Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 30
 | 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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
Osteopathic Medicine in the United States
 | Dispute abandoned or resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
User Hopping (I have informed him that I am notifying DRN) has been attempting to engage me in an edit war on this page by reverting my edits for inadequate reasons and continues to do so. He has stated that his reason for the reversion of my edits originally for "style" and "clarity" with no explanation how his edits added to clarity and then cited an old, unresolved discussion that only partially relates to my edits as the basis for his reversions. I sought out help on the live wikipedia help site and was informed by volunteers there more familiar with wikipedia policy that his reversions were not based on sound reasoning and should be, as I suggested to him numerous times, done after the discussion over nomenclature has been made public to the talk page and a consensus reached. However, he continued to make these revisions immediately after moving our conversation on his talk page to the talk page (there was miscommunication) obviously not leaving time for outside comments on the nomenclature issues and continues to make these revisions despite my calls for allowing for the discussion to occur first. I have already assured him that should the majority opinion, once a wide variety of opinions are obtained to ensure a representative opinion of the community, that I would not object to his reversions. However, since the discussion he refers to took place on a DRN that was not binding and is only partially relevant to my edits, and new opinions have since weighed in on the issue since the old discussion adding support for the opinion that had less support.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Users involved
I have seen that this user has a history of conflict of interest and often does not directly respond to the content of what I say to him but evades instead. Furthermore, I have seen other users bring up the very issue that Hopping argued against in the previously mentioned old discussion (and he is still arguing against it) in terms of nomenclature and I have seen comments from users talking to him on his own page that confirm what he views as "clarity", may in fact confuse users based on what he favors. I can provide evidence of these events if necessary.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I have spoken to this user numerous times on his talk page and the article's talk page attempting to engage in discussion and have him allow for other users to participate in the discussion before taking an immediate course of action when none is warranted but he persists in making these reversions and evading the content of what I say to him.
Please inform this user of the importance of allowing for a full discussion to take place on the talk page before taking any decisive action and reverting my comments and to actually engage in a constructive conversation with me when I openly communicate with him that I wish to avoid an edit war, to address the content of my arguments, and to make sure his reversions or edits are accurate (the reversion of my edits are inaccurate since some of my edits do not pertain to what he is claiming should be corrected). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Osteopathic Medicine in the United States discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
There's an open sock puppetry case that's relevant: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DoctorK88. Bryan HoppingT 03:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Exactly which page is in dispute and where have you discussed the dispute?Curb Chain (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC) An erroneous claim with malicious intent. I have explained at length on administrator AGK's page. Also, if you go to the help desk you will see him attempting to "poke the bear" a behavior I did not realize had a name on wikipedia. Also, irrelevant to the validity of the claims I have made from a logical standpoint. The fact remains that Hopping's reversions were misguided, he evaded what I said, and his reversions were based on an old, unresolved dispute and a still open Rfc that only partially pertains to my edits and not others. He refuses to allow the discussion on the talk page to pan out before making the final decision of reverting my edits (which are not incorrect but just in his opinion "unnecessary and unclear" though users on his own talk page have expressed to him the exact opposite, that his way is unclear. I made it completely clear that if the talk page discussion decided that my edits were not good ones then I would not object to their reversion. He has been most uncooperative and I view his sockpuppetry actions as that of a personal attack. He has also been following my discussions where I talk on other pages as well for no good reason when I seek outside help. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 22, 2012 at 19:29 (UTC) because this dispute appears to be stale or resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Seamus incident
| If you have any questions about why this thread was closed, please click the 'show' button first and read the comment left by the closer. If your questions are still not answered, please inquire on the closer's talk page. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
There is a severe edit war regarding the inclusion of a quote by Jim Treacher that defends Mitt Romney's treatment of his dog Seamus by noting the Barack Obama once ate dogmeat: "Say what you want about Romney, but at least he only put a dog on the roof of his car, not the roof of his mouth." I have stayed out of this debate, but it has resulted in daily edit war which have made any editting of this article difficult. From May 3rd to May 7th, this article was under full protection because of edit warring largely revolving around similiar material that discussed Obama's consumption of dogmeat. The supporters of the quote have stated it is relevant to the Seamus incident article because Treacher is defending Romney against allegations of animal cruelty by comparing it to Obama's past behavior, and that the non-inclusion of the quote is an NPOV violation. Some supporters also note that some news stories treat the Seamus story and the dogmeat story together. Opponents of the quote state that Obama's consumption of dogmeat as a child is not relevant to the Seamus incident, and it creates a BLP violation or coatrack that attacks Obama in an article that's not about him. Several opponents also have stated that a recent AfD (WP:Articles for deletion/Obama Eats Dogs) deleted an article about Obama eating dogs, and that inclusion of this material would violate the AfD's decision, which was to delete the article, and not merge it with the Seamus article. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
There have been at least 8 discussion threads at Talk:Seamus incident about Obama's consumption of dogmeat. None have come close to a obtaining any consensus.
(1) Evaluate editors' interpretation of Wikipedia policies regarding this material to see their claims are valid; (2) Reference a past article which had a similiar dispute with similiar policy issues being cited; and/or (3) Come to some form of resolution which will satisfy most of the editors. HHIAdm (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Seamus incident discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Hmm. I just answered a straw poll on the talk page of the article in question; I've never edited the article itself. Better safe than sorry, I suppose. I have my opinion, and I'll answer any questions. --BDD (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I am opposed to the inclusion of the Jim Treacher comment for several reasons. First, I believe that it's not relevant to the Seamus incident. I think it is violates WP:coatrack to put a sentence attacking Barack Obama in an article about an incident about Mitt Romney and his dog. Wikipedia has a number of articles about political controversies (e.g., Lewinsky scandal, John McCain lobbyist controversy, Chappaquiddick incident), and none of them criticize another person's behavior as some sort of defense. For example, it would be inappropriate for the Lewinsky scandal article to have a sentence saying that Newt Gingrich also had a sex scandal during the same time period. The other issue is the Obama Eats Dogs AfD decided that Jim Treacher's comments about Obama eating dogs was not notable, and that the article should be deleted. Many editors took part in the AfD discussion and there was extensive debate about merging the Obama Eats Dogs article into the Seamus incident article. That argument was rejected, and the AfD's decision was to delete the article, and not to merge it with another article. In the two weeks since the AfD was concluded, there has been extensive edit warring regarding attempts to include Treacher's quote into the Seamus incident article. If the Obama Eats Dogs story becomes a more prominent controversy in the future, a discussion about adding it to a Wikipedia article would be warranted. However, nothing has changed in the last two weeks regarding this issue's notability, and I believe that the AfD's decision should stand. Debbie W. 17:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
As I stated on the article talk page, I've pretty much ducked out of this article but I will comment here briefly. William's post is an example of why. We have a few editors who don't look at this as Wikipedia article but as an attack on Mitt Romney, and thus we must counter this attack on Mitt Romney by attacking Obama. I've explained on the talk page that this article is not about Obama eating dog meat as a 6 year old in Indonesia, but about Mitt Romney transporting a dog in 1983 in such a way that it attracted controversy and thus reliable sources for the topic. Yes, the article is negative because most coverage is negative, the incident itself is negative, and thus and this is to be expected, but in no way is the article an attack on Mitt Romney. Some conservative commentators have decided that the best way to diffuse the situation is to use the Chewbacca defense, wherein rather than comment on the Seamus incident they attempt to distract gullible people into focusing on Obama instead. I can't blame them, it's obviously a good strategy as people not educated in formal logic will be unlikely to notice that it's a logical fallacy (I do doubt that said commentators are aware that they are committing a logical fallacy, and so I explain it via ignorance and not malice). However, WP as an encyclopedia should not be repeating logical fallacies simply because someone printed them. The use of an article about an incident involving Romney and a dog to discuss something Obama did as a child is a WP:COATRACK plain and simple; we need to use logic and WP:COMMONSENSE here. Lastly, editors on this page seem to grossly misunderstand WP:NPOV to mean something akin to attaining a false balance, wherein if something negative is said about someone we must also point out negative things about their political opponents. I'm guessing I don't have to explain why this wrong or how it misrepresents NPOV. I'm not planning on continuing this discussion as I have a wall at home that doesn't have quite enough marks from my head, and so I need to spend my time fixing this, at least until the drywall cracks. SÆdontalk 20:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC) I've just stumbled upon a perfect example to illustrate my point. Today the Washington Post ran this story about Mitt Romney bullying some kid 50 years ago. The Dailycaller, which is one of the sources involved in this dispute published this retort that rightly points out inconsistencies in the Washpost story. Notice how this article doesn't go on to talk about some Obama stepping on some kid's foot as a child or some other story from Obama's past, but rather focuses on the actual topic at hand, which is an alleged bullying incident. Why is this the case in this article? Because there's obviously something to say about the topic and so there's no need to try and deflect the attention elsewhere. In the Seamus incident case, there was nothing to say about Romney's actions; people either don't care or they think it's messed up. Those who don't care aren't going to convince those who do care that it's not a big deal, so it's easier to just attempt to level the playing field with a red herring. If we had an article about this story and if the only response from the right was to point to Obama bullying a kid rather than deal with the topic of Romney doing so, it would be asinine and downright ridiculous to say "In response to allegations that Romney bullied a homosexual teenager, conservatives pointed out that Obama bullied someone too, so there na nee na nee boo boo." SÆdontalk 21:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Saedon has it completely right. And I'll reiterate, its about context. Obama joked at the correspondents' dinner about his dog problem also, and that is a perfect moment in the article to very briefly describe what he's referring to. It is in context there. But as Saedon says above, you can't simply say "BALANCED" by having a tit-for-tat. Every parent has heard the refrain "well, Billy's parents let him stay up until 10pm!" and the parent explains that just because someone else does it, doesn't mean it applies to their kid. It is sort of a parental WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ultimately since this is a politically motivated story, that aspect of it should have the most coverage and honestly it should receive the most scrutiny as well. Currently the article text doesn't do that. It is very haphazard and simply tosses a quote or two in from various people without including any critical commentary, and by critical I don't mean necessarily that it disagrees, I simply mean that someone provided an analysis of the other person's motivations and whatnot. There is a huge contingent of "who cares" people, but those quotes are conveniently excluded in favor of quotes that play up the outrage. Neutral tone and balance mean that you provide a well researched article, not simply the scandalous side. -- Avanu (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 23, 2012 at 16:52 (UTC) because this dispute appears to be abandoned or resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Raising a flag over the Reichstag
| No discussion, not really a dispute but a conduct complaint. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Content has been disputed in the past. Current deletions made without explanation. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Have discussed issue at user's talk page, to no avail.
Further eyes to help determine validity of recent deletions. 71.241.200.94 (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Raising a flag over the Reichstag discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Greenbrier Ghost
| Not a dispute. Would suggest posting a note at WP:EA. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
story is not consistent. in the burial header, Zona is cremated. in the exhumation header, Zona is exhumed? Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Greenbrier Ghost discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Maybe adding {{contradict}} would be better than posting a dispute here.Curb Chain (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Suicide of Tyler Clementi
| See closing note, below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
My contention: In the bias crimes trial of Dharum Ravi, the court ruled that the trial (and, therefore, the charges/crimes) and Clementi's suicide were not connected (so much so that Clementi's suicide note was not made available to the defense or the public). However, it appears that a political lobby is attempting to use this page in order to FORCE a connection, for their own ends (I suggest that those ends amount to highlighting a supposed higher than general population average LGBT-bullying problem by fabricating said connection). I have made several (and repeat) edits to remove all irrelevant content, e.g., that referencing Ravi or "LGBT cyberbullying", etc. However, someone (or some people) keeps replacing the text. I previously attempted to begin a discussion on same on the relevant Talk page. There were no legitimate takers, only people telling me I was making an illegitimate argument, doing it in the wrong place, wasting my time, and that I should stop. I believe that as Ravi's actions and the suicide have been officially deemed unconnected, the suicide (i.e., the subject of the article) should stand alone, should not "benefit", Wikiworthywise, by the notability of the bias trial, and, therefore, should be held to be an unnoteworthy suicide and not granted a Wiki page t all. Users involved
It is possible that anyone who considers him or herself a homosexuals' rights activist would revise my edits without a moment's thought respecting the legitimacy of the article's making such a connection between Ravi's bias actions and the suicide.
Yes
Resolving the dispute
Attempted to initiate a discussion on the relevant Talk page. Brought the issue to the attention of an administrator/volunteer arbiter and was directed here.
Review the article. Examine whether Ravi is perhaps being libelled. Disallow people from revising all edits without giving a good reason (I gave my reasons upon making the edits. Nobody gave a reason for making revisions.) Hypesmasher (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Suicide of Tyler Clementi discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
As an uninvolved editor, I would like to point out that what "As I and other users have tried to say to you is that you can not get this article deleted trough its talk page. You have to go trough the AfD process if you want to stand a chance of getting the article deleted. Keeping on saying that the article isnt notable because this and that here on the talk page will get you nowhere unfortunatly" - BabbaQ is a valid statement. To start the proper discussion, simply make an AFD, A relevant discussion page will appear during which debate and consensus will occur. You asked "Why will it get me nowhere? Why won't it, at least, get me to a place where YOU either agree or disagree with me here, on Talk?" The reason is because the reasons (and counterarguments)for deletion have a proper place - the AFD page. So make an AFD page and make your arguments there. It's just following proper procedures. Since your purpose appears to be to get the page to be deleted, that is, indeed, in everyone's (including your) best interests. Hope this helped. θvξrmagξ contribs 01:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
NY Times Index for Tyler Clementi. The President, the Governer, etc commented on it at the time. At the time, there had been a recent rash of 4 teenage suicides, most coming in the wake of bullying incidents. An effort called ["It Gets Better"] was started but really took off after Mr. Clementi's death. President Obama and others recorded messages and over 3.5 million watched, verified by youtube.com. Google used the effort as part of its TV advertising effort to show how important the web was. A critical factor in notability is a reasonable amount of coverage and it got much more than that. --Javaweb (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
The pertinent questions here are these: Upon reading the Suicide of Tyler Clementi article, do you get an overwhelming sense that the suicide was connected, and, in fact, directly caused, by Dharum Ravi's webcam actions? And do you get the sense that Ravi's actions were motivated by a desire to bully Clementi based on his sexual orientation. If so, and given the FACT that the court ruled that Clementi's suicide and Ravi's actions were entirely UNconnected, do you feel that an injustice is being perpetrated on Ravi, via this Wiki article? Question 1. Answer Yes or No. If Yes, go to question 2. Question 2. Answer Yes or No. If Yes, VOCALLY support (here) removal of all irrelevant information in the article. There's no need for a bureaucratic song and dance. --Hypesmasher (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Deletion DiscussionIt should be noted that the editor raising this dispute had previously attempted to list the article at AfD, and had that imperfect nomination reverted. I believe the correct approach should have been to edit that nomination to correct it on the 'once listed must be discussed' principle. Accordingly I have made a procedural nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Tyler Clementi (2nd nomination) and invite all parties here and elsewhere, especially the editor who wished for its discussion for deletion, to make their views known there. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Right, I shall try to bring this back to what I understand the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for. See page header above. First: article content. There is an AfD in process, and all comments about the existence of the article go there. Not here. They will not be read here. The question of potential libel of a living person has been mentioned. That goes to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Second: editor behaviour. One person may be guilty of incivility, more than the other. Nevertheless, both of you can help to de-escalate. Try not to interact with each other for a couple of days. Then, either or both of you, if you think there is still a problem, could take out a a request for comment upon a user. Mediation is another option. But not now. In a couple of days or perhaps a week. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Clerk's closing note: With the content issue, i.e. notability, being discussed at AfD and this discussion having devolved into discussion of one another, rather than the article or its content, this is no longer appropriate for DRN. If you have complaint's about one another's conduct, take them to WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U, WP:ANI, or WP:ARBCOM, but the guidelines of this noticeboard prohibit such discussions. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
|
| No responses for over three days. Guy Macon (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
There is a concerted deletion of mention of claims to Jewish origin by a community of ancient christians from Kerala, India. The said community is called as Malabar Nasrani a.k.a Nasrani Mappila. Nasrani is the Hebrew word for Jewish Christianity. It was the Portuguese invaders of Kerala who started calling the Nasranis as Saint Thomas Christians because they hated any Jewish reference to the a supposed christian community. Anyway The naming is a minor dispute within the larger dispute of the deletion of any cited mention of claims to Jewish descent of the Nasranis a.k.a Malabala Mappila a.k.a Saint Thomas Christians. I had put up quotes from Scholars from Hebrew University Jerusalem and also cited from research work from scholar from University of Texas. Prof Shalva Weil from Hebrew University Jerusalem mentions in her papers that the Northists ( a sub group of the Nasranis) have claims of Jewish origins. She also quotes in her paper about the claim that Saint Thomas the apostle converted members of the Jewish diaspora settled in the Malabar Coast (Kerala). I have given all these quotes with page numbers from the peer reviewed academic papers at the talk page of the article. Now editors are constantly deleting text that mentions the claim of the community to Jewish descent. Why or how would you justify deletion of text when I have given citation or page numbers from the academic research papers. The editors state that I do not know english and that I am misinterpreting the quote. To this I told the editor that since he/she knows better english than me then please help the collaborative wikipedia editing by rewording the text so that the misinterpretation is removed. But the requested rewording did not happen. I have given references and quotes. Why would the editor keep on deleting the text and not allow rewording. Clearly the research authors have mentioned about the claims of jewish origins of the Nasranis Christians (a.k.a Nasrani Mappila a.k.a. Malabar Nasranis a.k.a Saint Thomas Christians). With proper citations given, it is definitely legitimate to mention about the claims of jewish descent of the Nasrani people. How could the editors keep on deleting mention of the claim of jewish origin of the people when proper citation with page numbers have been provided. Does that mean that no mention of claims of Jewish origin should be made even though scholars have stated so, just because the editors have an agenda. The editors who are reverting have administrative powers. I think they are misusing their administrative powers. I wonder whether a fair dispute resolution would happen given that the editors who are reverting are elites of the wikipedia. Even though wikipedia claims to treat all editors equally it does not seem so with the constant deletion of the cited passages and the degrading way in which the editor ridicules me by stating that I do not know to interpret english. Anyway I am following the procedure of the wikipedia by stating it on dispute resolution. A lot of discussion regarding the deltion has already happened on the talk page of the article Saint Thomas Christians under the sub heading Jewish descent. Please help, if you would be fair to all editors equally. thanks Robin klein (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Tried to have talk regarding the constant deletion of referenced passages. But editors with administrative powers keep on deleting without any discussions. There seems to be concerted grouping of editors with an agenda.
Since I have mentioned peer reviewed academic journal papers. It is most legitimate to mention the information form the journal papers on wikipedia. If rewording is needed then so be it. The Dispute resolution could either let the information be mentioned as I put it up WITH ACADEMIC CITATIONS or help put the information on wikipedia with rewording if that is indeed the problem But completely deleting materials that are backed with legitimate citations from Peer reviewed academic journals is not justified. thanks Robin klein (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Robin klein (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Saint Thomas Christians discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Ahmad Shah Massoud
| No discussion for three weeks. Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dispute overview
Disagreement over an edit that attempted to reduce an overlong quotefarm to a brief summary [8]. In particular, the question is whether the statement at the beginning of the second paragraph involved, A 2005 report by Afghanistan Justice Project [...] describes him [i.e. Massoud] as indirectly responsible for an ethnically motivated massacre and mass rape committed by his forces on taking the suburb of Afshar in February 1993, arguing that he and his subcommanders failed to prevent atrocities that they could have foreseen is a fair summary of this source, p.82f. Users involved
Article is currently protected because of JCAla's vehement opposition to this edit.
Yes. Resolving the dispute
Debate can be seen at Talk:Ahmad Shah Massoud#Removal of 13,000 bytes of content by Fut.Perf.
Check the source and tell us if it was fairly summarized. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Ahmad Shah Massoud discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The two points of contention with Fut.Perf. version are
I suggest to
Note that Pulitzer Price winner and expert on war crimes Roy Gutman summarizes this very same source (Afghanistan Justice Project) and this very issue the following way:
JCAla (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 26, 2012 at 18:43 (UTC) Reason: Stale - no discussion in the last two weeks.
|
Walter Mignolo
| Dispute abandoned or resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
I have added content saying that Walter Mignolo was part of the Group of 88, a group of professors who signed the open letter during the Duke lacrosse case. (He would later sign the clarifying letter as well.) The argument is over this being included. His signature is an endorsement of this, and the letter received massive amounts of media attention. A signature on something means that the person backs what it is saying. I argued that it is a sign of action (not like declining to sign something -- the other professors who weren't part of the 88 Duke faculty). Someone being part of the minority like this is mentioned on other pages (like the pages of minority views against their party with the Taxpayer Protection Pledge - Ben Nelson, Ben Chandler, Robert Andrews). Mignolo was part of the minority and this open letter received as much if not more press than the pledge (which is just one example). The issue is including the piece of information, and there was discussion about the significance of an endorsement. My suggestion was mentioning that he was a signer in a non-prominent way on the page. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
We have discussed this on the talk page. Discussion is available here. There has been significant discussion that has taken part over the course of a few days.
Provide us with an outside view on the matter of including that he signed these and there was a huge amount of media coverage involved. Please review the talk page discussion and we will try to keep focused on the matter at hand. DietFoodstamp (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Walter Mignolo discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 23, 2012 at 17:01 (UTC) because this dispute appears to be abandoned or resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
|
British Pakistanis
| Archiving. Stale discussion. Lord Roem (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
what is disputed is the content added by User:AnkhMorpork and User:Shrike here, [9]. the content implies that pedophilia is connected with ethnic background and thus violates npov. there are several pages about racial groups on wikipedia and none of them contain such content. as another user noted; "belgium page does not feature a subsection on the innate pedophilia of belgians". many europeans are involved in the disgusting thai sex trade but there is no subsection about this on the europeans-page either. and so on and so forth. the sources used by ankmorpork and shrike are also questionable. erick stakelbeck, for example, is described as "anti-muslim". an opinion piece with the very contentious title "most-uk-girl-child-abusers-are-british-pakistanis" is also used. however, most child abusers in britain are whites. the times article used as a source in this opinion piece is also an opinion piece. in addition, most of the content added by ankmorpork is about the "rochdale grooming trial". totally undue. another thing: this sort of information belongs to pages like Human trafficking in the United Kingdom or Slavery in Britain and Ireland but not the page about british pakistanis. ankmorpork's additions violate wp:npov, wp:undue and are totally un-encyclopedic. ankmorpork and shrike also violated wp:brd. wp:brd implies being bold, yes, but when you are reverted, a discussion and consensus is obliged before another set of additions are made. instead, ankmorpork and shrike have forced the material back into the article.-- altetendekrabbe 05:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Users involved
i suspect that user shrike and ankmorpork are tag-teaming. see the discussion here, [10]
Yes.-- altetendekrabbe 05:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Resolving the dispute
there was a discussion on the talk page but with no result. consensus was thus not reached. however, ankmorpork and shrike have forced the material back into the article.-- altetendekrabbe 05:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
the content has to be moved to a more appropriate page with the unreliable sources weeded out. the content is undue and violates npov. it is also supported by an opinion piece and erik stakelbeck. most of the content is about the "rochdale grooming trial". totally undue.-- altetendekrabbe 18:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC) British Pakistanis discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The dispute started with accusation by Altetendekrabbe not a good start you also forgot to notify User:Darkness Shines.Anyhow it was already explained to this user that the sources tell about the community so its relevant to the article.--Shrike (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a little cluster of these people that go around together editing articles. I posted simple advice on a user's talk page to not get dragged into discussion with one of the above-mentioned users, only for one of the other above-mentioned users to show up and post something. They harass and tag-team like crazy, it's ridiculous. I can't believe it's so blatant yet they have got away with it, and doubtless will continue to do so. Ban these racists from editing. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
My viewI think, on balance, it doesn't belong on the British Pakistani article, yet - for the obvious reason that it's just such a tiny number of British Pakistanis that it's totally irrelevant (let's say there's a thousand offenders, which I hope is a huge over-estimate. They're not exactly going to be bragging about it - so at most ten thousand would even know. That's a TINY proportion of British Pakistanis). But ironically, despite not fitting into this article, it may merit its own article, something like British Asian Sex Ring controversy or something. Why? Because it has indisputably received a heck of a lot of media coverage over the last couple of months. It's had journalists, collumnists, politicians, reporters, socioilogists and so on discussing it. Indeed, to not have an article would be curious. Especially since more trials are coming. Perhaps we (collective we, not sure I want to get involved although I may have a go) should concentrate on getting the "Public debate and analysis" section of Rochdale sex trafficking gang sorted and it can be split into an article later. Egg Centric 00:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Yugoslav Wars-Kosovo War
| Archiving, stale discussion for over a week. Lord Roem (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
On the talk page, there is a debate on whether Kosovo War can be considered part of the Yugoslav Wars. User Direktor keeps denying the notion, despite dozens of sources from myself and user:Joy. We are in a deadlock. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
There was a discussion on the talk page - [16] - but with no result. User:Joy and myself think we have proven with enough sources that Kosovo War is used in the same context with wars in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia, while user:DIRECTOR does not agree. An overview of the sources that support including the Kosovo conflict:
A neutral, third opinion from other users should bring a verdict if Kosovo War can be considered part of the 1990s wars in the former Yugoslavia or not. Justice and Arbitration (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC) Yugoslav Wars-Kosovo WarDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
First of all, User:Justice and Arbitration's summary of the situation is appallingly biased. Since the man has posted nothing but obvious OR (and personal attacks), I strongly suspect all his dozens upon dozens of sources are misquoted. Throughout the thread, all I have been doing is explaining to the user what original research is, and why its unacceptable. He has condescendingly "dismissed" all objections. I keep asking for a single source that actually directly supports his claim, to no avail. All I would like to see is a source that in some way states the Kosovo War is one of the "Yugoslav Wars". -- Director (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I think Craig Nation gives a good definition: [http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/00117.pdf From the prelude in Slovenia in 1991, through the more destructive conflicts in Croatia, BosniaHerzegovina, and Kosovo between 1992 and 1999, to the epilogue in Macedonia in 2000-2001, what I prefer to call the War of Yugoslav Succession has been about efforts to assert sovereignty over territory in the absence of any kind of agreement concerning how the collapsing federation might have been reorganized, or disassembled, short of a resort to force. Slobodan Milošević has been singled out for special censure for his blatant manipulation of Serbian nationalism in order to secure a hold on power, and willingness to resort to blood and iron in order to carve a greater Serbia from the body of former Yugoslavia]--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The concept is indeed problematic since it seems there are different titles to it, but it was still enough to warrant hundred books written on the topic, among them one published by BBC itself in 1996, "Yugoslavia: death of a nation", which mentions the term "Yugoslav Wars" on page 334. http://books.google.hr/books?hl=hr&id=ZxwOAQAAMAAJ&dq=fall+of+yugoslavia&q=yugoslav+wars The problem is, I can only browse a little into some books on google, so I cannot get a clear overview on every page to find a good definition. Most sources just mention the timeline (the 1990s) and territories in conflict. Still, the International Crisis Group (ICG) http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?page=search&docid=3ae6a6ce1c&skip=0&query=yugoslav has a good definition in the background of the conflict: "Today's political geography of the Balkans is the result of four separate wars -- in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo -- and a series of partially-implemented, internationally-brokered peace agreements. It reflects the failure, on the one hand, of the former Yugoslavia to come to terms with the transition from one-party, Marxist rule to democracy, and, on the other hand, of the international community to manage the disintegration of the country. The international community, led by the European Community (EC) as the European Union (EU) was then called, became involved in the wars of Yugoslav dissolution " whereas the CIA https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ri.html says this in the history of Serbia: "In 1989, Slobodan MILOSEVIC became president of the Republic of Serbia and his ultranationalist calls for Serbian domination led to the violent breakup of Yugoslavia along ethnic lines. In 1991, Croatia, Slovenia, and Macedonia declared independence, followed by Bosnia in 1992. The remaining republics of Serbia and Montenegro declared a new Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) in April 1992 and under MILOSEVIC's leadership, Serbia led various military campaigns to unite ethnic Serbs in neighboring republics into a "Greater Serbia". The international community, led by the European Community (EC) as the European Union (EU) was then called, became involved in the wars of Yugoslav dissolution "--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Adam Dunn reverts
| Thought the issue was solved, but it isn't. Will now be dealt with shortly at EWN instead. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
The user Carthage 44 has been reverting statistical updates to Adam Dunn's page, among others. He has claimed in a few of his edit summaries that there is "No need to update so often." Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Both I and Zepppep have attempted to discuss this with Carthage 44 on his talk page, but he has only removed our posts. Zepppep also discussed it with Carthage44 on the Adam Dunn talk page.
You can explain to Carthage 44 that there is no harm in regularly updating a page and that he needs to be willing to discuss the issue with the other editors involved. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Adam Dunn reverts discussionI saw that Carthage44 had again reverted a stats edit, I reverted his edit, and left a (what I thought) clear note on the talk page, to go with my edit summary pointing him there.
He once again reverted one of my edits, although Despayre undid his revert. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Mikis Theodorakis
| Closing per stale discussion. Recommending parties open an WP:RFC to elicit broader community discussions about this dispute. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
have been trying to add RS content (from LA Times, Guardian and Jerusalem Post) to article, but keep getting rebuffed by two particular editors. Diffs:
Users involved
in my opinion, neither DrK nor Athenean want anything to do with this material since it portrays the subject in a bad light.
Yes
Resolving the dispute
yes, on the talk page several times.
should the material be allowed to stand, and if so, with what verbiage? Soosim (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Mikis Theodorakis discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Soosim has been trying for months, if not years now, to smear Mikis Theodorakis as an anti-semite. However, as of last fall, a clear consensus formed in the article's talkpage that these accusations were given undue weight and as such were a BLP violation that had no place in the article. This discussion can be seen here [18]. Four editors, of diverse backgrounds, have agreed on this point. One of them User:Off2riorob (now User:Youreallycan) is an expert with lots of experience on BLP articles. The lone dissenting voice was Soosim, a single-purpose account that does pretty much nothing besides smear on this encyclopedia those critical of Israel and its policies, as his contribs log clearly shows [19]. At first he tried to have his way via edit-warring [20] [21] [22]. That didn't work, so here he is. He just keeps repeating like a broken record that his sources are reliable, his sources are reliable, but without taking into accounts the details of what happened during the interview, and the subleties of WP:DUE and WP:BLP. I note that Soosim has omitted from notifying Youreallycan of this discussion, as he has also omitted another dissenting user, User:Nojamus, for reasons known only to him. Athenean (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Rob Ford
| Discussion stalled, article fully protected indefinitely. If the discussion resumes (it doesn't have to wait until the article is unlocked, of course) and locks again, please feel free to refile here, but remember that this forum is not for conduct disputes and works best for conflicts over specific edits. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Several editors, including myself, are at an impasse over the content at the Rob Ford article. Most recent consensus is for keeping a link to a BBC article, but it is consistently removed by the user Claimsfour. Claimsfour claims that the article is a "hitpiece" on said Rob Ford, who is a prominent politician, and that is a serious charge in and of itself. An examination of the article and recent editing is in order. Users involved
Claimsfour has not edited any other articles but this one, and we cannot vouch for his NPOV or distance on the material.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
This has been discussed on the talk page of the article, and another editor has placed a warning on Claimsfour's talk page.
An impartial examination of the situation. Is it edit warring? Is it biased, as it stands now? This may take some knowledge of the subject material. There was a previous complaint about this article in 2010 during Rob Ford's election campaign. This is mentioned in the article. I have not asked for dispute resolution before, sorry if this is inappropriate. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC) Rob Ford discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The user has been reported also to the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Rob Ford's wiki page needs serious editingI've been a contributor to for close to six years. I only bothered to register after seeing the Rob Ford article, and I realized that registering would enable me to dispute the rampant level of biased/attacks. My issues with the Rob Ford Wiki article are as follows: - The level of 'weasel words' is virtually biblical
"Yet again"? Total idiocy.
What does this have to do with a man's "Political Views"? - The use of a comedy skit to pass off as objective news is ridiculous (This Hour Has 22 Minutes: Mary Walsh). CBC has not posted the raw footage (All other news organizations do this when there's questions as to the editing which went on). Or is Wikipedia now claiming that there was a 'laugh track' actually there when Ford was being accosted by Mary Walsh? - The 'quote' of Ford claiming "I'm Rob Fucking Ford" when there was no evidence, no recording and all the chief of police came out saying that Ford did not say that. This garbage was on Wiki's Ford page for ages and went uncontested. - In politics, there are no 'parties' at the municipal level. We can only 'guess' what Ford's affiliations are, but that does not mean it can be used as 'valid' info for a Wiki entry. Citing travel arrangements, where Ford and his family visited Stephen Harper's residence as an attempt to place a stamp on Ford's "Political affiliation" is idiocy. John Tory held a fundraiser for Ford, Sarah Thomson and George Smitherman (all different political stripes) does that suddenly mean all of them are of the same party? - Ford at the hockey game. We only have a complaint report (which there is no link) to make the claim that Ford shouted out: You right wing Communist bastards”, "Are you a fucking teacher? What the fuck is it that you do?" and “Do you want your little wife to go over to Iran and get raped and shot?” POST THE EVIDENCE. - "At a CP24 Mayoral debate, Councillor Ford referred to his political affiliations as a "Red Tory". - No link. - This "Guilt by association" crap is stupid, Ford's wiki page is basically fueled by rumors and lurid speculation (with few links if none to back them up...only links to other pages with more rumors!) I personally met a bunch of politicians in my life/shook their hand, talked/whatever. Does that suddenly makes me 'loyal' to any of them? This Ford page brings out the worst of Ford's critics, it really needs a serious weed whacking. Claimsfour (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I can go out right now and find a few dozen people all 'cyclists' who will say Ford is the most amazing human being on the face of the earth...does that make it so?
Claimsfour (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claimsfour (talk • contribs) 01:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 23, 2012 at 17:09 (UTC) because this dispute appears to be abandoned or resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Riot Games
| Appears filing party does not see a conflict/dispute anymore, per his last comment in the discussion section. Closing as moot. Lord Roem (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Vladcole, employee of Riot Games removing 'Action RTS' as a description for League of Legends on Riot Games' page due to calling it 'Valve's term'. Consensus was established as per Talk:Action_real-time_strategy. I am arguing that his reversion is heavily COI-influenced and ignores consensus. Users involved
User is employee of Riot Games: WP:COI
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
tried posting on talk page, but he doesn't read it. Gave him consensus, he ignored it ("there's nothing there that would indicate that the term ARTS belongs in this entry.", misunderstanding how consensus works and why his entry constitutes a conflict of interest)
Explain to him about COI and violating policy and to avoid COI and ignoring consensus. θvξrmagξ contribs 05:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Riot Games discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Comment Overmage doesn't mention that I very clearly state the potential COI on my editor profile and that there is no intent to hide the potential COI. Failing to share this information feels like a selective disclosure in the dispute process. Overmage correctly states that I did make an edit without adequate commentary. That was my fault and careless, and I have apologized. However, Overmage has mischaracterized the dispute here. The dispute in my opinion involves Overmage's overzealous reversion which had the effect of inserting the term "ARTS" as a prefix to the game name "League of Legends." Overmage appears to have made this edit merely as a way to get me to notice. In this edit [[24]] Overmage wrote, "this is the only way to get you to notice." Reverting editorial work (without intent to improve the entry) is an aggressive way to grab another editor's attention and seems to be a violation of Wikipedia editorial philosophies. Note that the League of Legends page on Wikipedia already contains the "genre" information and Overmage's uncommented reversion has the effect of making the entry less legible, and less usable. I have read the COI guidelines and believe that my suggested edit (the removal of the term ARTS from the page) is appropriate and rationally justified. Nowhere on Wikipedia is there a requirement that game names be preceded by their genre, and this entry does not require such a prefix for clarity or quality. Vladcole (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Comment The original edit did not remove the prefix, but changed it from 'Action RTS' to 'MOBA'. The edit reason given was "Action RTS is a term used by Valve". Given the editor's background, this appears to me to be treading on COI ground. The fact that later on this was amended to "remove the prefix altogether" does not remove the fact that it seems like the desire was to remove a term another corporation is using.
The COI possibility isn't an issue, it's what has been sourced. Are either adjectives sourced? If not I recommend not categorizing the game at all.Curb Chain (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Carrier Strike Group One, Carrier Strike Group Seven
| If you have any questions about why this thread was closed, please click the 'show' button first and read the comment left by the closer. If your questions are still not answered, please inquire on the closer's talk page. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
For over eighteen months, I've been struggling to convey to User:Marcd30319 that he is required to allow other users to edit and change the series of Carrier Strike Group articles which he has created. Marcd30319 has trouble with having other users make or suggest changes to his articles, for some time - see for example comments at the FA for USS Triton [25] and [26]. He's even sometimes removed maintenance tags without making required changes, as he's not happy with them [27]. He will not allow other users to make changes to his articles, and instead of participating in discussions, he unilaterally reverts, or announces that he has himself made changes to all the articles in the series, and all other users' change suggestions should be posted on a section of the talk page, which he will consider. This is a problem because he imports enormous amount of U.S. Navy public-domain text which is difficult for non-experts to follow easily and has inherent POV problems, but he demands that it be presented his way, no other version. Users involved
Administrators User:Nick-D and less recently User:The ed17 have attempted to intercede.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I have raised this repeatedly on Marcd30319's talk page, been insulted for my pains, with little effect, there's been some discussion over a year or two on User talk:The ed17, I tried to trial a revised format at Carrier Strike Group Two which got reverted, I've tried to trial a new approach through Wikipedia:Peer review/Carrier Strike Group Seven/archive1, which first resulted in being told by Marcd30319 that I shouldn't edit the articles, and should only suggest changes on the talk pages [28], and then a demand that the Peer Review be suspended [29] and a request that no-body else edit the articles. Thereafter he unilaterally completely changed the Carrier Strike Group Seven article whose revised format I was seeking comments on. He then made minor rewrites of the whole article series with other editors' changes reverted. I posted seeking advice on WT:MHCOORD, but was then directed here after a talkpage discussion at User talk:Nick-D.
Independent reasonably senior editors need to examine Marcd30319's conduct, judge whether he is, as User:Nick-D and I believe [30], [31] in flagrant breach of WP:OWN, and to recommend a path forward. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Carrier Strike Group One, Carrier Strike Group Seven discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
This does not sound like an issue with content, maybe rather the behaviour of User:Marcd30319.Curb Chain (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 28, 2012 at 09:04 (UTC) Reason: No discussion for over three days
|
2012 in film
| If you have any questions about why this thread was closed, please click the 'show' button first and read the comment left by the closer. If your questions are still not answered, please inquire on the closer's talk page. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
The issue is whether the article should take a world view or focus on Hollywood films, Anglophone films, or films successful in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. Users involved
JoseCamachoJr has not been involved in the discussion on the talk page, but at least one of his recent edits has been reverted.
Yes. Resolving the dispute
I initiated the discussion on the talk page and responded to Dman41689. Following the intervention of Redsky89 I felt the need for neutral input to avoid escalation.
Comments on the talk page under 'World view' would be welcome. As would any positive edits or reversions to the article page. The issue is whether the article should have a world view; if it should, how this can be achieved; if not, whether the introduction needs rewording or the page needs renaming. The flashpoints are (1) the inclusion (or not) of the film The Intouchables on the list of top ten highest grossing movies; and (2) the inclusion (or not) of the world view tag at the top of the page. Wavehunter (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC) 2012 in film discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Of course include films without a geographic distinction.Curb Chain (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Clerk's note:
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 28, 2012 at 09:27 (UTC) Reason: Over three days since last discussion
|
Oslo Freedom Forum
| If you have any questions about why this thread was closed, please click the 'show' button first and read the comment left by the closer. If your questions are still not answered, please inquire on the closer's talk page. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
User:No parking here keeps reverting changes that appear to violate a few Wikipedia policies (see talk page) after a consensus was reached on the talk page through civil discussion between myself and User:Meco to wait until we had a second verifiable source before adding a whole section. The updates also break with the norm and look to have an agenda (the 2012 participation list in particular). No parking here makes unverified claims on a BLP as well and passes them as fact. I do not want to revert his changes any longer and risk edit warring myself, so I am looking for some help. Users involved
I added Meco only because he was in on the original discussion and made a talk page comment on No parking here under the Oslo Freedom Forum heading about edit warring. The edits have been going on between myself and No parking here.
Yes
Resolving the dispute
Yes, the issue has been discussed on the article's talk page as well as notifying user No parking here about it on their talk page.
Looking for some help coming to a consensus with the edits and an outside party's assessment of the edits, especially given the nature of them. Wrathofjames (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Oslo Freedom Forum discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 28, 2012 at 09:09 (UTC) Reason: Looks like this one may have been resolved. No discussion for over three days.
|
Corrections Corporation of America
| No discussion in the last five days. Guy Macon (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
An editor, BlueSalix, started a section, "incidents," on the page and posted a comment and citation about a prison riot and fatality that occurred yesterday. User "Collect" removed the section and comment. I undid the revision and posted my concern on User Collect's Talk page. Collect then reverted my restoration and suggested this be resolved through consensus if I cared. Since Collect has disagreed with two editors, this would not be suitable to third opinion. Users involved
User BlueSalix does not have a User page. Reviewing the pages, it appears there are chronic complaints about COI and bias favoring the subject corporation.
Notified User Collect. User BlueSalix does not have a user page.
Resolving the dispute
Discussed
Need non-partisan resolution of difference of opinion Activist (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Corrections Corporation of America discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 26, 2012 at 14:14 (UTC) Reason: No Discussion.
|
The Black Album/Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols
| This is a conduct dispute, which we don't deal with here at DRN. The content aspect of this dispute seems to be long settled. If an article survives two AfD discussions and a deletion review, then you can be pretty sure that questioning the notability of the article further won't be productive. LF, I suggest that you listen to Drmies' warning below, and leave the article alone. If further similar conduct issues arise, the next step should be WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U, or WP:ANI, depending on the severity. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
This request in in regards to user:LF's continued conduct towards the aforementioned article. In November 2011, user:Lachlanusername nominated this article for deletion as he deemed it "non-notable". The 1st AfD was closed at that time with the unanimous decision to keep the article. Then in February 2012, user:LF renominated the article for deletion for "non-notability". Upon investigation, it was discovered that Lachlanusername had changed his username to LF, so they were in fact the same person. The 2nd AfD also closed with the unanimous decision to keep the article. User LF then took the article before deletion review where it once again closed with the unanimous endorsement to keep the article. At that time, LF was warned that he might be guilty of keep listing 'til it gets deleted. And now, LF has placed the "notability" tag on the article's page. If this were the first time LF had referred to the article as being "non-notable", I wouldn't care, but it's not. I know that I could just delete the tag and I did, but then I reverted it as that's obviously not going to make LF leave the page alone and respect the three, unanimous decisions of the two AfDs and the deletion review to keep the article. And so, that is my issue: I am requesting dispute resolution as regarding mine (Neuroticguru) and LF's behavior towards the aforementioned article. Either the article is "non-notable" as LF says it is and needs to be deleted (even though it's passed two AfDs and a deletion review) or it is "notable" and LF needs to respect that decision and leave the article alone. Users involved
The other users that are being listed are those who participated in the AfDs and deletion review.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
We have tried to resolve this issue through the aforementioned AfDs and deletion review. Feel free to follow the wiki-links in the overview or find those discussions on the talk page of the article.
My purpose in submitting this dispute resolution request is for an outside, impartial party to help LF and myself reach an understanding. Personally, I would like LF to be banned from the article in question, but perhaps that's just me taking things too personally. So, I am requesting that someone or a group of someones on your end review the article and talk page discussions to see if the article and references are notable and reliable enough for Wikipedia inclusion as that is LF's concern. If you should find that the article and references are not notable and reliable enough for Wikipedia, then so be it. I will graciously concede to another deletion review or just straight-out deletion of the article if that's what's needed. However, if you should find that the article and references are indeed notable and reliable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, I would request that LF respect that decision and agree to stay away (possible ban) from the page. Neuroticguru (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC) The Black Album/Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Cory Booker
| If you have any questions about why this thread was closed, please click the 'show' button first and read the comment left by the closer. If your questions are still not answered, please inquire on the closer's talk page. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
User Michael2127 has repeatedly generated strong POV content (partisan, imbalanced, hyperbolic language) on a current political dispute, Booker's comments about Obama ads criticizing Mitt Romney's job-creation claims. I and another user have substituted more neutral POV content. Each time Michael2127 reverts to his strong POV content, or expands upon it. He appears determined to exclude info about significant developments in the controversy that do not support his POV (Booker's retractions of his earlier statement). Users involved
Chimino appears to be a careful and judicious editor, his rewrite of this controversy is easily the best. Michael2127 on the other hand appears to be grinding a very large axe.
Yes
Resolving the dispute
Discussed on the talk page. Michael2127 speculated for no apparent reason that I might be Cory Booker, and otherwise little was resolved.
Compare Chimino's and any/all of Michael2127's versions (in Other Activities), and comment on them. I'm pretty sure that most editors will find Michael2127's strong POV edits to be inappropriate. I see from his page that he has been warned in the past. 72.86.133.249 (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I have moved the following replies from the dispute listing above, as otherwise it may not be clear who said what. Further discussion should go in the discussion section. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 01:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC) My edits were not POV at all, they were balanced containing all point of views. I even let the above anonymous user make MAJOR edits to my original entry and even complimented him for it on the Booker Talk page. However he insists (and has now been joined by Cimino) on editing the controversy to only present Booker's point of view, which is highly POV and inappropriate. Michael2127 (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Glad to have neutral editors compare the versions and see which contains a balanced point of view. I'm more than willing to make/allow edits to my version. What I think is inappropriate is only presenting Booker's point of view. Michael2127 (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Cory Booker discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I was told of this dispute on my user page. I attempted to write a balanced synopsis of the recent controversy, which would appease all viewpoints (based on available sources), only to be completely reverted. Matter of fact, Michael appears to completely revert every edit made on it, by users other than the OP and myself, and is bordering on "rogue editor/edit warrior" status.--Chimino (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)22:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Chimino, I agree Michael2127's editing is going rogue. He seems to see the controversy as an opportunity to take political potshots at Democrats, rather than treating the summary of events as informational only. Michael, why are you inserting comments in the foregoing section summarizing the dispute? It's making it unclear what was written by me, and what by you, up there. 72.86.133.249 (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I think administrators may very well need to look this entry over. Michael says he wants to work it out, but for him that means trying to retain as much editorializing as possible, all of it tending to dismiss the significance/genuineness of Booker's retraction of his criticisms. Michael still doesn't seem to accept that an encyclopedia is not the place to score political points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.133.249 (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC) (Comment from uninvolved editor) Hello everyone, I thought I'd jump in here and give my opinion. (By the way, I'm not an administrator, and you don't have to be an administrator to volunteer here.) I was a little concerned about the tone of some of the earlier remarks on the talk page, but thankfully things seem to have calmed down a lot since then. When discussion becomes heated and remarks get personal, it becomes much harder to resolve what would otherwise be an easily-solved issue. So if all the editors involved remember to assume good faith, then I think this can all be worked out on the talk page. Regarding the content, we must be very careful to respect the biography of living persons policy, which requires that coverage of living persons is written conservatively, and the undue weight section of the neutral point of view policy, which requires that the amount of coverage we have for the events in Booker's life be proportional to their significance in reliable sources. I see that a spirited debate has taken place on the talk page regarding the degree of significance that can be inferred from the current sources, but I don't think we are in a position to be able to judge the significance of it just yet. This is still a breaking news story, and we won't actually know how relevant this incident is to Booker's life until we can observe how it is covered in, say, future general-purpose biographies of him. The policy on this, that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and the advice in the essay on recentism are well worth bearing in mind. My opinion on the matter is that we should cover the incident, but keep the amount of coverage as short as possible while still keeping it neutral. If we can fit it in a couple of sentences, so much the better. The incident has generated a lot of media coverage, to be sure, but the main reason for the coverage is that it involves the Obama campaign and that this is an election year; I suggest that we keep this short until we can judge how the news stories are picked up by other tertiary sources, or in future news reports. Although Wikipedia can be edited straight away after an event, the content we cover changes on a scale of months and years, not days and weeks. As for the neutrality of the coverage we provide, I think the main thing is that we clearly present Booker's comments as directed against attack politics in general, rather than against the Obama campaign in particular. The Obama ads were what triggered the comments, yes, but the fact that he also mentions Jeremiah Wright is a pretty good indicator that it's not just the Obama campaign that he is speaking against. It's even more clear if we look at the full quote:
After making it clear that the remarks were addressed at the tone of both the Obama and the Romney campaigns, I think it would also be a good idea to include enough of the reactions on each side that the reader can understand that the remarks caused a big news story. Anything extraneous to that should be trimmed out, though, in my opinion. Also, on a slightly related point, the coverage looks a little strange under the "Other activities" heading. Either it should be moved to the section on his second term as mayor, or perhaps a better solution would be to include more background about his activities as a surrogate to the Obama campaign, and to include the coverage of the news story together with that. Sorry for the length of the post! Thanks for reading all the way through, though, and let me know what you think of my suggestions. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 03:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with most everyone's comments. My addition is that from the national visibility viewpoint, the Meet the Press and the Conan O'Brian incidents are important to Cory Booker's notability beyond the New Jersey level. While I agree that from Cory Booker's "life or career" perspective these incidents are going to be relatively minor, they are going to be more important from the notability perspective and therefore I believe should be covered in greater detail than the incidents' importance than would be warranted from just the career perspective. When someone looks up the Cory Booker article, the article should contain information about at least what the person might have heard about prior to Wikipedia. That means the Meet the Press and the Conan O'Brian incidents should be covered in fair detail.Zugman (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC) So, Michael 2127 offers to allow a summary of Booker's revised viewpoint about the Obama criticisms of Romney. Great. And this tendentious and vague sentence, without any link, is what he actually inserts: "Booker responded by emphasizing his support for the Obama campaign but did not retract his basic point about private equity." An inadequate summary that avoids stating what Booker actually did and everything that is significant about Booker's revised statements. Also, it's highly misleading to say he "did not retract his basic point". Booker did exactly that. Originally he said that Obama was in the wrong because he was attacking private equity as such. Later he acknowledged that was not the case, and therefore Obama was not in the wrong. Editing this entry cannot be left to Michael2127, he continues to impose his strong POV even on the most basic of facts. 72.86.174.143 (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Trying Something NewOK, let's try resolving this one step at a time. Clearly the above discussion is pretty much an extension of what you folks have been arguing about on the article talk page and is getting you nowhere. Are you willing to try something new? First, I want you to stop talking about other editors. No personal pronouns. Just a laser-like focus on different versions of article content. Second, I want you to stop quoting edits. I want you to post diffs instead so I can see the original wording. (let me know if you need a quick lesson in creating diffs) Here is an example:
Short, simple, focuses on one edit, and allows us all to examine that edit and make a determination. Being a diff, the context is a click away. (Doesn't have to be a revert. Could be a "was this edit proper" question.) Do not comment when you post the diffs Just present the edit and let us all look at it. Then we can discuss just that one edit or revert, come to a conclusion, then go on to the next edit, chosen by another editor. We can easily evaluate five or ten in a day, and it will become clear who needs to change what they are doing and why. Are you willing to try this? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 28, 2012 at 09:11 (UTC) Reason: Appears to be resolved.
|
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
| Closed at request of filer, with option to file a new case later if needed. Guy Macon (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
As an expert in the Fourth Amendment, I noticed a number of errors on this page. I wound up making a number of changes to the Introduction article, carefully explaining in the Talk page what needed correcting, discussing how to correct it, then saying what I was going to change. SMP0328 disagreed with only one of about a half dozen changes I made, then, without waiting for any discussion or discussing any of the other issues, he reverted all of my changes. I think it would be great if SMP0328 and I could discuss the issues and come to consensus, but I cannot discuss issues with someone who declines the most basic cooperative protocols. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I discussed the issues extensively on the Talk page. SMP0328 disagreeed on just one issue, and declined to discuss the other issues.
Maybe someone could encourage SMP0328 to discuss the issues on the Talk page. That might not be the ultimate solution, but it might make some issues narrower. Alternatively, someone with an interest in the Fourth Amendment could discuss the particular issues with me so we two could reach enough consensus to make narrow, focused changes that SMP0328 would not silently revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidForthoffer (talk • contribs) 15:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC) DavidForthoffer (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
SMP0328 has great credentials on Wikipedia concerning law. Too bad that does not translate into civilized discussions. I don't have those credentials, but I do operate transparently, try to discuss issues, and try to give legal rulings with direct quotes from the U.S. Supreme Court as much as possible. Note: After viewing the last 100 changes and viewing the Talk page, it seems SMP0328 has done a great job keeping spam out, though not contributing much in the way of content. I would like to improve the content. DavidForthoffer (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Clearly, WP:DRN has helped. It has stimulated a productive discussion on the Talk page that has resolved one issue and has promise to resolve more. Based on what you and θvξrmagξ contribs said, it now seems to me inappropriate for me to have moved my first post in this section ("SMP0328 has great credentials...") from the Users involved section and should have instead deleted it. At the moment, I do not have any user conduct issues with SMP0328. I certainly appreciate you being a "just the facts" engineer and may well ask you to discuss the facts influencing the content of the Article, but not right now. Thanks again for your efforts. I'll post here if SMP0328 and I reach an impasse again. DavidForthoffer (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
|
List of Haitians
| Resolved. Guy Macon (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
I have added notable Haitian-born beauty pageant contestants to list of Haitians. Both candidates were notable due to their participation in teh Miss Universe pageant. They were born in Haiti, hence qualify for addition to list. Warring editor removes them saying that they are not notable outside Haiti, therefore they can't be added to the list. This is nonsense! Many lists for people of various nationalities such as List of Dominicans and List of Puerto Ricans include pageant contestants who made inroads in their respective countries but might not be well known in Europe, USA, or elsewhere. That doesn't mean that they are not notable! Users involved
User is irrational and I have told him to only comment on article on talk page and not on my own page.
YES - I have e-mailed User:Student7 @ 2:38pm ET on May 25, 2012.--XLR8TION (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Resolving the dispute
Re-added and discussed on talk page, but editor is completely irrational when it comes to logic.
Provide at least three third-party opinions to validate inclusion of figures on the list. XLR8TION (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC) List of Haitians discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Beauty pageant winners are not notable outside of the beauty pageant so that is why they should not be included in that list.Curb Chain (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I am a volunteer mediator here. Re: "I was informed ...that the discussion must be held here. Is that true?", before you read the rest of this answer, please go to the top of this page and read Guide for participants (it's in the third blue box down). The following answer assumes that you have read it. There will be a test (just kidding!). There is no hard and fast rule saying you must discuss the dispute here, and indeed some editors have a good enough working relationship that they resolve things on the article talk page and then request that the discussion here be closed. That being said, the usual case is that you are here because you could not resolve the dispute on that article talk page. If someone else wants to try to resolve things here, you certainly could try discussing the issue on the article talk page, but do not be surprised if nobody responds -- they might want to try giving WP:DRN a fair try instead of trying something that didn't work before. OK, getting back to that "Guide for participants" above, did you read the "What this noticeboard is not" section? We really don't want to hear about user conduct issues. We want to focus on the content of the page. Look at the first two comments in this section by Curb Chain and DavidForthoffer. No talking about other editors, just about what the article should contain. They got it right. Now look at the comment by Adjwilley and your (Student7) reply. He started talking about user conduct instead or article content, and you replied by talking about user conduct instead or article content. I am not blaming either one of you - it isn't an obvious thing - but the process goes far more smoothly if all of you stop talking about each other and focus on what is in the article. After the article content issues are resolved I can point you to a place designed for discussing user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 27, 2012 at 18:54 (UTC) Reason: Apparently resolved
|
Joe Pasquale
| If you have any questions about why this thread was closed, please click the 'show' button first and read the comment left by the closer. If your questions are still not answered, please inquire on the closer's talk page. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Hi, I believe that the Joe Pasquale page has been blocked from editing by a fan or possible a PR company looking to protect their client from being shone in a negative light. He is hardly a controversial figure and I believe that no blatant vandalism of his page was undertaken before this page was protected for editing by user nuclearwarfare. Users involved
If you look at the talk section of the article Joe Pasquale you will see comments added by other people with regards to his joke stealing. People have previously tried to add this to the article only to have that revision edited out or to be blocked from adding it entirely. His joke stealing is well documented in the national press of the United Kingdom and by other noted British comics such as Stewart Lee (who also did a joke about Joe Pasquale's joke stealing).
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
I have not attempted to resolve this issue as other users have made it clear about the bias in the article on the talk page.
By removing the protection of the Joe Pasquale page allowing other responsible users to edit the page and remove its bias. 90.206.156.18 (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC) Joe Pasquale discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Kid Icarus
| See Noleander's comment. Talk page discussions are a pre-requisite to a DRN discussion. Best of luck, Lord Roem (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Repeated removal of Kid Icarus fan game which I have established notability for. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Yes, initially on Indrian's talk page, then on Kid Icarus talk page.
Help determine if the game is notable and should stay. PeterAmbrosia (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Kid Icarus discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The first step is to discuss this issue on the Talk page of the article. It looks like a discussion was started there just 2 days ago on 25 May, and there are only 2 brief comments so far. The initiator of this DRN (PeterAmbrosia) has not event commented there yet. A LOT more discussion needs to happen there before escalating to this DRN page or to an RfC. As for the inclusion of the fan-game in that article: I would point out that (1) the test for notability of a paragraph/sentence within an article is much lower than the WP:Notability test for an entire article (see Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_limit_content_within_an_article); and (2) The Talk page discussion on this disputed material needs to focus on the sources that discuss the fan-game. List the sources; present quotes from the sources; discuss the prominence of the sources; compare with other WP articles that include mentions of fan-games. The mere fact that the fan-game may be distasteful or even illegal is no reason to exclude it. Also, the fact that the initial version of the fan-game material was poorly written is not a reason for removing it: see WP:IMPROVE and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. --Noleander (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Frederic Marcotte
| I'm closing this to the benefit of the accused parties. There's no discussion on the talk page so in the future, User:Supergirl36 please use the talk page first before filing here as this noticeboard is only for disputes that have been discussed on talk pages.Curb Chain (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
I asked editors to help me polish my page. I'm french, and i also wrote a french page. Editors asked for quick delete of my page, erased important information like date of birth and links to Facebook and Souncloud, and did not help with the Infobox. i'm really upset about this destroying my page instead of helping build it nicely. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Supergirl36 (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Frederic Marcotte discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
- ^ ANTI-SEMITISM AND ZIONISM
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vladcole&action=history
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vladcole&action=history
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vladcole&diff=prev&oldid=492975058
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vladcole&action=history
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vladcole&diff=next&oldid=492975058