitter claim may be off base, and I qualified the claim when I originally made it because I wasn't sure. I think it is debatable whether Liv Boeree counts as EA given she is much less involved, but I accept that she would probably identify as such. Regarding talks, I was not referring to EAG talks. I was referring to talks "about effective altruism" in general and that claim was also qualified, but I have yet to see reason to think it is incorrect. In both cases, this is not evidence that Reese is not a Key Figure even if you are right. Bodole (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think my proposed Key Figure thing is a step toward compromise, and maybe via RfC an impartial wikipedian could tell us whether Jacy should be such a figure. RyanCarey1 (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- As I note in my response, there's various problematic and advocacy-prone aspects of the topic and present discussion that seriously need more eyes from outside the subculture - a "local consensus" to a given style of advocacy may not be a good outcome. "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." - David Gerard (talk) 09:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with getting outside eyes. David, you might want to note that you are also an advocate, for the RationalWiki (as one of its trustees), a non-NPOV resource that seeks to counter some semi-mainstream ideologies like effective altruism. I also agree with David's proposal to remove irrelevant links from the template. However, I note the factual inaccuracy of his characterization of the edit that triggered the dispute. Sir Paul's edit _was_ a solution that I put forward as a compromise, because it placed a common standard across names, cutting some names, including those that Sir Paul placed on the template in the first place. I would also note that the aim of my compromise was not to override WP-wide norms with a local consensus, but to conform to WP-wide standards like Wikipedia:Navigation_template "Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?", Template:Utilitarianism "Key proponents", and Template:Liberalism "Key figures" RyanCarey1 (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you think you can claim a colourable Conflict of Interest based on that, you know where WP:COIN is. The track record of such claims from WP:FRINGE editors is not so great, but knock yourself out. I think the root of your objection is not that I edit at RationalWiki, but that I am not a true believer. This is an example of an advocate not believing that non-advocacy edits to their favoured topic are legitimate. Being an advocate for a particular cluster of fringe movements - as you are - is not symmetrical with not being an advocate for that cluster of fringe movements - as I am not - even as fringe advocates consistently try to paint it as being such - David Gerard (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to escalate the conflict here, or to take concern with any of your beliefs, apart from trying to get them presented more honestly. Being the original author and an ongoing maintainer ([1], [2] [3], [4]) of the snark-article on this topic in a famously non-NPOV wiki makes you an advocate on this topic, and it seems disingenous to pretend otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanCarey1 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Again, you're trying to claim a COI without there being a COI. As I said, take it to WP:COIN if you think you have a substantiable claim of COI editing on my part on Wikipedia. You really don't - because you are literally trying to claim that not being an advocate for your fringe thing constitutes a "conflict of interest." The fringe advocate position and the non-fringe non-advocate position really just aren't symmetrical, even as fringe advocates - across all manner of fringe fields - consistently try to claim such, pretty much exactly in the manner you do here - David Gerard (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Firstly, I'm pointing to Wikipedia:ADVOCACY rather than COI. Secondly, the argument is that effective altruism is fringe because it has some links to people concerned about risk from AI. But concern about AI risk itself is not even pseudoscience, but scientific disagreement: "Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process" and effective altruism itself has significant following within the philosophical community. So the argument is clearly a dead end, and anyway it is quite far removed from who is or isn't significant figure for our purposes. RyanCarey1 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Again, you're trying to claim a COI without there being a COI. As I said, take it to WP:COIN if you think you have a substantiable claim of COI editing on my part on Wikipedia. You really don't - because you are literally trying to claim that not being an advocate for your fringe thing constitutes a "conflict of interest." The fringe advocate position and the non-fringe non-advocate position really just aren't symmetrical, even as fringe advocates - across all manner of fringe fields - consistently try to claim such, pretty much exactly in the manner you do here - David Gerard (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to escalate the conflict here, or to take concern with any of your beliefs, apart from trying to get them presented more honestly. Being the original author and an ongoing maintainer ([1], [2] [3], [4]) of the snark-article on this topic in a famously non-NPOV wiki makes you an advocate on this topic, and it seems disingenous to pretend otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanCarey1 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you think you can claim a colourable Conflict of Interest based on that, you know where WP:COIN is. The track record of such claims from WP:FRINGE editors is not so great, but knock yourself out. I think the root of your objection is not that I edit at RationalWiki, but that I am not a true believer. This is an example of an advocate not believing that non-advocacy edits to their favoured topic are legitimate. Being an advocate for a particular cluster of fringe movements - as you are - is not symmetrical with not being an advocate for that cluster of fringe movements - as I am not - even as fringe advocates consistently try to paint it as being such - David Gerard (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- To address some of David Gerard's claims:
- I agree with getting outside eyes. David, you might want to note that you are also an advocate, for the RationalWiki (as one of its trustees), a non-NPOV resource that seeks to counter some semi-mainstream ideologies like effective altruism. I also agree with David's proposal to remove irrelevant links from the template. However, I note the factual inaccuracy of his characterization of the edit that triggered the dispute. Sir Paul's edit _was_ a solution that I put forward as a compromise, because it placed a common standard across names, cutting some names, including those that Sir Paul placed on the template in the first place. I would also note that the aim of my compromise was not to override WP-wide norms with a local consensus, but to conform to WP-wide standards like Wikipedia:Navigation_template "Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?", Template:Utilitarianism "Key proponents", and Template:Liberalism "Key figures" RyanCarey1 (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- "The dispute comes from an EA advocacy editor (characterised as such by his edits this year), User:Sir Paul, removing the name as a "compromise" solution, when it was clearly not a compromise, and was literally the point of dispute."
- I'm disappointed by this characterization. I have been editing Wikipedia for over 17 years and all my substantive contributions are transparently listed on my user profile. I have interests in effective altruism, as I do in many other topics (like animal rights, philosophy, analytical Marxism, etc.), but I do not "advocate" for any of these topics. More relevantly, the solution proposed by RyanCarey1 was a compromise, because it involved the removal of two additional names besides Reese's: Hilary Greaves and Liv Boeree. I strongly favored keeping Greaves, but agreed to her removal so that we could move forward with this.
- "Jacy Reese's name being removed from the template was supported by various blog posts concerning him to claim he'd left the movement - but all of these posts were strong evidence that, as much as EA and Reese may not want to be associated, he clearly was deep in the heart of the movement, and is absolutely relevant to the movement."
- These posts are not "strong evidence" that Reese "clearly was deep in the heart of the movement". If David disagrees, perhaps he can point us to the parts of the posts in question establishing that Reese was sufficiently important to the EA movement as to be one of the half-dozen or so most important figures in the movement's history (which is the subject of the present disagreement). Furthermore, these posts were offered as one among several different and independently sufficient arguments for the conclusion that Reese's name should be removed from the list of Key Figures. Please review the discussion threads on the talk page for an expansion of these arguments.
- "Eliezer Yudkowsky of LessWrong is frequently attributed as having coined the name of the movement, "effective altruism"."
- I think David may be confused here. Years ago someone discovered that there was an isolated occurrence of the expression "effective altruist" (not "effective altruism") on the website Overcoming Bias in a post from 2007. The post was on an unrelated topic (scope insensitivity) and it wasn't connected to the effective altruism movement, which didn't even exist back then. There's widespread agreement that the term "effective altruism" was first used to designate the effective altruism movement only around 2012. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
First Statement by Moderator
The heading said in small type to keep discussion to a minimum before a volunteer opened discussion. That didn't happen. But I might as well open discussion now. Read the rules that I will be using. They are not the only rules, but they are my rules. Be civil and concise. The discussion above has been civil, but it has not been concise. It has been too long, difficult to read, which really stands for "Too long, didn't read", and I didn't read it. I can see that some of the editors want to write at length. I will provide a section for answers to my questions, in which you may not engage in back-and-forth discussion because you are responding only to me, and a section for back-and-forth discussion. I may or may not read the back-and-forth discussion. It appears that the back-and-forth discussion makes the editors feel better, and that is all right. Comment on content, not on contributors. I expect the editors to respond to my questions within 48 hours. Now, here are my questions, and please respond in one paragraph. First, are there any issues about the template other than whether to include Jacy Reese? If there are any other issues, please state them concisely. Second, is the discussion limited to the template, or are there also issues about any articles? If so, please identify the article issues in one paragraph.
Do not edit the template while this discussion is in progress. Any discussion should be here, because any discussion on the template talk page or any article talk page or any user talk page may be missed. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
First Replies by Editors to Moderator
Reply by Sir Paul
First, are there any issues about the template other than whether to include Jacy Reese?
Short answer: No. Slightly longer answer: Hilary Greaves and Liv Boeree would probably need to be included if Jacy Reese is included, since they were excluded as part of RyanCarey1's compromise solution.
Second, is the discussion limited to the template, or are there also issues about any articles?
The discussion is limited to the template.
Reply by Xodarap00
First, are there any issues about the template other than whether to include Jacy Reese?
No, except that people have proposed compromise solutions which are more complicated. (See Sir Paul's answer above as one example of a compromise solution which might include more changes.)
Second, is the discussion limited to the template, or are there also issues about any articles?
The discussion is limited to the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xodarap00 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Reply by Bodole
First, are there any issues about the template other than whether to include Jacy Reese?
I think so. Whether to include Reese depends on where the cutoff is set for inclusion in this Template, which can be decided based on other Templates and Infoboxes on WP. And that cutoff then affects who else is included, such as Eliezer Yudkowsky, a figure who is very active in artificial intelligence and Rationalism but not very active at all in effective altruism. There is also the question of representativeness such as if we want the people listed to represent effective altruism, such as (as I argue) the current list being very focused on AI and existential risk. In short, the inclusion of one individual in this list is intertwined with the inclusion of others. Part of the issue here is that some editors are using unfair criteria for the inclusion of Reese that they do not apply to the people aligned with their own EA faction.
Second, is the discussion limited to the template, or are there also issues about any articles?
Only the template as far as I know. Bodole (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Back-and-Forth Discussion
Second statement by moderator
A Request for Comments will be used. We will ask whether to include Jacy Reese in the template. Is there anyone else who should be included in the question? If so, the RFC will have two parts, Jacy Reese and anyone else. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Second statements by editors
Reply by Bodole
What is the list in which the RFC will consider Reese's inclusion? I don't think it should be the one currently in the Template, which is a result of the edit war. Can we just use the one before this discussion began? (i.e.
- William MacAskill
- Toby Ord
- Holden Karnofsky
- Eliezer Yudkowsky
- Dustin Moskovitz
- Derek Parfit
- Peter Singer
- Liv Boeree
- Jacy Reese
- Nick Bostrom
- Yew-Kwang Ng
- Hilary Greaves
)
At that stage the title of the list was People, not Key Figures.
If we use the current list instead then I would take issue with the inclusion of Nick Bostrom, Yew-Kwang Ng, Derek Parfit, and Eliezer Yudkowsky Bodole (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC) .
Reply by Sir Paul
Is there anyone else who should be included in the question?
No.
Note that the current list is a compromise solution between the list favored by those who wanted to include Reese (Bodole) and the list favored by those who wanted to include Boeree and Greaves (me) [EDIT: I have slightly edited the preceding sentence to dispel possible misunderstandings]. So it seems natural to use this list, both because it's the one that existed when mediation was requested, and because it's the result of a compromise. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Back-and-Forth Discussion
Contra Sir Paul / Pablo Stafforini, the current list is not a compromise between myself and any other party. I do not endorse it in any way. It is simply the list that he had on the page when I halted the edit war in order to resolve the conflict via this noticeboard. "the one that existed when mediation was requested" is quite the euphemism. I would also note that Pablo is currently in hot water within the EA community for the misleading nature of his work with MacAskill, which also seems like no small conflict of interest in this discussion. MacAskill is also under fire for his use of "cofounder of the effective altruism movement." That bit may be of interest to @Xodarap00:. Bodole (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Please stop spreading misinformation. The inaccuracies in that post have already been addressed, and I hope the author will correct the post accordingly. As the volunteer moderator requested, this thread is for providing succinct answers to his questions, not to resolve our disagreements, let alone to engage in personal vendettas or cheap shots which have no bearing on the present discussion (my work for MacAskill ended a long time ago and I do not currently work for any EA org or am otherwise affiliated with EA in any formal capacity). Pablo Stafforini (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- It is not misinformation. The facts are on that webpage. I am providing back-and-forth feedback on your answer, which I have argued contains misinformation. Additionally I am bringing to other user's attention your conflict of interest. I do not know your current work and I will assume good faith but even prior work so close with a subject of this discussion seems worthy of noting. Lastly the concern with MacAskill's misrepresentation of his involvement is particularly relevant to the dispute. Bodole (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- This is not the first time you make a baseless allegation, from an anonymous account with about 100 edits virtually all of which are about Jacy Reese, that you later refuse to withdraw. Previously you accused me of being part of "a certain EA clique focused on artificial intelligence" without substantiating that accusation, even after I explicitly asked you to do so. I have no interest in reporting you to the admins, because I'm on Wikipedia to add content rather than to fight people, but I want to make it clear that your behavior shows a consistent pattern of battleground editing from a single-purpose account. Remember that "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals." Pablo Stafforini (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- My claims are not baseless. I have backed each one of them up clearly, and your repeatedly claiming otherwise does not change that. I am a small-time editor. I am unable to spend hours and hours of my life on this website, and my time is so tied up in this defense against your edit warring that I have had little time for anything else! I would love to be contributing to other topics! This will be the last comment I make in this particular thread because, as you correctly suggest, it is becoming about persons rather than content, but I see a particularly strong “ideological battle” being waged by your edits on this topic, and I urge you to consider your biases at least the fixedness of your views here. You say you are not here to “fight people” and yet you persist in doing exactly that on this topic. At least I think we agree that an RFC is the appropriate next step per policy. Bodole (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- In a Western movie, occasionally the sheriff says to two or more quarreling men (possibly a cattle baron, a sheep herder, and a railroad agent) as they enter his office, "Gentlemen, leave your guns outside." (The sheriff still has his .45 in its holster.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Robert, and apologies for having contributed to this. Regardless of how the vote goes, I appreciate your invaluable assistance in getting this disagreement resolved. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- In a Western movie, occasionally the sheriff says to two or more quarreling men (possibly a cattle baron, a sheep herder, and a railroad agent) as they enter his office, "Gentlemen, leave your guns outside." (The sheriff still has his .45 in its holster.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- My claims are not baseless. I have backed each one of them up clearly, and your repeatedly claiming otherwise does not change that. I am a small-time editor. I am unable to spend hours and hours of my life on this website, and my time is so tied up in this defense against your edit warring that I have had little time for anything else! I would love to be contributing to other topics! This will be the last comment I make in this particular thread because, as you correctly suggest, it is becoming about persons rather than content, but I see a particularly strong “ideological battle” being waged by your edits on this topic, and I urge you to consider your biases at least the fixedness of your views here. You say you are not here to “fight people” and yet you persist in doing exactly that on this topic. At least I think we agree that an RFC is the appropriate next step per policy. Bodole (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- This is not the first time you make a baseless allegation, from an anonymous account with about 100 edits virtually all of which are about Jacy Reese, that you later refuse to withdraw. Previously you accused me of being part of "a certain EA clique focused on artificial intelligence" without substantiating that accusation, even after I explicitly asked you to do so. I have no interest in reporting you to the admins, because I'm on Wikipedia to add content rather than to fight people, but I want to make it clear that your behavior shows a consistent pattern of battleground editing from a single-purpose account. Remember that "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals." Pablo Stafforini (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- It is not misinformation. The facts are on that webpage. I am providing back-and-forth feedback on your answer, which I have argued contains misinformation. Additionally I am bringing to other user's attention your conflict of interest. I do not know your current work and I will assume good faith but even prior work so close with a subject of this discussion seems worthy of noting. Lastly the concern with MacAskill's misrepresentation of his involvement is particularly relevant to the dispute. Bodole (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Third Statement by Moderator
I have composed the RFC and posted it at Template talk:Effective altruism, with a mention at Talk:Effective altruism. Neutral mentions may be also posted on any project talk page that is thought to be appropriate. I would have asked for help in composing the RFC, but there was quarreling, and I had to keep my pen and keyboard and gun in place. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Third Statements by Editors
Reply by Bodole
I appreciate the need to move the discussion forward but do not agree with the wording of the RFC. Namely it includes two entires, Liv Boeree and Hilary Greaves, that were already proposed to be cut in all the attempted compromise solutions. And it does not refer to the general cutoff and standardization of inclusion which is the only way we can fairly assess whether Reese or any other individual should be included because other editors are currently using inconsistent criteria. It is not neutral as an RFC statement should be.
Still, I have entered a reply. Bodole (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Fourth Statement by Moderator
As moderator, I am the judge of what ia a neutral RFC. However, you can express an opinion on the RFC, or can add a question to it, or can even publish another RFC.
What do you mean by cutoff and standardization of inclusion? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Fourth Statements by Editors
.
Nocturnes (Debussy)
Closed. I know enough to be able to close this dispute for two reasons. First, the Manual of Style specifies formatting for levels of articles. It does this to standardize formatting in the English Wikipedia. It shouldn't be necessary for it to say that it doesn't authorize individual users from deviating from the formatting because they want to do something different. So there isn't a content dispute that needs to be resolved by compromise, because the MOS should govern. Second, one of the editors has been insulting other editors, and that is a conduct matter that can be taken care of at WP:ANI, and DRN does not handle conduct disputes. Either follow the MOS, or report the conduct to WP:ANI, or both. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|