 | This is anarchive of past discussions onWikipedia: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 thecurrent main page. |
| Archive 175 | ← | Archive 180 | Archive 181 | Archive 182 | Archive 183 | Archive 184 | Archive 185 |
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The filing editor wants to have the article reviewed by independent editors. The procedure for review of an article as to its notability by independent editors isArticles for Deletion. If other editors think that the subject is notable, they will provide arguments for Keeping the article. Independent editors may also argue for Deleting the article. Disruption of the AFD may be reported toWP:ANI after readingthe boomerang essay.Robert McClenon (talk)04:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
And for independent editors the article should be looked for review as it was before cut (10/13/2019).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 You closed my request bec. I did not include the names of editors. They are: 1)Theroadislong, 2)Spintendo, 3)Seraphimblade. Since I was put to COI, #1 told me to use Help request for editing, so I req. to add one citation to Memberships section. #2 started editing, and deleted some of the text. Than #1 jumped and started discussion that some of the info not reliable. Than someone probably asked #3 to delete some text in the article. I put in Talk the discussion for each section where citations were missed by doing so, or misplaced. After that #1 wrote that the article should go to articles for deletion. It looks they don't have the knowledge of Russian lang, or/and Russian Art of 70-80th, and since most citations were written in Russian, they just deleted. So #3 deleted almost all sections including career, Memberships, Exhibitions, Bibliography, Books, those important info for the artist. And I disagree with it. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? To find the editor(s) with a good faith and knowledge of Russian lang and/or Russian Art, who is willing to help with editing of the article. Summary of dispute by TheroadislongPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. It's clearly irrelevant that I don't "have the knowledge of Russian lang, or/and Russian Art of 70-80th", content has been added without reliable independent sources, notability has not been established, there are no in-depth sources which cover her and the article is being used like a personal website to promote her art works.Theroadislong (talk)18:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by SpintendoThe question ofWP:N is beyond my purview as COI edit request reviewer, which deals only in content considerations. The only changes I made to the article were to(a) limit the descriptions of the art exhibits to just titles, dates and locations;(b) placing the images which were already in the article into a gallery template;(c) and working with the COI editor to get the right references posted to what was left after Summary of dispute by SeraphimbladePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Natalia Toreeva discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
And please don't be bias. I'm asking for ban these editors whose opinion is already defined, and it is wasting time for further discussion, and I'm asking for another editor(s) to look into DRN request bec. I hoped they will find the resolution with a good faith. Do you have the manager(s) who would look into the organization problem or please give me email to the owner of wikipedia, so I can discuss? Regards,Toreeva (talk)15:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
First Statement by Volunteer ModeratorPlease readthe ground rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your answers and questions to me. The first question, forUser:Theroadislong andUser:Seraphimblade is: Do either of you intend to nominate the article for deletion viaArticles for Deletion? If so, we will close this discussion and allow the deletion debate to run its course. If not, I will determine whether there are any content issues that can be addressed by moderated discussion leading to compromise. The only question to be answered at this point is whether there will be a deletion discussion. Please reply within 36 hours.Robert McClenon (talk)02:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC) First Statements by Editors
Second Statement by ModeratorUser:Theroadislong wants to resolve content issues first. In that case, I suggest thatUser:Seraphimblade andUser:Spintendo either take part in the content discussion or wait for file theAFD. We can have a content discussion first, then an AFD, which will close this thread. If the article survives the AFD, another content discussion can be opened.User:Theroadislong: What content issue or issues do you wish to address? Please be concise, no more than two paragraphs. Any other editors may also identify content issues. I probably will not spend a long time resolving the content issue, because there will be an AFD, but let's outline what the content issues are. Remember that Wikipedia policy isneutral point of view and that Wikipedia is based on secondaryreliable sources.Robert McClenon (talk)18:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC) If anyone wants to engage in useless back-and-forth discussion, I have provided a section. Please address your main statements to me in the section for the purpose. Second Statements by EditorsThe content issues are, that the article has no independent reliable in-depth sources with which to establishnotability and like the others I have not managed to find any. I am happy for it to go toWP:AFD but thought it only fair for the article creator to be given the chance to provide them.Theroadislong (talk)18:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Back-and-Forth, if desired.* HelloRobert McClenon (talk), Yes, it is, as you said, "useless" discussion. I opened DRN asking to have independent editor(s) who would look into the issue, but you still asking the same editors to discuss, who have already made their bias opinion, based not on good faith and knowledge, but with retaliation attitude. For example,Theroadislong (talk) using his power, now deleted my name in other articles where I did contributions, as "failed verification" or "irrelevant". How it can be failed for example, inhttp://www.encspb.ru/object/2855704621?lc=ru (in Russian), where Toreeva's name is among the art group of "School of Sidlin"? And this citation is the real information from the St. Petersburg Russian encyclopedia web.Is it the right way to solve the problem?What is a shame and disgrace! I don't think we should continue to "discuss" it further. How "low" you can go? Not me. Where is the purpose in your life, God has given you? Where is your integrity? You reached your destination. Have a peace in your decision. For independent editors I would suggest to look for review of this article when it was before cut (10-13-2019). Regards,Toreeva (talk)21:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
|
– New 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
For a month now, there has been a content dispute betweenBetterMath and myself, about how to define a particular statistic called the Akaike information criterion (AIC) in a precise and intuitive way in the article's opening sentence. As of right now, the article describes the AIC as "an estimator of the relative quality of statistical models," which in my opinion is unnecessarily vague because "quality of a model" is so intangible that it isnot even wrong. To give an analogy, it is a little bit like calling theHuman Development Index (HDI) "an estimator of the relative quality of a country." Obviously the current lead of HDI describes it more precisely as a "composite index of life expectancy, education, and per capita income indicators," simply because this is what the HDI actually measures, i.e. theproxies of economic development. Similarly, the AIC approximates the "quality of a model" from prediction (or forecasting) error. The closer on target, the better the model. Because this is what AIC measures, I wanted to amend the current opening sentence with five words to "...an estimator of out-of-sample prediction error and thereby the relative quality...", butBetterMath objected.
My contribution is supported by two reliable sources that confirm the proposed definition nearly verbatim.BetterMath has brushed them aside, claiming them to be "undergraduate textbooks" (which in fact neither of them is) that contained "errors." Trying to point out those errors,BetterMath demonstrated a stunning lack of understanding of basic statistical concepts, like the difference between "in-sample" and "out-of-sample" statistics, which (after a month of good-faith discussion) makes me seriously doubt his ability to accurately judge the subject at hand. This content dispute is in dire need of a third opinion.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Akaike_information_criterion#"relative_quality_of_statistical_models"
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Ideally, somebody with sufficient knowledge in statistics could settle the issue by deciding whether the proposed definition is correct or not. But apart from that, generally any third person could look at this content dispute and decide on whose side the "burden of proof" now falls. In addition to the two sources referenced in the article, I have presented three more on the article talk page, whereasBetterMath has yet to produce a single source that contradicts any of the once listed.
For anyone involved in this dispute, it would be helpful to have some understanding of statistical models. An informal introduction is enough, and is given byStatistical model#Introduction. (Perhaps read that before reading the following.)
Assume that we have some data. Suppose that we also have several statistical models of the data. Some of those models will be better than others for modeling the data. We want to select the model that is in some sense the best model for the data. AIC provides a method for selecting. (It is based oninformation theory.)
Once we have selected a model, we can use the model to make predictions (also called forecasts). Predictions will rarely be perfect; rather, they will usually have some error.
Suppose that the data points arestatistically independent. Then, it can be shown that AIC has a nice property: AIC selects the model that has the minimal expected error when making predictions.
The main issue on which Bender235 and I are in dispute is the following.
If the data points are not independent, then in general, we do not know what properties the prediction errors have. Bender235, however, does not accept that; instead, Bender235 claims that every model selected via AIC has the above-noted nice property. I have explained the issue in detail, and provided several reliable sources. All to only little effect.
In addition to the above issue, Bender235 has claimed that using the termquality of a model in the lead of the article is “unnecessarily vague”. The term is defined informally in the lead (second paragraph). A more formal definition is in the first section of the article:Akaike information criterion#Definition. That definition is somewhat technical (relying on theKullback–Leibler divergence). I believe that the current approach, giving an informal definition in the lead, well adheres toWP:Lead#Provide an accessible overview.
BetterMath (talk)20:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
@BetterMath: I feel like this dispute can actually resolved very easily: in a situation with statistically dependent observations, imagine we have two competing models, and we calculate AIC for each of them. The one with lower AIC is the "better" one, but better in what sense? What does it do better than the other model? The answer is either (a) the "better" model predicts better, i.e. with less error, or (b) we don't know, because AIC is not applicable here, so whatever value it has is irrelevant and it cannot be used for model selection. Which one is it? --bender235 (talk)20:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
– New discussion.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, though only one user,Kansas Bear (talk ·contribs), has commented.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
Some users have been wiping content to enforce a one-sided non-neutral view. This line, complete with multiple sources, is consistently removed:
The date of reports, however, coincide with the golden age ofHadith compilations, with the ShiaFour Books and SunniSix Books all being released around the 9th century, as written Islamic reports were sparse prior to this period.
From this paragraph:
Islamic writers, such asal-Mubarrad,Ya'qubi andal-Kulayni, wrote the earliest reports of Shahrbanu and her imperial Persian background from the 9th century onward. However, the earliest sources make no mention of the mother of Ali ibn Husayn, nor do they ascribe him with maternal royal ancestry. The first references were fromIbn Sa'd andIbn Qutaybah, also in the 9th century, who instead describe her as being a slave fromSindh. TheEncyclopædia Iranica alleges that Shahrbanu was "undeniably legendary".
It was removed twice (1 and2) for two completely different purported reasons. It’s clear that these revisions are simply to censor the fact that the 9th century Islamic texts are credible and are not necessarily unreliable as the mutilated version of the paragraph suggests.
The content of the added content is thoroughly corroborated by the relevant facts, such as the following dates of the Hadith compilations referenced:
And the fact that the earliest known Hadith compilations wereKitab Sulaym ibn Qays bySulaym ibn Qays (died c. 689-709) forShias andSahifah Hammam ibn Munabbih byHammam ibn Munabbih (died 719 CE) forSunnis.
These facts were substantiated by comprehensive citations.
In addition to this, the translation of name of the person whom the article is about is also arbitrarily reverted each time.
Attempts to take personal control of the article has meant that they are not even willing to tolerate one line on the same paragraph, not even a simple name translation.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Shahrbanu#Censoring_Content
User_talk:Alivardi#Arbitrarily_wiping_content_on_Shahrbanu
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I would like for the content to be allowed for fair and neutral content to be displayed in the article. To have multiple claims of the unreliability of 9th century texts be presented, while removing one line saying that 9th century texts are also considered credible to provide a complete, appropriate outlook, is disruptive editing. —LissanX (talk)23:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. Like all other moderated contentdispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requiresextensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance and discussion by edit comments will not suffice. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are madehere. —TransporterMan (TALK)21:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Marquardtika is endeavoring to conceal facts of great public concern about a public figure. S/he would seemingly have the Wikipedia page mirror the official biographies published on the University of Kansas and Department of Justice websites, notwithstanding that such are clearly slanted to shown the figure (Mr. McAllister) in a favorable light. As we all know, the public gets the vast majority of its information from open sources such as Wikipedia. The public deserves to know the WHOLE truth about the subject matter or person being searched, not just the white-washed version. In the instant case, a user added information to make the point that Mr. McAllister has been the subject of controversy throughout his tenure in public service, a point that cannot be controverted (citations were included). The user did not make any insinuation as to the merit or veracity of any argument put forth, nor did the user even come down on a particular side of any of the many controversies enumerated. The user simply made the point that there has been much controversy surrounding Mr. McAlister over the years, and provided the links for the public to articles and other sources for the public to digest and form their own conclusions. Yet Marquardtika would deny the public not only the underlying factual information (e.g., the original sources provided via citation), but even the basic fact that there has been controversy. What Marquardtika is engaging in is ostensibly censorship, plain and simple. What concerns me any more, examining the revision history, is how quickly Marquardtika responded to the initial edit. It was as if he was trying to hide information or re-conceal it before large swaths of the public had a chance to view the "fuller picture." Moreover, he did not incorporate any of the proposed additions or citations; he merely clicked "undo" to revert the page back to his version. This seems to have sparked an childish "undo" battle. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? The revision history of this page shows Marquardtika completely undoing an edit made by a user that exposes certain controversies and past scandals surrounding the subject of the page, Stephen McAllister. The controversies and scandals have been reported on by national news agencies. They are cited and easily verifiable. Yet Marquardtika is using "Wiki-speak" in a desperate attempt to keep the fact that there has been controversy out of the public light. He seems unwilling to compromise. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Relevance is a very low threshold, particularly when it comes to public officials. All of the added information is certainly relevant to the general public. It concerns publicly available and reported-on facts. The public deserves to know the truth and the WHOLE truth, not just the cherry-picked facts by some ex-journalist in Texas. The way Marquardtika is so defensive about this page leads me to believe he is in the pockets of McAllister or someone related to him. There is no other explanation. Summary of dispute by MarquardtikaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Stephen McAllister_(lawyer) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. Like all other moderated contentdispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requiresextensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance and discussion through edit comments will not suffice. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are madehere. —TransporterMan (TALK)22:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Jack Buckby is an author and researcher who was previously involved with the far right. His most recent work and writing disavows the far right. I take particular interest in ensuring Wikipedia remains neutral, so I felt compelled to join and work on this page. I am not paid and do not have any personal stake in this, despite user DavidGerard's attempt to suggest I do. User David Gerard's repeated edits have made the content misleading, which I assume is simply an error on his behalf and he is simply mistaken. However, it is worth noting that this same user is an editor for RationalWiki, a page which explicitly calls Buckby a white nationalist and an anti-Semite. The site is extremely politically biased, and quite dissimilar to Wikipedia in that way. It is essential that the Buckby page accurately represents who Buckby is. Many secondary sources reference work from Buckby dating back to 2012, whereas some primary sources show important information about his more recent work (2019) campaigning and writing against political extremism. This includes work at a think tank, and a book published by a major publishing house, along with his own writing published on his website and at AmericanThinker. So that Wikipedia is not giving an outdated view of the person in question, some primary sources (though, not many) are required to ensure that a fair, unbiased picture is painted in this biography. Failure to properly reference and include Buckby's most recent work will paint a misleading and inaccurate picture about this person. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rosswikieditor How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Another pair of eyes would be helpful, making sure that this page doesn't just use outdated secondary sources and bypass select primary sources for the sake of technicalities - particularly when that means the information Wikipedia presents is out of date and it mischaracterises the person in question. Summary of dispute by DavidGerardPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Jack Buckby discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as failed, due to various continued problems including commenting on other editors andcanvassing. TheWP:ANI thread will be allowed to run. After the conduct dispute is resolved, any of the survivors may request that a case be re-opened, specifically for the purpose of developing the RFC, since it does not appear that this dispute will be resolved without an RFC. In the meantime, the conduct issues are being addressed atWP:ANI.Robert McClenon (talk)23:24, 11 November 2019 (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 The two users mentioned are intent on maintaining the status quo which a) has inaccurate description in the lead paragraph (re: accountability), and b) is not actually mentioned in the reference it uses (The Next Web). One of them also reinstated the two feminist sources which has already been established to be irrelevant to the article (not to mention highly biased, and not neutral at all). My edit, replaces the first two paragraphs with amore accurate description of 'cancel culture' cited by two best sources I could find. They are patently better than what the article had before. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? -Talk:Call-out_culture#Opening_paragraph -Talk:Call-out_culture#The_two_feminist_sources -Talk:Call-out_culture#undue— Precedingunsigned comment added bySridc (talk •contribs)04:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Neutral parties, who can make an unbiased judgement. Summary of dispute by Bacondrum
Sorry about that, I posted it before the guidelines were posted below.Bacondrum (talk)09:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by AquillionI think that the fact that the filer describes the two highly-relevant sources they tried to remove as "feminist" (technically, in the sense that they were published in peer-reviewed journals on feminism) says everything that needs to be said. Those sourcesare clearly relevant - they discuss call-out culture directly from the perspective of experts in the field where the term is most frequently used - and it's reasonably clear that they were removed because the editor disliked the fact that they were published in a peer-reviewed journal. (EDIT: On closer inspection, this may have been a mix-up caused by the sources in question getting moved to the wrong part of the lead at some point in the past; they were accidentally placed with the "cancel culture" subparagraph when they discuss "call-out culture", which led to them getting removed for not referencing cancel culture.) --Aquillion (talk)00:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Call-out culture discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First Statement by Volunteer ModeratorI will try to moderate this dispute. I do not start out with any particular knowledge of the subject, although I am aware what theCall-out culture is said to be. However, Wikipedia must present aneutral view of whatreliable sources say. It is up to the parties to present those sources and their reasoning. Readthe ground rules. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. Any comments about specific editors, or conduct allegations, may becollapsed, and the editor may be cautioned. Civility is required in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution, where it is in short supply. Each editor should state, in no more than two paragraphs, how they think the article should be improved and why, or what they think should be kept as it is, and why. Do not reply to statements by other editors. If you must engage in back-and-forth argument, do it in the section provided, and we can ignore it. If there are multiple violations of the rules, the moderation will be failed, and will go back toWP:ANI, which will probably result in a decision as to who was more disruptive, and in sanctions. So don't have the moderation fail.Robert McClenon (talk)05:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC) First Statements by EditorsBacondrumThe subject is a neologism, a very recent one. The sources used in the past were predominantly primary sources as a result. Myself and others worked to remove undue, biased and primary sources. A lot of the undue material relates to fancruft and tendentious editing, Wikipedia articles should not be an indiscriminate list of what people have said and who has used this neologism. Lukianoff and Haidt's book The Coddling of the American Mind, for example is given undue weight, it is a highly partisan book, an expansion of an article that was pushing a very clear ideological line - it should be used sparingly if at all. We should be aiming for content and references that use non-biased, cautious language not anti-feminist, anti-progressive or pro-feminist or pro-progressive language, this applies to the tone also. I'd gladly see the article expanded in a matter of fact way - using quality secondary sources, preferably academic and a neutral tone. My problem is the recent nature of the subject, there's a tendency towards cruft, recentivism and battleground editing - I think strong, neutral sources are a must and definitely not opinions pieces of which there are thousands that cover this subject, with wildly divergent views and they are often hyperbolic views ie: David Brooks comparing it to Stalinist purges and Maoist re-education camps (Haidt makes comparisons to Stalinism also, which is no better than Hitler hyperbole - This article was literally comparing a neologism to the most extreme horrors of Stalinism and Maoism at one stage, I kid you not).Bacondrum (talk)07:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC) SridcThis article used to have substantially informative content (see thetwoolder revisions) but over the recent months has gotten bulk of its content deleted en masse. I readTalk:Call-out_culture/Archive_1 to try to understand the rationale behind those deletes. One objection was the use of op-eds; I'm new to Wikipedia so correct me if I'm wrong, but here we don't blindly reject all op-eds. Call-out culture being a social phenomenon (a recent one at that) is going to have several op-eds from major publishers (often reliable sources) discussing it. I think instead of removing them all we should summarize their views in NPOV. There were other reasons, such as undue & cruft (they come upvery often). These rationales don't make any sense to me. My recent inclusion of the social psychologist,Jonathan Haidt, as a reference was reverted several times for such a reason; afterinvolving a neutral third-party, however, we arrived at the consensus to keep; it got reverted once againeven after establishing the said consensus (which involved furtherdispute before reinstating it back). Another example is the removal of the 'In popular culture' section. I added it back yesterday, wherein it was reverted promptly citing prior consensus (not true) and "text book fan cruft and completely undue"; once again, with the help of a neutral third-party (who referred toMOS:CULTURALREFS) we arrived at the consensus to include it back. So, to summarize:
The last point, in particular, is why I mostly would appreciate having the said mediators/ neutral third-parties in assisting, with me, to improve the article. Thank you, and I look forward to your help@Robert McClenon:! -Sridc (talk)14:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC) Back-and-Forth DiscussionSecond statement by moderatorThe article is currently locked due to edit-warring that happened immediately before mediation began. I will remind the participants thatWP:DRN Rule A states that no one may edit the article while moderated discussion is in effect. This rule will continue to apply to the participants after the lock expires. Will each of the participants specifically explain what changes they either wanted to make to the article that were reverted, or what changes they reverted from the article, and why? The objective of this discussion is to see whether we can arrive at a compromise for any portions that were to be added or subtracted. Also, as explained below, it may be better to describe opinions as opinions rather than just deleting them. Since there are widely differing opinions on the call-out culture, presenting those opinions as opinions is a better idea than simply removing them. Non-neutral sources such as op-eds may be reliable statements of what the viewpoints are. Please provide your statements of what you either added or removed, and why, within 48 hours. Second statements by editorsSridcRobert asked me to explain what changes I "wanted to make to the article that were reverted". The bulk of my changes involved usingJonathan Haidt as a reference in the article. Those changes had gotten reverted multiple times, sometimes even after establishing consensus. After various back and forth, I managed to position them in the article description to the satisfaction of other editors. The other changes on the other hand involved a lack of consensus due to editors unilaterally deciding to revert them; they include: -Revert of 'In popular culture', however a consensus has since been established inhere, so I expect Bacondrum will be self-reverting it as soon as the article comes out edit-protection. -Revert on the lede, however note that we are discussing a potentially better source for the ledehere &here, as David Cunningham's source is a reliable secondary source, and it covers the two groups of viewpoints on this topic (while giving due weight in each group). -Revert of Obama's statement - I think Obama's public statement on call-out culture is quite notable, and should be mentioned. -Revert of Quillette's POV - Same as above; Quillette is a notable online magazine, with a Wikipedia entry. I don't see why it cannot be included, if they have made an article on 'cancel culture'. I must particularly emphasize here that the bulk of the dispute on this article isnot about the above reverts specifically (they are minor in comparison), but the dispute is currently to do with the majority of content that got deleted from older revision (this is an example of what the article looked like). Judging from the clear lack of consensus around the deletion of the majority of these content (comparethis tothis), as evidenced from the discussion in the Talk page archive (here &here), I believe we need to bring these back (but without their downsides, like being aWP:QUOTEFARM). To that end, over the past two days I painstakingly collected various reliable sources covering the wide range of viewpoints on this topic. You can find them in the following Talk page sections: -Talk:Call-out_culture#New_reliable_source:_David_Cunningham -Talk:Call-out_culture#New_reliable_source:_Dianna_Anderson -Talk:Call-out_culture#Adrienne_Matei -Talk:Call-out_culture#New_reliable_source:_Meghan_Daum -Talk:Call-out_culture#Comedians_&_cancel_culture -Talk:Call-out_culture#Effects_of_call-out_culture - This is a list of various academics and experts talking about how the general population (typically the student body)responds to call-out culture. -Talk:Call-out_culture#Anita_Bright_(calling-in) -Talk:Call-out_culture#Anna_Richards As you may notice, Bacondrum has been the only editor so far to provide comments on these sources. I believe we need a diverse pool of editors on this article, especially the neutral editors. My plan is to use these sources to expand upon the article greatly, which should have the effect of bringing back the bulk of encyclopedic content that had gotten lost in the mass deletion (comparethis tothis) that happened early this year, but while ensuring that the article sticks to Wikipedia policy & guidelines. I'm curious to know, especially being a new Wikipedian, how exactly you are planning to help mediate this upcoming improvement,@Robert McClenon:? —SridYO22:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Bacondrum
The titles of the sources that were put forward is very telling:
There's heaps more and most are primary sources, opinion from all comers, fashion editors, unpublished/unknown academics, sports writers, partisan media pundits etc - most with a clear and strong bias. Almost every source provided recently has been written by people who are clearly detractors.All of these sources take stridently biased stances (this is a hyper contentious and partisan subject) - not saying they can't be used, but we should use them cautiously and sparingly. We should be using better sources overall secondary and academic such as the ones below.There are some excellent sources that were put forward that are clearly more neutral in tone and the authors are far more qualified:
I just want a fair, objective and neutral article that is intelligible, when I first read this page it was none of these things.Bacondrum (talk)06:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment by ModeratorI have been asked how I am planning to try to help mediate the improvement of the article. My view is that the article should be expanded by the inclusion ofneutrally written descriptions of views of the call-out culture. The list above is a start for possible added sections. For each candidate section, we (the parties with my assistance) will try to wordsmith a neutral version. If agreement cannot be reached on how to wordsmith a neutral version, then the two proposed versions will be alternatives, and aRequest for Comments will be used in which the community will reach a rough consensus. There may be multiple candidate sections, so that the RFC may have to be choose between 1A and 1B, choose between 2A and 2B, and so on. I don't know exactly how much time will be necessary before a possibly multi-part RFC is published. I would of course like to have agreement on neutral versions, so that we can avoid the RFC, but I would rather have an RFC than just leave out the disputed sections (which leaves the article more or less where it is now). That is a rough statement of what my mediation plan is. If someone else has any other ideas, I will be glad to consider them, but that is my plan for now. Also, if anyone has a suggestion for a way to involve more editors by neutrally inviting more editors via a WikiProject, that may help. Those are my thoughts for now. I am waiting for input fromUser:Bacondrum andUser:Aquillion.Robert McClenon (talk)00:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment by Srid (re: more editors)In regards to "a way to involve more editors" may I suggest inviting the top contributors of the article when it used to have substantial content? I will in fact go ahead and ping some, if you do not mind:@DeRossitt:,@FOARP:,@OnBeyondZebrax:,@Psantora:. (If you are a pinged reader reading this, please see my secondary statement above for the editing plan, thanks!)
Status Comment by ModeratorThis noticeboard does not handle a case that is also pending in any other forum. Because a thread has been opened atWP:ANI, this case is placed on hold until theWP:ANI dispute is resolved.Robert McClenon (talk)02:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC) I will be updatingthe ground rules to instruct the participants in a case that filing a report atWP:ANI (or any other conduct forum such asArbitration Enforcement) will cause the case to be failed. Since there was not such a statement in the rules when the report was filed, this case is on hold rather than failed.Robert McClenon (talk)02:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The filing editor has also filed a case atWP:ANI. This noticeboard does not handle any dispute that is also pending in another content or conduct forum. The dispute atWP:ANI will be allowed to run its course. After it is finished, if there is a content dispute remaining, any survivors can refile another case here.Robert McClenon (talk)04:08, 17 November 2019 (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 A dispute is occurring in the Talk page of the Horn of Africa article involving me an another editor with an issue where we have not been able to reach consensus. The other editor wishes to remove material (in the "Prehistory" section of the page) describing a recent study and statements by the scientists responsible for it suggesting that Homo sapiens arose about 350-269kya from the merging of populations in South and East Africa. I feel that it is relevant to the prehistory of the region, since the Horn of Africa being a large region or East Africa and possibly involved, and also that to mention only the previously known H. sapiens finds (such as Omo and Herto) from ca 200-160kya (mentioned above on that section of the page) and nothing else would be somewhat misleading, when many researchers now believe that the H. Sapiens emerged earlier (than they previously did) based on new evidence. The other editor and I have, in that Talk page section had other (sometimes related) disputes over content, and I have engaged with their points and in some cases made compromises and changes (sometimes reversals) to my previous edits in response (where I could see that they made valid points). I would also like to note that throughout the discussion, they have, in my opinion, continuously (from the beginning to most recently) often displayed uncivil behavior, including what could be described as " ill-considered accusations of impropriety" as the "Wikipedia:civility" page calls it (including making assumptions and accusations regarding my beliefs and personal motivations for editing and accusing me of political agendas and biases (which I do not hold) without evidence, and inflammatory and combative language, and, what seemed to be, a general aggressiveness which I found, and continue to find, confusing. Despite my earlier compromises, in this last case (described above) I do not agree with their preference and they do not seem to see my reasoning. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Horn_of_Africa#Jebel_Irhoud_in_Morocco_obsession How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I hope that it will be helpful for another party to weigh in on the issue and give an opinion of the merits of our respective positions, since the other user (Dalhoa) does not seem to be receptive to my reasoning and believes I am biased in some way. Summary of dispute by Skllagyook and DalhoaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Horn of_Africa#Jebel_Irhoud_in_Morocco_obsession discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. There are several problems with this filing, any of which would be sufficient to close it as premature. First, the filing party has not tried to notify the other editors, and notice is required. Second, there has been no discussion on the article talk page. Discussion on the article talk page is the most important precondition to discussion here. There hasn't been discussion on the article talk page. Third, the filing editor says that they maintained an authentic page until May 2019. This statement is incomprehensible, both because there is no history of any previous page, and because Wikipedia does not provide "authenticated" pages subject to control of a company. SeeWikipedia is not a web host. Any company can always maintain its own authentic web page. The World Wide Web works like that. The filing editor is advised either to register an account and discuss the issues on the article talk page, or to put their efforts into an authentic web page via a registrar.Robert McClenon (talk)18:34, 20 November 2019 (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 There have been various inaccurate accusations and false information being circulated regarding the company's history and business. The lies being shared are destroying the company's accredited reputation and valid work. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? We have maintained and orchestrated an authentic page, until it was smeared in May 2019. We want it to be immediately restored. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goddard_Gunster&action=history How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? We want to see the page restored to how it appeared previous of May 2019 and three unauthorized editors to be banned from making further page edits. Summary of dispute by Rich FarmbroughPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by DimondbaklovePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by The Vintage FeministPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Goddard Gunster discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. It says at the top, 'We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums'. This dispute is being discussed (as the filing party has said) atthe Reliable Source Noticeboard. Filing this request when this dispute is also pending in another content forum isforum shopping. (In a few cases, forum shopping may result in a block or a topic-ban. In this case, it will only result in a caution, and in closure of this thread.) Resume discussion at the article talk page or atRSN.Robert McClenon (talk)04:23, 21 November 2019 (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 I recently revised the header and background section of the articleBoyfriend loophole, a rhetorical political term used to convey a policy position. These sections were heavily biased and obfuscated the central political conflict, so I added NPOV language to clarify what law was on the books and what legislation was being proposed. I also added a line in the header which provided reasoning for opposing viewpoints, which is extremely notable in context, since the preceding sentence notes that legislation in support of closing the boyfriend loophole has not passed at the federal level. The removal of this line is the center of the dispute. The stated reasoning of removing the line is that the source I used, The Daily Caller, was deprecated. The article is reporting on the positions of Senator Joni Ernst, conveyed directly to this news outlet, on why a recent bill failed to pass due to the inclusion of boyfriend loophole-closing legislation in the bill passed by the House. Her words to the Daily Caller speak directly to the positions of "critics", so it's perfectly natural source to use. Even if the Daily Caller shows bias in reporting, its bias would be in favor of the critics, if anything, so the publication would be a good source for representing the viewpoints of the right on a partisan topic. I have welcomed the replacement of this source with another source which supports the same line. Obviously, there are critics of this legislation or the House bill would have passed the senate. Only someone being disingenuous would argue that this line isn't truthful. Instead of changing the citation, I have been met with an edit warring campaign to remove the entire line. Removing the line turns the header from one that fairly represents both sides into one which only supports closing the loophole. Again, idea that it is a "loophole" only exists if you think it shouldn't exist, so simply explaining what it is is representing their position. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Urge users to readWP:DEPRECATED, particularly the lines "Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately" and "Deprecation is not a "ban" on using the source". The way this rule is currently being applied is akin to a ban. Again, I'm not opposed to a resolution where the people who take issue with my source add other sources or even replace my source with one which represents the views of critics. Summary of dispute by David GerardPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The user insists on edit-warring in a deprecated source. He claims Summary of dispute by Jayron32Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This is a clear case ofWP:FORUMSHOP andWP:IDHT. Everyone noted above save the original two disputants was uninvolved, and gave uninvolved statements at RSN. The response was a clear consensus that his proposed source was not reliable, and now he's running here seeking a different result. I urge someone to close this discussion and keep the discussion in one location, which should remain at RSN. --Jayron3200:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by JzGThis appears to be a case ofWP:1AM. The Daily Caller is a deprecated and thus unreliable source, the proposed use does not qualify underWP:ABOUTSELF, and that's an end to it as far as I am concerned. Also Blueboar alludes to a common issue with deprecated sources: a fact that is significant will have more than one reliable source. A fact that is covered in only one unreliable source is, almost by definition, not significant.Guy(help!)23:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by NewslingerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by AquillionPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by BlueboarDon’t think I am very involved, although I did comment at the thread posted to RSN. My take was this: the entire issue was really a question of UNDUE weight. If the content (an opinion) in question was important enough to mention, we would have lots of sources discussing it. Since we apparently don’t have lots of sources discussing it (and have only one source mentioning it) the opinion in question isn’t worth including... regardless of the issue of reliability.Blueboar (talk)22:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Boyfriend loophole discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as premature if a dispute at all. There does not appear to have been any discussion at the article talk page,Talk:Vedanta. Discuss any issue about the article at the talk page.Robert McClenon (talk)04:28, 21 November 2019 (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 Swaminarayan wrote one book "Shikshapatri" in his lifetime. In that book Swaminarayan wrote Verse-121, wherein he clearly states that he follows Vendanta philosophy of type "Vishishtadvaita". Please refer Swaminarayan original book digital version at BRITISH LIBRARY: www.shikshapatri.org.uk/~imagedb/hms/mss_browse.php?expand=638,639&act=chunit&unit=121 Swaminarayan own handwriting is discarded and fake people are adding newer philosophy themselves, without any reference of swaminarayan writing.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Summary of dispute by Apollo1203Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Vedanta#History discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The filing party has not notified the other editor of this filing, more than three days after being advised to notify the other editor. The parties should resume discussion on the article talk page. The parties are advised to be civil, and are reminded theincivility can result in being topic-banned or blocked. If discussion fails to resolve the dispute, aRequest for Comments may be used.Robert McClenon (talk)00:27, 27 November 2019 (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 The dispute is about the official (de jure) recognition of Indonesia. All the sources show 1949, but only two sources show 1945, namely Indonesia itself (State propaganda) and Egypt. Person (Indonesian) only wants to use Arab and Indonesian sources due the fact 9opinion) that Allied sources are not reliable. Als the original newspapers i have attached are not reliable because The Egypy internet page and an Inodneisan article in a magazine have different view. Also the claim that The Indonesian proclamation gained internatiol attention is not supported by real sources due the fact no internationla newspaper did cover the proclamation two days after the End of WWII, all newspapers talk about the capitulation of Japan and Europe. The fact that the Dutch EAst Indies were exept Java and Sumtra liberated by the Allies (1942-1945) is not relevant to the editors opinion. Als the constant use of the name Indonesia for the colony and the constant use of Djakarta is not neutral and incorrect. The Name Djakarta ceame after indeopendence in 1949, it was still called Batavia in 1945. Person tries to rewrite history in according to Indonesian school history like. 1945 independent. Invasion by Dutch in 1946. War won and Dutch drivin out in 1949. Diplomatic efforts are not mentioned. The whole article is now a propaganda peace based on Indonesian view, not International view. The reason for this is the claim of Indonesia to push the internatiol community to accept 1945 as independence date, so the US, UK Australia and the Netherlands would have to aplogize to Indonesia for the invasion of 1944/1945. (General MacArthur landed on New Guinea in 1944 and the Americans/Australians left in 1945/1946 after tghe proclamation of independence.) If i ask real documents about recognition or more sources i have to 'back off' or my sources (Newspapers United Nations sources) are not relialble. Als the mention of the Arab League which isn't a country is disputed in International law. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proclamation_of_Indonesian_Independence How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? To look neutral at all the sources provided and maybe let someone outside us two editors write the article based on the provided sources. Regards Summary of dispute by BluesatellitePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Proclamation of Indonesian Independence discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Not all parties agree to moderation. RFC is a good content path, ANI a good conduct path.Xavexgoem (talk)01:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed byDrFrench on12:08, 21 November 2019 (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 There is a difference of opinion about the formatting of dates in citation templates. I noticed that many of the citations on the page were messy and/or incomplete. They used a mixture of templates, free text and bare links - some of them using the incorrect template. To improve the article, I went through all the citations and updated/expanded/corrected them using the current citation syntax and adding extra information. In the citation templates, I used the YYYY-MM-DD format. The page has the SeeTalk:British_Rail_Class_390#Citation_formatting for a full rationale/explanation. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Unfortunately, there has been little engagement on the article's talk page. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? As neutral observers, you may be able to give an informed and unbiased opinion. Or you may be able to direct me to a more suitable place to resolve the dispute, being as it the dispute isn't about the content of the page per se, simply about the technical formatting of templates used on the page. Summary of dispute by Davey2010Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by CassiantoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
British Rail Class 390 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Noted. Closing.Xavexgoem (talk)01:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed for at least two reasons. First, this dispute is premature, in that there has been no attempt by the filing party to discuss on the article talk page. The talk page of an IP address is not sufficient to start a conversation, because IP addresses shift (and have shifted in this case). Second, the filing party has also filed a complaint atWP:ANI, and this noticeboard does not handle a dispute that is also pending in another forum includingWP:ANI. The dispute atWP:ANI must be allowed to run its course, or withdrawn, and there must be discussion on the article talk page. If the IP editor does not discuss, readthe discussion failure essay, or requestsemi-protection of the article, or both. (Reading an essay is usually a good idea anyway.)Robert McClenon (talk)16:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview My citations are being removed and my edits are being replaced with information that is misleading. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have tried asking the user to stop taking down my citations and edits. This did not work. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I don't know if you will be able to help; If you can, that would be great. If not, then I will just continue re-posting my citations and edits to the page. Summary of dispute by 2604:2000:1280:a126:bc11:6f05:1de2:a536Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Law enforcement_in_New_York discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The other two editors have declined to take part in a case here, one politely, one less politely. Copyright is a core Wikipedia policy and is not subject to compromise. If the filing party wants an explanation of how Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, some of the editors atthe Teahouse may be willing to provide advice patiently.Robert McClenon (talk)04:39, 23 November 2019 (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 I have cited news regarding mob violence and have described the incidence in my own words, still users are undoing my complete edits without even going through the articles. As I understand, Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text. Isn't it? How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cow_vigilante_violence_in_India&action=historyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MPS1992 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By guiding me how my edits constituted copyright violation? Summary of dispute by MPS1992
Summary of dispute by El CI just removed and revdeleted copyvio by the OP. Otherwise, I decline to participate.El_C02:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Cow vigilante violence in India discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The other editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet. The filing editor may resume editing the articleboldly.Robert McClenon (talk)05:15, 29 November 2019 (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 Another editor, Kndnm64 continues to add a section to the Cushitic peoples page, on the morphological affinities of the people of the ancient Kerma culture of Sudan which find them to be similar to some peoples that speak Afro-Asiatic languages. The Kerma peoples are not agreed to have been Cushitic (one study suggested they were but more recent research suggests that they instead spoke a language of the Nilo-Saharan family). I have disputed the relevance of the other editor's additions to that page, since the page is about Cushitic peoples. I have argued that their addition in that context seems to constitute original research (to imply something that is not stated - i.e. to suggest that the Kerma people were Cushitic, which the other editor claimed their additions were evidence of), or at least that they are not sufficiently relevant to the topic of the page). The other editor does not agree with me. We have discussed it but cannot come to an agreement. They seem, in my view, not to be listening (but I hope that a third party can bring a neutral perspective to the situation). How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cushitic_peoples#Skllagyook_keeps_deleting_sources How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I hope that a third party can help resolve this dispute, and help to evaluate the merits of our respective cases with a neutral perspective. Summary of dispute by Kndnm64Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Cushitic peoples discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Skllagyook (talk)23:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. No discussion has occurred on the talk page, please take up the issue there before coming here. Moreover, please do notmake legal threats, as this will result in a loss of editing privilegessigned,Rosguilltalk21:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview 1. Joe Sanchez, only served eights months to one year in NY state prison. It can be confirmed by calling NYS Dept. of Corrections in Albany, NY. 2. Joe Sanchez was NOT attack by convicts he put in prison through an arrest when he was a New York City Police Officer. It can be confirmed by calling NYS Dept. of Corrections in Albany, NY.3. Joe Sanchez, NEVER retired from NYS Corrections. After Eight months or one year of service he was hurt during an isolated fight in the prison yard and NEVER received ANY disability or retirement from NYS. His statement in Wikipedia is, they were out to get him because he used to be an NYPD cop, that's far beyond from the truth. 4. Joe Sanchez, only made into Wikipedia was because a buddy of his who served in Vietnam happened to be a writer for Wikipedia and told him, "Lets keep this to ourselves. But Joe, you must make more videos and public announcements to make it look right." "The more public you make your story the more chances of staying in Wikipedia you'll have, but I never told you." 5. After twenty nine years, when all of the NYS prosecutors, attorneys and witnesses passed on he stated to me, "Now is a god time to live a legacy." How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Nothing I can do, I'm not a Vietnam veteran How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Drop the entire Wikipedia lie concern Joe Sanchez, or I will not only go public, but put a dent in Wikipedia for allowing lies like this to be made, not only public, but historical. Summary of dispute by Wikipedia WriterPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Joe Sanchez discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The filing party has not notified the other party of this filing. Continue discussion on the article talk page. Do not edit-war. A new request can be filed here at any time, but all editors must be notified. Report edit-warring atthe edit-warring noticeboard, but only after readingthe boomerang essay.Robert McClenon (talk)23:38, 3 December 2019 (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 Should the forthcoming limited series Steven Universe Future be listed under the heading "Specials"? One editor argues that, as it is a series with multiple episodes and a regular weekly airtime, it is by definition not a special; another editor cites articles describing it as "a special limited series" or characterizing the forthcoming debut episodes as a "special event". How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:List of Steven Universe episodes#Listing Steven Universe Future How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Provide a third-party perspective on whether it makes sense to describe Steven Universe Future as a "special" and/or to list its episodes under the heading "specials"; it's been going back and fourth between two disputants with no progress for days. Summary of dispute by Alex 21Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. List of Steven Universe episodes discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | I was able to provide evidence of an existing implicit consensus related to the issue at hand that persuaded involved parties to drop the content dispute. Further discussion about editors' behavior are not appropriate for this noticeboard.signed,Rosguilltalk23:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed byBrugesFR on20:42, 1 December 2019 (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 LaSexta channel published a polls, a user wants to link "LaSexta" with its corresponding article ([[]]), but another user don't let him do it, they do not reach an agreement How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please help us to solve this Summary of dispute byUser:BrugesFRPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute byUser:Impru20Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There is little to discuss here. I initially contested BrugesFR's edits because these deviated from established precedent in other opinion polling articles throughout Wikipedia not to use lonely wiki-links in opinion polling tables, as it could cause a stark contrast in long tables between linked and unlinked text. However, later assurances that the true motives for the edit were due to a wish from BrugesFR to somehow pin-point the "political alignment" of the media commissioning the poll—attempting to establish or imply a connection between the opinion poll's accuracy and the reference inthe media's article in Wikipedia signaling that Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer comment The filing editor has not notified the other editor of this discussion.signed,Rosguilltalk04:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. There has not been any discussion at the article talk page. The discussion appears only to have been via edit summaries, and edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion on an article talk page. Discuss the content issues on the article talk page. If discussion on the article talk page is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be made. Do not edit-war. (The article was already once protected due to edit-warring.) Report disruptive editing toWP:ANI, but only after readingthe boomerang essay.Robert McClenon (talk)23:26, 29 November 2019 (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 There appears to be an ongoing (and irreconcilable) dispute between Marquardtika and a number of other users. The former would not have the Wiki page reference anything negative that has been substantially reported by national media outlets as pertaining to the subject of the page. His Wiki page mirrors what is listed on the subject's official bio page at DOJ and KU. Other users seem to seek something more balanced presented to the public; but Marquardtika objects with what appears to be Wiki-speak. By Marquardtika constantly responding in Wiki-speak, he is really making Wikipedia a platform not for the general public to contribute in a constructive way to shared knowledge; but for people like Marquardtika who have nothing better to do than learn/speak "Wiki-speak" to lord it over the general public and publish only that what HE thinks out to be displayed. I agree with one user who calls it a form of censorship. This subject of this page is clearly a person of great controversy; and being a public figure, he public has a right to know the various controversies that surround him. It is not for this page to come down on any one side in any of the controversies, but it is disingenuous to present a page devoid of any of the numerous public and publicized scandals surrounding a political appointee. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? curprev 18:49, 14 November 2019 Marquardtika talk contribs 4,408 bytes -4,221 Reverted 1 edit by 63.232.78.66 (talk) (TW) undothank Tag: Undocurprev 16:43, 14 November 2019 63.232.78.66 talk 8,629 bytes +4,221 Undid revision 924718819 by 1990'sguy (talk) undo Tags: Undo possible BLP issue or vandalismcurprev 14:48, 5 November 2019 1990'sguy talk contribs 4,408 bytes -4,221 Undid revision 924716315 by 172.13.15.160 (talk) Revert content in violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. IP's la How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Marquardtika versus other users (some anonymous) regarding subject of page, Stephen McAllister (lawyer). Marquardtika uses "Wiki-speak" to keep what appear to be new users to Wikipedia from altering or adding to a page that he (Marquardtika) created or substantially edited. One or more individuals should weigh in, as no user appears to be willing to give an inch. The question is whether the page of a public figure (Trump political appointee) should present information of public concern. Summary of dispute by MarquardtikaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 172.13.15.160Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by FavonianPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by DumbBOTPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Stephen McAllister_(lawyer) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | This issue is already being discussedat RSN andANI. Do notforum shop.signed,Rosguilltalk06:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed byAidayoung on05:56, 6 December 2019 (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 This is a disputed article, where recently quotes from a book by Professor W. Michael Ashcraft (the main academic history of the scholarly studies of new recent movements) were included discussing the subject of the article. They were repeatedly cancelled although they are obviously relevant to the subject and coming from a RS. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Massimo_Introvigne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Massimo_Introvigne_and_CESNUR How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? You should establish whether book by Prof Ashcraft is RS for the subject and quotes there should not be eliminated. Note that I have not deleted more negative evaluations of the same subject, thus leaving a spectrum of different opinions Summary of dispute by GrayfellPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Massimo Introvigne discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The filing party did not notify the other editors after 72 hours after being advised to do so. Continue discussion at the article talk page. Be sure to vote on Thursday if you have the right to vote in theUnited Kingdom.Robert McClenon (talk)23:49, 6 December 2019 (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 We are discussing how to describe the campaign, most notably a paragraph about Conservative internet campaigns. I consider it most important to mention what independent observers, such as Twitter, FullFact and the Electoral Commission, have said but others are not convinced. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [[7]] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Give other opinions on the issue and other possible solutions. Summary of dispute by BondegezouPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by DeFactoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Jopal22Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. 2019 United Kingdom general election discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The filing party has not notified the other editors of this filing 48 hours after it was mentioned that they had not been notified. Resume discussion on the article talk page, or follow a rough consensus, or use aRequest for Comments. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive and there is no RFC, a new thread can be filed here, with proper notice. Do not edit-war.Robert McClenon (talk)17:19, 6 December 2019 (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 The dispute is over whether Jo Swinson should be described as Scottish or British. The status quo currently appears to refer to her as Scottish, and a Guardian article currently used as a reference in the infobox also uses this term, describing her as "Scottish MP Jo Swinson"[8]. The term Scottish is disputed by User:Erzan. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? By asking Erzan to provide a reference to support the change they wish to make.[9] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? The dispute needs somebody with experience to give some advice on a solution for this. The issue of nationality within the United Kingdom and its constituent countries is an often visited subject here on Wikipedia. Summary of dispute by This is PaulThe use of the term Scottish has been the status quo in the article. I have no objection to the changes in principle, but feel it should be referenced in this case because how to describe nationality within the UK has caused some controversy in the past. Because of that past controversy I don't believeWP:BLUESKY can be applied here since it cannot resolve the wider UK nationality dispute. I've always tended to think we should stay with the status quo, whatever that may be, unless there's a good reason to change it. I have asked Erzan to provide references for the changes they wish to make since I feel that would help with any potential future dispute. These were provided, but promptly removed by Ivar the Boneful. Therefore I feel a dispute resolution would be of help in this situation. Summary of dispute by ErzanJo is a British MP, a leader of the British Liberal Democrats and has stated several times she wants to be British Prime Minister. In addition to this, she is a pro-Union and opposes Scottish Nationalism. This edit, by myself, was made to reflect this very basic fact and reflect the reality that Jo is a British politician who wants to be a British Prime Minister. This was revereted and twice personal abuse was directed. I was asked to provide references. I did. Another user edited this and cited 'skyblue'. Which I agreed with. Jo being a British politician is basic information and objectively obvious. My appeal to other users logic was ignored by Paul. I feel this attitude creates a culture of intimidation and is extremely negative for users to want to contribute to Wikipedia. Summary of dispute by Ivar the BonefulPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Jo Swinson discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. One user has replied, and the other user has not replied. The version of the article proposed by the one user currently has a rough consensus based on this thread, but other editors can editboldly, and aRequest for Comments formalizes consensus. Report disruptive editing atthe edit-warring noticeboard orWP:ANI after readingthe boomerang essay, but do not edit disruptively.Robert McClenon (talk)15:25, 7 December 2019 (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 It is my belief - and that of several others - that the article, particularly the lede, is not handled neutrally. I have made efforts to word things more neutrally, and have opened several discussions on this matter over a period of time.From this early stage (and in prior edit summaries), I have tried to make it clear what the problems were, and invited discussion on the Talk page. This issue has also been raised by other users on the Talk page - older comments have now been archived.The article always seems to be reverted back to the non-neutral version, with no discussions taking place that I can see. Part of the problem is the use of sources that do not prove what they are being used to prove. But what really concerns me, is the approach of objectively describing the existence of criticism is labelled "fringe", whereas the current version (dismissing the criticism outright as disinformation) makes a value judgment and asserts partiality on behalf of Wikipedia. I'm sure this can be resolved in a way that pleases everybody - however, at the moment it seems there is no hope of this. I made one change earlier (my first in 2 weeks), to a wording that has existed for some time since back in Spring.I justified this on the Talk page, and got a warning for engaging in an edit war. (How can I appeal this? One edit is not a war) Previous comments on the Talk page in fact misrepresented the issue.In particular, they said a single statement added for balance was false; when it is true, sourced, and expanded upon later in the article.I did not receive a reponse to the justification I put on the Talk page, but got the aforementioned warning instead. (Sorry, this is my first time doing this, so would appreciate it you could offer me some guidance along the way - both in progressing this dispute, and appealing the warning). Thanks How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [[10]] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Help find a wording that acknowledges legitimate criticism without asserting bias in describing it. Help me appeal my warning for edit warring when I made a single, justified edit! Summary of dispute by SnooganssnoogansThis is very simple: reliable sources note that the White Helmets are the target of a sustained disinformation campaign, including countless conspiracy theories and falsehoods about the organization. This content dispute is about whether we should (i) prevent Wikipedia from relying on reliable sources and instead (ii) promote the disinformation campaign about the group by cobbling together a mixture of misrepresented RS and non-RS to lend credence to the disinformation. The other editor keeps edit-warring text about how "independent and unaffiliated British fact-finding delegations" have criticized the White Helmets when it was a single British pro-Assad priest who did it. The other editor also keeps removing the RS text about the conspiracy theories and falsehoods that have been thrown at the group. This is also note a dispute between me and this editor. Other editors who have reverted the FRINGE version of the text (or expressed opposition to the FRINGE version of the text on the talk page) includeBobfrombrockley andNeutrality.Snooganssnoogans (talk)05:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. White Helmets First statement by moderatorUser:Harshmustard,User:Snooganssnoogans: I will make a preliminary effort at moderating this dispute. Please readDRN Rule A and follow the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. My first question is whether this is a content dispute, because this noticeboard handles content disputes. It does not handle conduct disputes. If the issue is how to reflect the disinformation campaign in the article, that is content, as long as no editor is accusing any other editor of disinformation. Since the topic is theSyrian Civil War,General Sanctions are available for use against disruptive editing. So be civil and collaborative. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they either think should be changed in the article, and why, or what should be left the same in the article, and why? Don't talk about other editors. The issue is improving the article. Do not reply to each other, except in the section for back-and-forth discussion, which can be ignored.Robert McClenon (talk)00:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC) White Helmets First statements by editorsThe article's lead should say:"The organisation has been the target of a sustained disinformation campaign by supporters of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and Russian-sponsored media organisations such as RT; the campaign has promoted conspiracy theories about the group, and false accusations that it has close ties with terrorist activities." This version reflects RS and is neutral. The article's lead should not say: "The organisation has been criticised by supporters of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Russian-sponsored media organisations such as RT, along with independent and unaffiliated British fact-finding delegations. Arguments centre on them receiving support from the US government’s Agency for International Development and a British PR firm, leading to charges that the SCD are a Western-backed propaganda tool. Other arguments draw attention to the SCD's alleged ties to militant groups. The United Nations has held a round table discussion on its organ and other valuables theft actions on Dec 20, 2018." This version is cobbled together through a misrepresentation of a few RS and a bunch of non-RS, and blatantly failsWP:FRINGE andWP:NPOV by giving credence to conspiracy theories and falsehoods.Snooganssnoogans (talk)00:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC) Second statement by moderatorUser:Snooganssnoogans has responded constructively with proposed wording for thelede. The other editor has not responded in more than 48 hours, and probably is not planning to participate (and participation is voluntary). There is now a rough consensus (one-to-zero, without objection by the neutral moderator) for the proposed version. I am lifting the rule against editing the article, but it doesn't appear that the article needs editing, because the version proposed by Snoogans appears to be consistent with the existing text. Discussion may resume on the article talk page. If there is objection to the version offered here, any other editor may discuss on the talk page, or may use aRequest for Comments. I will be closing this case as a general close (neither a success nor a failure) in about 24 hours. Closing statements by the editors are permitted but not required.Robert McClenon (talk)17:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC) Second statements by editorsWhite Helmets Back-and-forth discussion
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. This matter is also pending atthe BLP noticeboard. The dispute can be resolved there.Robert McClenon (talk)17:19, 4 December 2019 (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 Twice, sourced information (source) was deleted, and I restored it.רדיומן (talk)09:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Say what you think about it. Summary of dispute by CatchingthewindPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Chaim Shacham discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. This is aone-against-many dispute, and at least two of the Many editors have declined to participate, and discussion here is voluntary. There is an existing rough consensus. The One editor may file aRequest for Comments to try to obtain a larger consensus the other way. Any of the Many editors may file aRequest for Comments to formalize the consensus. Discuss at the article talk page (which is also where an RFC will be posted). Report disruptive editing atWP:ANI, but only after readingthe boomerang essay.Robert McClenon (talk)23:44, 6 December 2019 (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 The neutrality of this article is currently being disputed. I improved the article with several academic sources to fix the neutrality issue[11]. However User:Sangdeboeuf disputes most of those changes (after having reverted them). How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Discussions about neutrality begin from here:Talk:Feminazi#Lede (and later sections) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Most of the content and sources I added in[12] were reverted. We would like you to help us in coming to consensus with each of them, to the point that the POV tag can be removed from the article. Summary of dispute by SangdeboeufThis DRN is premature, having been opened less than 24 hours aftertalk page discussion began, and on the weekend after a major U.S. holiday to boot. In my opinionSridc should be more patient, explain their desired changes on the talk page (perWP:BRD), and allow time for other users to weigh in on any proposed changes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk)19:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Clarification by SridcThe primary reason for my opening a DRN here is that I reached an impasse in discussion with Sangdeboeuf. As I remarked in the Talk I observed further back and forths among us going nowhere. Hence, a mediator would be most helpful here. —Srid🍁22:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Bacondrum just got added inI've merely been added as a means to stop me editing. There's only one person contesting the content and its neutrality...Sridc. End of story. Surprised he hasn't taken it to ANI.Bacondrum (talk)23:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Feminazi discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I don't understand the point of this thread, there's not a debate, it's just Sridc refusing to accept that his edits didn't cut the mustard. All other involved editors have disagreed with his recent contributions (which again appear to be pushing an anti-feminist/Libertarian POV) This thread was started as a way to force his edits through after there appeared to be a consensus building against his edits on the talk page (at least three editors objected on similar grounds). I strongly believe the pattern of editing from this editor is disruptive. He has accused others of "I suspect User:Sangdeboeuf is POV editing", "So here's a list of problematic reverts that clearly indicates we have a WP:POVFIGHTER" and "Bacondrum You are WP:HOUNDING me around Wikipedia", added a neutrality tag to the page when there's no evidence of bias either way (trying to game the debate?), and he has been edit warring. Why do we need dispute resolution? Because he simply must make the edits he wants? I for one have had enough of these personal attacks, attempts at gaming the process, spurious ANI reports and spurious dispute resolutions.Bacondrum (talk)03:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
|