Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 90
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 85 | ← | Archive 88 | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | → | Archive 95 |
Template:Apple
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Codename Lisa (talk · contribs)
- Jimthing (talk · contribs)
- FleetCommand (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
One editor is willing to add a group of links (related to software and hardware products that Apple Inc. has produced in the past).
Another disagrees on the grounds that other templates ({{Apple Inc. hardware}}, {{AppleIntel}}, {{Apple hardware before 1998}}, {{Apple hardware since 1998}}, {{Apple Inc. operating systems}}, {{Apple printers}}, {{Apple software}}, {{Apple software on Windows}} et al.) already do so and are already transcluded. Adding said links would only bring about link bombardment.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Issue is discussed in:
- Template talk:Apple § Hardware, et al. (Live page)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive239 § User:Jimthing reported by User:FleetCommand (Result: Locked)
- Template talk:Apple § Protected (Live version)
How do you think we can help?
I thought perhaps a moderated discussion can help keep the issue in check.
Summary of dispute by User:Jimthing
Codename Lisa has failed repeatedly to answer several problems put to them directly on the template talk page: why? Raising a dispute here when you have failed to engage in answering with proper explanatory answers and not ones that ignore the reasonable questions asked by other editors on there, is somewhat unreasonable to most longterm editors on WP, don't you think? Especially when you're last edit (HERE) even bothered to screw-up what I had carefully done, by added links to a random handful of individual hardware/software items (i.e. even managing to miss-out most of the current items, for inexplicable reasons) — the very items for which earlier in the discussions you YOURSELF admitted to me should NOT even be on it...strange behaviour for one filing a dispute here?? Jimthing (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by User:FleetCommand
I don't like being drowned in links either. So, it is said that CL and I have a consensus, although the actual wording was "being in cahoots". (No comments there.)
About steps taken to resolve: "One editor" tried a compromise by replacing the redundant links with other redundant links to templates (see above) that contain the redundant links. "Another editor" didn't agree, because in practice, those templates were transcluded right below {{Apple}} in articles. So, "another editor" proposed another compromise: Some links can stay. Well, "one editor" has explicitly expressed her feelings about it above. Look, I am not exactly famous for my negotiation expertise but I am willing to work, now that I am here. Fleet Command (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Template:Apple discussion
Hi there; I am Mdann52, and shall be the volunteer handling this dispute. My initial reaction here would be to suggest that the info boxes are either split, especially as we have Template:Apple software, and the template documentation already states "This is not meant to be an exhaustive guide to Apple content on Wikipedia. However, it can be added to any Apple-related article." [sic]. Anyone have any issues with the concept in general. After we have resolved what will happen, we can then agree on the exact wording of the split. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, Mdann52. This sounds exactly like what the dispute is about and my initial drive to remove links to software and hardware. Do you have something particular in mind? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Mdann52, I think reverting to revision #599108935 and checking the articles that transclude {{Apple}} accomplishes exactly what you ask; but I fear that is taken as a non-cooperative comment on my part. Do you have anything specific in mind? Fleet Command (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- If everyone is happy, I can run AWB later and put the Apple Software template on all articles with {{apple}} later on if everyone is happy with it? Alternatively, we could try and merge the two templates together, or just reword the template, and add new links/rows as appropriate. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Merging two huge templates is not wise but yes, the first suggestion works for me. How about you guys? FleetCommand? Jimthing?
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- If you go the template route, you'd be talking about both the Apple Software template AND the Apple Hardware one, BTW. However, if we went the merge route it'd make life easier for other editors in future as they wouldn't have to muck around dealing with more than one template – but what would get included under hardware and software on {{apple}}, and what left out, as they have current and past software/hardware to think about. Jimthing (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. Merge route requires a WP:TFD. But since you pointed out that both routes are awkward, I propose a third: Why not include major hardware and software products or products family names in {{Apple}} and be done with it? That way, the user can get to his intended topic by going to the family article, without filling the articles with links. Anyway, which one do you choose? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- If you go the template route, you'd be talking about both the Apple Software template AND the Apple Hardware one, BTW. However, if we went the merge route it'd make life easier for other editors in future as they wouldn't have to muck around dealing with more than one template – but what would get included under hardware and software on {{apple}}, and what left out, as they have current and past software/hardware to think about. Jimthing (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- If everyone is happy, I can run AWB later and put the Apple Software template on all articles with {{apple}} later on if everyone is happy with it? Alternatively, we could try and merge the two templates together, or just reword the template, and add new links/rows as appropriate. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Mdann52, I think reverting to revision #599108935 and checking the articles that transclude {{Apple}} accomplishes exactly what you ask; but I fear that is taken as a non-cooperative comment on my part. Do you have anything specific in mind? Fleet Command (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- I prefer third suggestion but first is good enough too. But Jimthing seems unwilling to continue. Should we count her as bailed out per WP:SILENCE? Fleet Command (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- A few days silence (unless I'm missing something) seems a bit odd, but looking over this I think the third suggestion might be the ideal one here in terms of implementing. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Fine then, for the sake of (non-)argument, go with the third option: "include major hardware and software products or products family names". As proposer, perhaps Codename Lisa can add their edit of the template on here first, then we can discuss and agree (hopefully briefly!) which pages are right to use, before it gets finally implemented as the finished template. (BTW, some of the things I added in later edits should still remain, eg's. iBookstore under Stores, and the "Subsidiaries" subgroup title under "Companies", Intel transition add under History group instead, et al). Jimthing (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- A few days silence (unless I'm missing something) seems a bit odd, but looking over this I think the third suggestion might be the ideal one here in terms of implementing. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I certainly don't have to bother other additions. Only a snippet is our subject.
How about this:
Products Discontinued |
|
---|
I am sure I've missed some entries. Please feel free to mention them.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sending ping notification: @Jimthing: Could you please watch this page? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry other commitments, be back 24h to comment. Jimthing (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- (Delayed commenting today, due to WP "site busy" 404's all afternoon!). Anyway, made some minor changes to make look neater, but mainly as some current items –which seem like the ones we should aim to appear on this template to stop overloading– were missing, removing the couple of discontinued products that were on there. Also added a hidden comment (<!-- DO NOT ADD DISCONTINUED PRODUCTS TO THIS TEMPLATE: discussions decided they're covered under "Discontinued software/hardware" links. -->) to discourage future abuses:
- (Delayed commenting today, due to WP "site busy" 404's all afternoon!). Anyway, made some minor changes to make look neater, but mainly as some current items –which seem like the ones we should aim to appear on this template to stop overloading– were missing, removing the couple of discontinued products that were on there. Also added a hidden comment (<!-- DO NOT ADD DISCONTINUED PRODUCTS TO THIS TEMPLATE: discussions decided they're covered under "Discontinued software/hardware" links. -->) to discourage future abuses:
- Sorry other commitments, be back 24h to comment. Jimthing (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Products |
|
---|
- Thanks. Jimthing (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Super nice. Agreed totally and completely. Permission to call the shot?
- Thanks. Jimthing (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
24 hr closing notice: Unless there is anything further, I'm going to close this case as resolved.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Energy Catalyzer
Administrative close. There are several other editors involved in this dispute at the talk page and it is unfair to expect a DRN volunteer to have to list, notify, and create summary sections for all of them manually. Moreover, as currently stated this is primarily a conduct dispute and DRN does not handle disputes which are primarily conduct disputes; if you do refile, please focus on the content issues, not on editor conduct (and remember that we here at DRN are not administrators: we cannot prohibit or allow any particular behavior). — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview User AndyTheGrump delete reference to Italian parliamentary questions on energy catalyzer Have you tried to resolve this previously? NONE How do you think we can help? Do not allow erasing informations about italian parliament activities on the subject of e-cat/LENR on wiki page "Energy_catalyzer" Summary of dispute by AndyTheGrumpPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Energy Catalyzer discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Outside admin comment: This request is premature and invalid. One user is determined to included primary-sourced material re. questions asked by a single Italian politician of no obvious importance. Andy has explained why we would not normally include this, no other editors support the edit. The "dispute" amounts to someone not liking the answer they are getting to a demand to include material. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
|
Kvenland
Withdrawn. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Help is needed concerning two articles: Kvenland and King of Kvenland. User Thomas W. wants to add a reference to a King of Sweden, Charles IX, in these articles yet no historian has ever linked the king with Kvenland in any way. Charles IX lived in 1550-1611, but Kvenland vanished from the documented history by the end of the 14th century. The matter has been discussed and sources have been asked, but to no avail. Consensus cannot be found. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Asked for sources for the counter arguments being well aware that sources supporting the counter arguments don't exist. How do you think we can help? Preventing a ban that Thomas W. and Yngvadottir are aiming at. Summary of dispute by Thomas.WPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I don't have much time right now but I'll return later today with a longer answer. Finnedi's presentation of the case is a deliberate misrepresentation of it. The claim that I want to add something about Charles IX is patently false. That section, which is properly sourced, has been present in the article for a long time, and it was not added by me. The true story is that Finnedi ever since creating his current account last year has made repeated attempts to remove the section about Charles IX, i.e. properly sourced material, while at the same time adding POV/fringe material sourced to blogs and personal websites (sample diff from King of Kvenland), edits that have equally repeatedly been reverted by me and Yngvadottir. And it's not the only article on WP that Finnedi is POV/fringe-pushing on... Thomas.W talk to me 06:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by YngvadottirPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
At both King of Kvenland and Kvenland, Finnedi and before him, an IP have objected to the inclusion of a section that states that some academics have regarded one of the regnal titles of Charles IX of Sweden as perhaps referring to the Kvens by another name. On request, I improved the sourcing of this section by finding the actual wording in Swedish. Finnedi until recently posted his objections to the section's inclusion at User talk:Thomas.W rather than on the talk page of either article; I started talk page sections on both article talk pages myself and after he posted there, have continued to engage his argument that the section does not belong. Most recently in response to his saying that sources do not exist of academics discussing Charles IX in this context, I first indicated the references present in the section and then provided an example from Google Books of a page in one of those sources (Kyösti Julku's book Kvenland-Kainuunmaa, which is about the theory that the Caijaners (sp.) are the Kvens). As I say there, I believe we have to cover the issue because scholars (reliable sources) have discussed it. Finnedi's primary objection appears to be that the word "Kvenland" is not used in writings of Charles IX's time, but this is not claimed in the cited sources or the articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC) I've found and brought here summaries of what exactly Julku's argument is in his book, and those reveal more of the context in which he uses the passage whose relevance is in dispute. (I also in the process found other citations I'd like to add at Kvenland, but I'm not sure how relevant that is here.) I'm really trying to follow the rules here; but my view of the core issue hasn't been changed by anything I've found, and I'm trying to understand Finnedi's point of view rather than assume I fully understand it, if that makes any sense? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by BogatusABI side with those who want the disputed text to be kept, for the following reason: "Sweden", "Sverige" and "Ruotsi" all mean the same thing in different languages. Similarly, "Kvenland", "Kainu/u" and "Caienska Semla" (in slightly varying spellings) also all mean the same thing, in different languages, according to e.g. Professor Emeritus Kyösti Julku (Source: Julku, Kyösti, 'Kvenland - Kainuunmaa', 1986.) Although the terms Kven and Kvenland are entirely absent from all old Swedish literature, the term Caienska (compare to Svenska) - in different spellings - has been used in old maps and texts over centuries. Julku provides several examples of such uses in his study 'Kvenland - Kainuunmaa' (1986). Accordingly, the following statement of Finnedi on the Dispute resolution noticeboard is misleading: "Kvenland vanished from the documented history by the end of the 14th century." The Kvenland article currently correctly states that the term Kvenland "with that or close to that spelling - seems to have gone out of ordinary usage around the end of the 13th century, unrecognized by scholars by the 14th century." However, Kvenland's separate status next to - and later, within - the Swedish Realm only gradually diminished thereafter, over many centuries. According to Kyösti Julku, even after the reign of Charles IX's son in the 17th century, Kainuu (same as Kvenland in the medieval era, according to Julku) "occupied a separate position from the rest of Finland for a long time to come" (Source: Julku, Kyösti, 'Kvenland - Kainuunmaa'. With English summary: The Ancient territory of Kainuu. Oulu, 1986). The part of the article which Finnedi wants to remove needs to stay. The text itself explains why it needs to stay. The added map in the Kvenland article, showing Europe in 814, is a good addition. BogatusAB (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Kvenland discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. I am opening this up for discussion now. I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
STOP!!! DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. A lot of the comments above (and not just the ones by one person) are near-duplicates of something that was said in an earlier comment or in the summary of dispute statements. You all tried that on the article talk page. Did it work? No? Then why repeat the behavior that didn't result in resolving the dispute before? Clearly this dispute needs a more structured approach. I am going to ask each of you to look over the above, and if you believe that you made any new points that you didn't make in your statements, to update those statements. (you can add a comment or edit the existing one; either way is fine.) Keep it short and to the point. Then wait for me to evaluate your statements and we will discuss how to move forward. As always, you can continue any sort of unstructured discussion you wish on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, I have read all of the edits to both pages, all recent talk page comments, and checked a few citations. I am going to open this up for discussion again, but I need to set a few ground rules:
That being said, this looks like a classic case of a one-against-many dispute. I wrote us a essay for those in such disputes. It is at User talk:Guy Macon/One against many. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
particular point of view"
|
ITN
As it clearly says at the top of this page, "this noticeboard is for content disputes only". This is a user conduct dispute. Please go to WP:DR and follow the instructions for resolving user conduct disputes. Also, the fact that multiple editors ignored the big red "Do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread." leads me to believe that it is likely that they would have refused to follow other instructions. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview This guy is admin, but thinks its cool to call people stupid and attempt to ridicule them as well as posting nonsense as counter argument. Have you tried to resolve this previously? i ignored the personal and abusive tone of his post and tried to reason with him. he went personal and it escalated,. i read he was admin, do i posted here. How do you think we can help? tell him to do what he is meant to do and assume good faith and not be abusive to new users. not to attempt to ridicule them, not to post nonsense in lieu of argument. and not to call them stupid. Summary of dispute by jayron32Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Jayrons rhetoric ...
What an amazing way to live life! Every bowl of Cheerios is an adventure waiting for a "based on a true story" movie! Dropping the kids off at school on time garners one a Congressional Medal of Honor! The daily bowel movement becomes the subject of the latest David McCullough history book! Brilliant! I like the way you think. Call up David McCullough and tell him to get his steno notebook and a #2 pencil ready. I have some business with the family throne... --Jayron32 18:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC) I was lambasting your fantastically flawed logic. I'd have written nothing if you hadn't made statements worth of ridicule, I don't know that any amount of help will ever be available to set you straight. you make plainly stupid statements ...you open yourself to ridicule. --Jayron32 19:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Great work admin jayron. Way to escalate with someone who wasnt making any personal comments or attacking you in any way. "Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks For disputes, seek dispute resolution" Jayron32 - Calls new posters stupid and admits to attempting to ridicule them. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC) ITN discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
What an amazing way to live life! Every bowl of Cheerios is an adventure waiting for a "based on a true story" movie! Dropping the kids off at school on time garners one a Congressional Medal of Honor! The daily bowel movement becomes the subject of the latest David McCullough history book! Brilliant! I like the way you think. Call up David McCullough and tell him to get his steno notebook and a #2 pencil ready. I have some business with the family throne..
ReferencesReferences
|
Rodeo Drive
Talk page discussion has continued. Recommend further engagement between editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview As a term-long assignment for COM257 at NCSU, a group of three others and I, were tasked with editing the Rodeo Drive page. This page had hardly any information on it when we began, and as we tried to expand it, we ran into trouble with a specific user who was extremely critical of our content - so much to the point that we had a hard time adding ANYTHING. By looking at the talk page, you can see there has been a lot of discussion. Although we have been able to add more since starting, there are a few things that we (and other wiki users) have been trying to add since 2006 - specifically, a list of the shops on Rodeo Drive - that this user continues to argue against. Even after citing sources establishing the importance of these stores, this user refuses to allow it. We can't give up the article and come back another time, because the final draft is due in a couple of weeks. Our class is learning about encyclopedic knowledge as a field of study - but we are not familiar enough with Wikipedia tools and regulations to make a strong enough case on our own. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We have asked for help from our professor and have tried (and failed) many times to shape our material around her critical remarks - hoping to please her and allow her to add this content. We have used many different books from our university library and articles from Google scholar. How do you think we can help? Hopefully you can have some users look over the content on the main page and the talk page, review our sources and arguments, and help mediate the argument that has been going on for years. By having a third or fourth opinion that is (hopefully) unbiased, we hope to solve this issue as calmly as possible. We are developing an appreciation for global knowledge through Wikipedia and want the most important part of the street to stand out. Summary of dispute by JSmitty01Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by JbrubinsPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by WikilainaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Alf.laylah.wa.laylahPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Rodeo Drive discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello, and welcome to the Dispute Resolution Notice Board. I am Mark Miller, a volunteer here. I have no special powers or authority however, I need to make a note here as this is important. While Wikipedia welcomes students to edit articles, we do not allow groups to tag team. That could be the perception of editors of what is happening in the comments above. Also your professor has no authority here and I am more than a little disturbed by the suggestion that your are trying to please her with an assignment she seems to have given you. Whether or not your assignment is due in a few weeks or not is of no importance to the project. That sounds harsh but Wikipedia is not a university and not a pet project for schools. You must still collaborate and attempt to work together even if in a heated manner. This note might open the discussion but do not post in this section until a volunteer has looked through the dispute to see if it can be debated here and all participants have made their opening comments. (Unsigned by Mark Miller)
|
Wikipedia:MOS
This isn't really the kind of dispute that DRN handles well I suggest continuing discussion on the talk page, and if that does not resolve the issue, filing an RfC to determine what the community consensus is. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Within WP:MOS is a subsection WP:MOSID which allows for an exemption that violates both WP:BLP and WP:V. I boldly removed it on April 11 with a note later on that night (I was blocked by my firewall at work that day ), explaining the reason for the revert and that it violated WP:BLP. JHunterJ removed it in violation of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE which mandates that a good faith removal on BLP grounds can only be reinserted if the person wishing to re-insert it has met the burden of proof. He left a note stating consensus existed, I take this as a good faith effort on his part, however, this consensus violates WP:CONLIMITED which states that a consensus on any page may not overrule Policy for any reason , which this does. I attempted to discuss this with JHUnterJ on his page and he has replied that he has no intention of reverting himself, and has left a notice of discretionary sanction for Sexology, which is not relevant to this page. This page does have discretionary sanctions, but Sexology isn't one of them. I'm not bothered by his brusque manner, I'm pretty thick skinned myself. I would ask that the sanction be removed and that JHunterJ revert himself on MOS:ID Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discusssion on JHunterJ's page. I told him I would allow a week for him to think it over and hopefully self revert. His response was he wouldn't self-revert and I could start D/R if I wanted to (I don't, but it's a user vs sysop, and I want to avoid the drama of the ANI board) How do you think we can help? Establish that the consensus of MOS:ID is a case of WP:CONLIMITED and therefore invalid and establish that the revert on MOS:ID that I made needs to stand, pending further discussion. Summary of dispute by JHunterJI warned Vosh about edit warring on the Manual of Style's section regarding transgender identification.
-- JHunterJ (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Comment by Fluffernutter[Kosh accidentally pinged me about the opening of this case; I hope you don't mind my input, having watched this play out over the last few days]. At least part of this issue appears to be a conflict based on the wording of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Sanctions not matching the wording of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Discretionary_sanctions. More specifically, the Sexology decision says "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia)." (bolding mine) while the Discretionary Sanctions policy page says "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the area of conflict" (bolding mine again). The question, if we care to wikilawyer the issue that finely, is then which wording takes precedence and what defines "within" an area of conflict; clearly that can only be solved by asking Arbcom for clarification, not by pursuing the issue on DRN. If Arbcom intended DS to be applied as the DS policy is (appears to be?) written, rather than making a special, different provision for Sexology, then Kosh's action in blanking the section that started this is sanctionable under Sexology and DRN can't do much about it; if they intended to write a special case provision, then it can become a debatable policy-content issue. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:MOS discussionHello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. I am inclined to close this as not being something that we can help with, but before I do, I would like to hear any arguments for or against keeping this open and suggestions as to where would be a better place to take it. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Guy Macon Thank you for hearing this dispute. At it's core, this is a content dispute. I removed a paragraph from MOS:ID which was clearly against both V and BLP. Per BLP any content that violates BLP must be removed and the person looking to re-insert it must show that it can be inserted and that it complies with BLP. JHunterJ attempted to do this, but has chosen not to belive that it violates BLP and refuses to revert himself. I have advised him that per policy he needs to, and further, even though he claims consensus, this consensus is invalid per CONLIMITED as the consensus is attempting to over-rule both policies of WP:BLP and WP:V. If you believe it cannot be sorted out here, I too, am open to where this can be sorted out. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 21:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
|
Leavitt Bulldog
Closing comments - It is apparent that this issue cannot be resolved via DRN for the following reasons. (1) The notability (WP:N) of the subject as a seperate breed has been questioned many times and it has not been sattisfactorily asserted. Any expectation to reach consensus on verifiable content is unreasonable at present. (2) Participants are yet to provide the multiple reliable sources required for verification of extraordinary assertions and are instead simply debating their pet points of view (WP:SOAPBOX). (3) The discussion has turned acrimonios and editors have abandoned good faith (wp:GOODFAITH). As a volunteer I wish the editors Happy Editing and remind them that the discussion can be carried forward via the talk page of the article and through WP:RFC. This discussion is closed as no consensus.. Wikishagnik (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Ss 051 on 19:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The reason for the renaming of the breed from Olde English Bulldogge to Leavitt Bulldog is in question. One side has made the statement in top header that the breed was being modified because the original creator (David Leavitt) did not like the direction that the breed had taken. The other side disagrees that this was the case and has provided a quote from David Leavitt regarding the reason for the name change in the article, as well as a statement in the Talk section showing that David Leavitt actually approved of the current condition of the breed at the time he renamed it, as well as a direct statement by him that he was not changing the breed (its conformation) but simply the name in order to dissociate the dogs from the more commonly, and inappropriately, used OEB title for many of the Alternative Bulldogs that use it. There has been no response from the first party in the talk section, despite it being referenced in the edits in order to get their attention. This is actually relevant to the Genetic Background section as well, as the current article makes it sound like a new breed was founded in 2005, while at the same time stating that the dogs can still be registered as OEBs with the United Kennel Club (which is an obvious contradiction). Thank you, but you are right that the situation is confusing. Before forming the LBA, David was involved with the OEBKC (see the Olde English Bulldogge article) because that was the only organization pursuing his original bloodlines exclusively. The breeders that joined David in the LBA came from the OEBKC. When they talk about the breed becoming bullier (which is not a quote from David Leavitt by the way, and the point of contention is why he changed the breed name) they are talking about people who used the OEB breed name, but were not breeding dogs from Leavitt bloodlines. That quote refers to dogs from groups like the IOEBA (see first reference link in the History section of the article), NBA, etc. David's quote about the LB and OEB being the same dog is specificly refering to dogs from the OEBKC and LBA. This portion of the quote is far more relevant and is the reason that both the OEBKC and LBA are listed on the UKC website for registration requirements:
"The LBA is using a different Breed name, but are not creating a different breed. It is those who would not allow our dogs to be dual registered as OEB’s, and bred to OEB’s, who are creating two breeds out of one. It would be in the best interest of genetic diversity to allow dual registry. Dual registry is in the best interest of the dogs." If the LBA has changed their minds and wants to change the breed I can simply compromise by having them taken down from the UKC website. I'm the one who had them put there in the first place anyway... Also note that 2 of the 3 dogs back on the Olde English Bulldogge page were actually produced by LBA breeders.Ss 051 (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Have you tried to resolve this previously? Added comments to the Talk section as well as providing direct quotes, in both the article and Talk, to support the edits made How do you think we can help? I think a little mediation on how to resolve the difference would be appreciated. I have no problem compromising, so long as the statements that wind up being made have some degree of evidence. I was involved with the breed at the time all this happened and have been since, so I am a first-hand witness (as well as having had many discussions with David Leavitt) and outright falsehoods without a hint of evidence are... tiresome... Summary of dispute by FreedombullsPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User:Freedombulls has communicated to me by email that he doesn't intend to participate further in the EN wikipedia and has asked that his user page be deleted, which has happened. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Sminthopsis84Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
There are several aspects to this dispute, it has become confusing, and is moving too fast. The current main thrust seems to be centred on a quote from this page [6]: "The LB and OEB are clearly the same good dog. I hope this high quality will continue. The LBA is using a different Breed name, but are not creating a different breed." User:Ss 051 with this edit says "He even refers to both clubs' dogs as "the same good dog." I would say that that is a misinterpretation. There are two clubs, the LBA and the OEBKC, both breeding dogs descended from the "Olde English Bulldogge" breed developed in the 1970s by David Leavitt. More context from the same page is: "When he came back to the breed in 2005 he found that people had begun to try to change his breed into a bullier more English Bulldog look. He knew this was not good for the breed and formed the Leavitt Bulldog Association to further his dream. When he did this he changed the name from Olde English Bulldogge to Leavitt Bulldog …". In the quote that User:Ss 051 is using, I would say that the OEB referred to is the original breed that David Leavitt developed in the 1970s, not the OEBKC dogs (the other club). Thus "He even refers to both clubs' dogs as "the same good dog." is a mistaken impression. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC) Leavitt Bulldog discussionHello everyone, I am a volunteer with DRN and I would like to welcome everyone to this discussion. Before we begin, some preliminaries. First, we the volunteers at DRN are neither Judge nor Jury. Secondly, please respect all editors and maintain good faith and finally, DRN's are about content and not conduct. If we OK so far, then lets proceed. Firstly, I have moved the comments of Ss 051 (talk · contribs) to the opening section of the discussion, because they belong there. In future please don't add content to the discussion section of a dispute, before it has been opened by a volunteer because it confuses us. I also note that Freedombulls (talk · contribs) has not yet participated. I would normally wait for his comments but then again I see that the discussion has already started, so his comments later would be welcome to this discussion. He has been notified of this DRN in his talk page. When I went to the talk page of the article I could make out that this topic has not been discussed there. I do see a section called History created on the 8th of April, but other editors have not had a chance to answer the comments yet. Please understand that Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page. As begining I would suggest all editors to first discuss the issue on the talk page and wait for a consensus. Would that be OK?--Wikishagnik (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Ss 051 (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
[[13]]
Freedombulls, the obvious problems with the past version of the article:
Earlier versionThe Leavitt Bulldog is a late 20th-century re-creation of the English Bulldog as that breed looked in the early 19th century Regency era, about 1820. In contrast to English bulldogs of the time, depictions of the breed from nearly two centuries earlier showed healthier, more agile dogs, with working ability. Unlike the 19th century breed, however, the Leavitt Bulldog has a placid temperament. It is one of several breeds developed in order to overcome the genetic problems in the English Bulldog breed.[5][6] The Leavitt Bulldog was developed by breeder David Leavitt, originally named the Olde English Bulldogge, but after the breed standards were developed that breed diverged in appearance from the original bloodlines, which prompted the new name and creation of a separate breeders' association.[7]
ReferencesReferences
HistoryThe new breed was named in 2005, because Leavitt felt that that his creation Olde English Bulldogge from 1971 was not being preserved as he had intended. Descendents of the 1971 breed had become heavier and not all breeders were using the original standards.[1] Those breeders still working from Leavitt's original ideas were invited to join the new Leavitt Bulldog Association. The LBA and its members are dedicated to maintain and improve the health, temperament and working ability of the breed by careful selective breeding. The association provides a registry service and plans to maintain a stud book. After a rebuttal from the United Kennel Club, the association chose to go it's own way, without recognition from the kennel club. This independence means that the association members remain free to breed in out crosses when needed to maintain healthy genetic characteristics. Genetic backgroundThe Leavitt bulldog was created with only breeds that all have old Bulldog in their background such as American Bulldogs, Continental bulldog, Olde English Bulldog, Hermes Bulldog and English Bulldog. CharacteristicsThe Leavitt Bulldog has a very stable, friendly and loving temperament, which makes them suitable as family companions, and some have qualified as therapy dogs. They are easy to train and they are useful for various sports. This breed is extremely strong, which means that socialization and obedience training are important. Their disposition should be confident, courageous and alert without being overly protective. They enjoy not just physical games, but also activities that require intellect, such as tracking. AppearanceAccording to the breed standard,[2] the Leavitt Bulldog has a large head (the circumference of the head is at least equal to the dog’s height at the withers), with powerful jaw muscles. The lower jaw extends forward. The back and chest are wide and muscular. The tail is straight, and reaches the hocks.
ReferencesReferences
|
2014 Formula One season
Pending a significant justification, including a successful challenge to consensus, as to why we should have the formal name for the race in the calendar section of the Formula One season pages, there exists a consensus that the Race Title column should be removed for the 2014 Formula One season article. This consensus may be extended to other seasons existing prior (or going forward), but should be discussed (as it is a significant change) prior to removal of the column. A discussion for forming a standard for what the calendar should include is remanded back to WikiProject Formula One. The consensus should not be challanged while the Formula 1 season is underway so as to not be disruptive to the stability of the page. Hasteur (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview On 9 March Prisonermonkeys launched a proposal to remove the Official Race Titles from the calendars which have been present for quite some years on the Formula One season articles. His proposal was not met with a consensus to implement it, yet Prisonermonkeys tried to force the proposal through by removing the content on two occasions (on the 10 and 12th of March) despite not gaining a consensus to do so. The discussion later dried out after several unsuccessful proposals to improve the calendar altogether. However, the discussion was resumed om the 26th of March and has been continuing since. On the 30th of March Prisonermonkeys tried again to force the proposal through by removing the content a total of four times, breaking WP:3RR in the process, despite still not having gained the desired consensus. As a result of that the page was put under full protection by HJ Mitchell and has remained in this state until now following an extension of the full protection period. The talk page discussion has continued in the meantime and the side in support of the removal now continuously claim a consensus in favor of them, primarily based on a head count, despite the long list of arguments presented by both sides. In addition to the users whom I have listed, both sides have received some approval by another few users who haven't brought in any arguments of their own, hence why I didn't list them among the "Users involved" Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have thoroughly discussed the matter with them on the article's Talk page and I have initiated a Request For Comment as well, which hasn't however brought any new input in the discussion so far. How do you think we can help? We are looking for a member of the community who is neutral on this matter and who is prepared to read through an consider all the presented arguments by either side and their merits by either side to determine wether or not the consensus for the removal of the content has been achieved. Summary of dispute by Joetri10Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
No comment. I leave Tvx1 to explain this as he can in a much more detailed manner. All I can explain regarding my actions and opinion on the matter is that I try to expand the article in terms of extra complete relevant information so that the article is more helpful and educational to those who may be more interested. What started off becoming an argument about sponsorship details and the gross ignorance displayed by Prisonermonkeys has resulted in a 'complete opinionated democracy', a call of heads as it were. Understandably so I can relate in not wanting trivia and foreign languages featuring as much as possible although when speaking about the official detailing of events including that which forms the sport and is present in many aspects, it can be a tricky game of opinion and wins over what our sources use, why, for what purpose and how that should relate to this page when really it shouldn't at all. We are our own separate source for information, we should give as much as we can and to be as helpful as we can. It matters not what we 'think' is useless and useful for the page when we can otherwise resolve in a neutral agreement by showing 100% accurate information. The positives; if even small outweigh the negatives. It only serves to help. There was nothing wrong with this information before and I feel the arguments for deletion are weaker then they should be. *JoeTri10_ 12:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by BretonbanquetPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Tvx1's precis of the situation is somewhat disingenuous. He has omitted to mention two other editors (User:QueenCake and User:Falcadore) who have supported removal of the column in question from the table, plus two further editors (User:Hydrox and User:StandNThrow) who entered the debate. He also says that other users supported retention of the column – untrue. There were no other editors in favour of retaining the column. The "head count" was at least 5:2, and Prisonermonkeys considered this to constitute a consensus and I agree with him. Tvx1 and Joetri have refused to suggest any compromise, whereas I and others have clearly stipulated that the information in the column will continue to be present in other, more appropriate articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC) I consider the information in the column in question to be relatively trivial, this being the official race title of each Grand Prix of the season, e.g. Formula 1 Gran Premio de España Pirelli 2014, in light of the presence of the generic race title, e.g. Spanish Grand Prix. Both titles are not required, in my view. This information belongs in the generic race article as above, plus the individual race report, in this case 2014 Spanish Grand Prix, along with all the other relevant details of the race itself. The race title has no bearing on the season itself, and 2014 Formula One season is the general summary article about the season, not a repository for all the minute details of each race. These season articles are prone to clutter and trivia, and we are attempting to restrict it to the essential facts for purposes of readability and article size. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC) It is perhaps worth mentioning that there have recently been a number of similarly lengthy and frustrating debates on Formula One talk pages, for example a two-month argument about the formatting of the table of drivers, and a six-week row about the driver Sergei Sirotkin. Cool-headed consensus-building and rational discussion is to all intents and purposes, non-existent on the Formula One WikiProject. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC) I am all for removing the mentioned race title in the table. As the url address bar of this site states "en.wikipedia", "en" refers mainly to English and so, I do not quite get the idea of having foreign native languages getting into the mix. That's about all I could say. My stand will always be the removal of that "race title" column. StandNThrow (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by PrisonermonkeysPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I agree that the description of the situation is not truly representative. There was enough support for a consensus to be formed; however, I feel that those in support of the minority have resorted to deliberate stalling tactics to try and force a situation where there is no consensus and thus keep the article as it is. Almost every single argument made by the majority has been shot down on the grounds that it is weak or unproven, despite the way enough people agree with them to form a consensus. There is also an over-reliance on the idea that consensus is not a vote; while true, it ignores the clear majority, and allows a minority to prevent a consensus from being formed, regardless of how big the majority is. In the interests of expediting the resolution, here is a summary of the arguments in favour of removal:
I will leave it to those in favour of keeping the column to outline their arguments. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by GyaroMaguusPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
While I previously supported the motion of Tvx1 and Joetri10, I changed my standpoint for removal of the column. I believe the column serves little useful purpose, and have produced many points, including: use foreign language when avoidable should be discouraged; the official names are only used by sources they are bound to use them, are not to the season as a whole and the article titles are not the official names; linking the full race titles will most likely confuse readers; we shouldn't force our readers to work out something for themselves; people do not come to the 2014 Formula One season article for all F1 queries; etc. Bretonbanquet has provided equally valid and correct arguments; while Prisonermonkeys has, in my mind, corrected identified a consensus, but has been a little strong in his efforts to implement it. Personally, I have Tvx1 to be very obtuse and extremely inconsistent and hypocritical in this discussion. His main argument for inclusion of the column is that it is "educational and informative", an argument he has used consistently for a very long time. He appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of both what purpose the article serves and what Wikipedia articles are meant to convey. These arguments are, from my point of view, fundamentally flawed; the article should not serve as a point of reference for everything regarding the 2014 season; rather, it is a summary of events, and Tvx1 seems to think that we need to educate and inform readers on nearly every minor detail, while only things that effect the season as a whole should be included. He does not understand why it is not relevant and considers none of the arguments me, Bretonbanquet, Prisonermonkeys, QueenCake or anyone else for that matter to be any good and believes that he has easily brushed them off. Concerning Joetri10, I often appear to be on the opposite sides of discussions with him and I also feel he has been obstructive in this discussion. He has a tendency to not fully read arguments before posting, often fails to take all issues into account. —Gyaro–Maguus— 21:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Note from random volunteerThanks everyone for your participation. I currently have two cases open so I cannot take this case at the moment, however someone will likely open this case for you in the next few days. Thanks for being patient. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 2014 Formula One season discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I'm really hoping that this can be addressed soon. As has been pointed out, this is the latest in a series of long-running disputes, and I think a lot of people would like it resolved as it will help us establish a precedent for addressing these long-running disputes. Furthermore, if it cannot be resolved here, then I have no idea what the next step is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Hello all. I'm more a lurker on the DRN board but I typically get called in to handle disputes that have gone on longer than they should be. I don't think I've ever edited with respect to Formula 1/Grand Prix articles and I do not recall seeing any of your names before. Will you accept my bona fides as a neutral editor here to help you negotiate a solution? Hasteur (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Now that I've secured acceptance of the credentials as a neutral editor, I'd like to make sure I understand correctly, the point of contention is "What do we put in the Race Title column for each race?". If this is correct a simple yes will suffice. If not please briefly explain what the point if dispute is (as I seem to have missed it). Hasteur (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so this is a layered set of questions
Do I have it right this time? Hasteur (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hasteur is correct; those are the issues at hand. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok. I'd like to ask, what benefit do we gain by having the individual race events listed as part of the box? Not if we should, but what benefit do we gain by having something like "Formula 1 Gran Premio de España Pirelli 2014" in the table. This satisfies the first question. If it turns out there is no benefit to having the race name column is eliminated, then questions 2 and 3 are irrelevant. Please keep the responses short. Hasteur (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
So to guide the discusion back to the rails, the only demonstrated reason is to educate random users as to how some races are marketed? If that's the case, I think that at this point the discussion is fairly obvious, so I'm going to propose a solution
My justification is thus:
I ask, therefore, if this is a reasonable solution that the parties to the dispute can agree to. Hasteur (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
|
Mindfulness meditation
Closed as premature - Not fully discussed on the article's talk page. Please discuss further and if needed, come back here. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 16:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by LeoRomero on 11:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Disagreement over the External Links policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussions over WP:EL til we went around in circles. How do you think we can help? Please resolve it according to the spirit and letter of WP:EL. Thanks! Summary of dispute by AlexbrnPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by JytdogPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Too soon for this, discussion has barely begun. Jytdog (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC) Mindfulness meditation discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
The Frogmen
No dispute exists at this point; the second involved editor has agreed to leave the "errata" section deleted. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 04:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Mmyers1976 on 18:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The Frogmen is a completely fictional movie from the 1950s about a group of US Navy divers during WWII. Anthony Appleyard wrote an "Errata" section describing historical inaccuracies and anachronisms relating to the use of scuba equipment during WWII as depicted in the film. He did not provide any sources that specifically addressed the film making historical inaccuracies. I deleted the section on June 27, 2012, and explained that the section was inappropriate and cited WP:FILMHIST as my reason on the article's Talk page. Anthony Appleyard reverted the deletion that same day, giving a reason in his summary and on the talk page. I redeleted the next day, providing my reasons again in my summary and on the talk page. Appleyard re-added the section on OCtober 26, 2012, renaming it "Plot Faults", his only comment being "Restore, or please discuss" in his edit summary. I deleted this section again on November 19, 2012, giving my reasons for doing so in my edit summary and on the Talk page. Appleyard re-added the section on January 16, 2013, his only comment being "This is relevant to some; or please discuss" in his edit summary. I have redeleted and left a message on his talk page, but given his insistence on re-adding the section despite my repeated citation of Wikipedia policy (WP:SYN, WP:OR, WP:FILMHIST) and precedents for arbitration on such sections, I have to assume that he will do what he has done before, which is wait a couple months and then restore the section while ignoring Wikipedia policy. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have repeatedly explained the relevant Wikipedia policy (WP:SYN, WP:OR, WP:FILMHIST) and precedents for arbitration on such sections to Appleyard on the talk page, in my edit summary, and have now left him a message on his own talk page. How do you think we can help? If uninvolved editors could provide their input on the appropriateness of an "errata", "errors", or "plot faults" section on this work of fiction per Wikipedia policy and precedent, hopefully this dispute would be settled once and for all. Summary of dispute by Anthony AppleyardPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The Frogmen discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Oscar López Rivera
Closed as stale. Can be re-filed if necessary. Steve Zhang. 22:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Oscar López Rivera is an incarcerated prisoner convicted of crimes including: using force to commit robbery[1], which is considered a violent crime. [2]. Mercy11 continues to insist that López Rivera was never convicted of any act of violence. The available evidence finds that false. Mercy11 continues to revert my edits despite the simple, verifiable data, and using unreliable sources. Other editors such as Lerdthenerd, NickCT, Neosiber, and Froglich have experience similar problems.
My response to MERCY11 is that he ignores WP:BLPCRIME, which sustains that a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. OLR was convicted of using force to commit robbery.[see US Parole Commission, statement on denial of Parole in 2011.] and then I add: which is considered a violent crime. [which is substantiated by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, United States Department of Justice.] Again, I am trying to keep this simple. Remember, the article now states. López Rivera was never convicted of any act of violence. Again this is false, untrue. MERCY11 claims that this violates WP:SYN putatively because it recreates the "A and B, therefore C" construction referenced in that section. He is committing a logical fallacy. My argument is that A did A1, A1 is entirely equal to B, therefore it can be said that A did B. The example used in WP:SYN differs in that it does not link logical statements like this. It would be like saying: that even if I can source the follow two statements:
That I could not say The marathon race in city X is 42 kilometers long. MERCY11 is practicing WP:SYNTHNOT or to quote:
In addition, I challenge the reliability of MERCY11 sources and his use of biased sources. For example, the title of the source he cites is a newspaper article that claims: Arecibo clamó por la libertad de Oscar (in English: (the city of) Arecibo clamors for the liberty of Oscar). I rarely consider documents that claim that a "city clamors" to be reliable. I think that article is equally in error to claim that he was never accused of violent acts. As I state, he was convicted of using force to commit robbery. The FBI source I quoted described these as armed robberies, but to make things simpler and only use the language of my source (US Department of Justice) I now only use that phrase of using force to commit robbery. However, he was convicted of a violent act. Again, I am not going to discuss the merits or demerits of whether OLR should be released. However, I do not think that should excuse MERCY11 from obscuring facts. And it is a fact, by this mere conviction for robbery that OLR was convicted of a violent crime. Notice that I am not saying seditious conspiracy and interstate transportation of firearms and ammunition to aid in the commission of a felony, two of his other conditions are violent crimes. I do not know if they are classified as violent crimes. However, using force to commit robbery is classified as a violent crime by the United States, and OLR was convicted of this. Much seems to made of the false claims that OLR never practiced violence, including by the Arecibo newspaper, but as in that article it is made in order to support a clamor for his pardon. It is advocacy. My statements do not advocate an opinion, the just state the facts. (see WP:ASSERT). My challenge to MERCY11 is to establish that the Department of Justice document does not state that OLR was convicted of using force to commit robbery and that this is not indisputably equal in the eyes of the US Justice System (in which OLR lived by choice) to a violent crime.Rococo1700 (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have altered the citations to reliable sources to two simple reliable sources. I have discussed my changes in the Talk page. How do you think we can help? The answer here is fairly simple. If OLR was convicted of robbery & robbery is a violent crime, then OLR was convicted of a violent crime. I accept President Clinton's assertion that FALN members were not convicted on causing "bodily harm or killing", but the violent crime conviction stands. This case has generated some frenzied partisanship. I am only interested in the assertion of this skeletal fact. I am fairly certain that outside intervention will be needed to resolve this dispute. Summary of dispute by Mercy11Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The editor was reverted because he violated WP:BLP. None of his citations (US Parole Commission; Bureau of Justice Statistics) state what he is trying to push HERE, that "While not causing bodily harm through any of his convictions, Lopez Rivera was convicted of armed robbery, a violent crime" . The issue here is his obsession with linking Oscar Lopez Rivera (OLR) with committing a "violent crime" and qualifying the subject's biography with the words "violent crime" when his sources do not use those words. The editor was not content with stating that "Lopez Rivera was convicted of armed robbery" but he then goes on to editorialize that, with the dangling add-on "a violent crime." THIS source, among the other 4 given in the article, states "nunca fue acusado por actos violentos" (Goggle translation: "was never charged with violent acts"). To achieve a re-write of history, the editor resorted to OR via WP:SYN, which is best appreciated in his words:
Per WP:V, "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material". The editor no only failed to do that, but also -conveniently- insists in removing HERE sourced material that states just the opposite of his original research, and Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research. If the editor's claim that the subject committed "a violent crime" was the case, then, per WP:V, "some [WP:RS] would probably already have reported it so". Per WP:BLP, "Material about living persons must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research". As such, he was reverted. Mercy11 (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by SarasonOscar Lopez Rivera was not charged with armed robbery or violence. He was charged with seditious conspiracy to overthrow the United States. The court transcripts and the court’s own written opinion said this, precisely and with no ambiguity. Here is the citation for this case: U.S. v. Oscar Lopez et al., No. 86 CR 513 (N.D. Ill.). With respect to secondary sources, you can read this article in the Huffington Post, which states that Lopez Rivera “has already served 32 years in prison for the charge of seditious conspiracy.” Nowhere in this article, does it state that Rivera was charged with armed robbery or personal violence. [14] In addition, there is the book Oscar Lopez Rivera: Between Torture and Resistance, edited by Luis Nieves Falcon (Oakland, CA: PM Press, 2013). In this book, the foreword is written by Nobel Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Here is what he wrote:
You thus have the case itself (I provided the case citation) and two secondary sources. In one of them, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, supported by two more Nobel Peace Prize winners, specifically refers to a "tainted parole hearing” in which Lopez Rivera was confronted with charges “regarding crimes which Lopez Rivera was never accused of committing.” Sarason (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Oscar López Rivera discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Thanks Rococo1700 (talk · contribs) and Mercy11 (talk · contribs) for participating. Technically I should wait for Sarason (talk · contribs) to reply, but I am making an exception because the discussion seems to be underway. I will notify this user via talk page. I have moved the comments of Rococo1700 to the opening section of the dispute for clarity. In future, please do not state anything in the discussion section of a dispute before a volunteer has opened the discussion, as it creates confusion. Let me begin with some preliminaries. (1) DRN is meant for discussion about content and not conduct. (2) Assume good faith on the part of all participants. (3) Be civil in everything you say and (4) Please adjust to the pace of DRN. We the volunteers prefer to do some research so that we can address all parties in a comprehensive manner. I have gone through the comments made here and the talk page and the way I understand things, Mercy11 is opposed to the inclusion of the words violent crimes in the description of the conviction of Oscar López Rivera and is accusing Rococo1700 of WP:SYNTH for doing so. At the outset, let me clarify, we the volunteers of DRN are neither judge nor jury and will focus merely on the inclusion of the content. I have asked for comments from editors of a Wiki Project Criminal Biography in the talk page of the article. As these editors have experience working on such biographies, lets wait for their comments before deciding the next course of action. -Wikishagnik (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
ReferencesReferences
|
Los Angeles Film School
This is not appropriate for this noticeboard. I am unsure what you are actually trying to do, so I don't know where to point you to. Try and raise the issue at the page's talk page here if that would help. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 22:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by 1MicheleWiki on 23:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I mistakenly thought Wiki was accurate an then found myself spreading false information which was contained in the article--I miss informed people that they lost their accreditation. Upon further investigation -- including phone calls directly to the source (the accrediting bodies--links provided), I learned the school NEVER had their accreditation revoked. This is DIRECT from the source. I also added and sources that the school is nationally accredited. I provided sources and they were removed. This false information is cause serious damage. Additionally, there is speculation of a class action lawsuit. This lawsuit was "proposed". I dug further to find direct links to a "class action lawsuit by students". While there were blogs of speculation -- all links to credible news sources where broken. Another link led to an irrelevant story about a farmers market. I only want accurate information. IF their was a class action law suit filed, I need a link to an actual news sources / court documents. Not blogs, or "proposed" lawsuits.
Provided links to actual direct sources. Posted on talk pages--this only caused the other editor to become heated. How do you think we can help? Accuracy is my number 1 priority. It appears there is malicious intent with the steadfastness to false info. 1)ACCET - never revoked accreditation. I went so far as to call their headquarters. 2)The college is accredideted by the ACCSC 3)No class action suit was actually filed (at least not from research) 4) NOTE: there was a lawsuit from employees - I did not delete this link. The other law suit referenced is what appears false (student class action).
Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Los Angeles Film School discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|