Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 129
|This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.|
- 1 Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Bias
- 1.1 Summary of dispute by Neve-selbert
- 1.2 Summary of dispute by GoodDay
- 1.3 Summary of dispute by Miesianaical
- 1.4 Summary of dispute by DerbyCountyinNZ
- 1.5 Summary of dispute by Killuminator
- 1.6 Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Bias discussion
- 1.6.1 First round of statements
- 126.96.36.199 1st statement by volunteer moderator
- 188.8.131.52 1st statement by Miesianiacal
- 184.108.40.206 1st statement by GoodDay
- 220.127.116.11 1st statement by Neve-selbert
- 18.104.22.168 1st statement by Killuminator
- 22.214.171.124 1st statement by Qexigator (involved topic editor)
- 126.96.36.199 1st statement by Juan Riley (uninvolved topic editor)
- 1.6.2 Second round of statements
- 188.8.131.52 2nd statement by volunteer moderator
- 184.108.40.206 2nd statement by Miesianiacal
- 220.127.116.11 2nd statement by Qexigator
- 18.104.22.168 2nd statement by GoodDay
- 22.214.171.124 2nd statement by Killuminator
- 126.96.36.199 Suggestion by Drcrazy102
- 188.8.131.52 Third round of statements
- 184.108.40.206 Statement by volunteer moderator
- 220.127.116.11 3rd statement by Miesianiacal
- 18.104.22.168 3rd statement by GoodDay
- 22.214.171.124 3rd statement by Killuminator
- 126.96.36.199 Statement by an uninvolved editor: Tsavage
- 188.8.131.52 Closing statement by Tsavage (uninvolved/volunteer moderator)
- 1.6.1 First round of statements
- 1.7 Misc. Case notes
- 2 Talk: David Lisak
- 2.1 Summary of dispute by Jvpwiki
- 2.2 Summary of dispute by Roscelese
- 2.3 Summary of dispute by Ricky81682
- 2.4 Talk: David Lisak
- 2.5 Misc. Case notes
- 3 Talk:Dodge Tomahawk#.22extraordinary.22
- 3.1 Summary of dispute by Dennis Bratland
- 3.2 Talk:Dodge Tomahawk#.22extraordinary.22 discussion
- 4 Talk:Jesus
- 5 Talk:Catherine of_Siena#Foreskin_claims
- 6 Talk:Nancy Kominsky
- 7 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_199#An_Poblacht_as_reliable_source.3F.3F
- 8 Talk:Kriyananda
- 9 Talk:Trustpilot#Lede
- 10 Talk:London Action_Resource_Centre#2015_edits.2C_improving_the_page
- 11 Mudar Zahran
- 11.1 Summary of dispute by Smartse
- 11.2 Mudar Zahran discussion
- 12 Gebel el-Silsila
- 13 Talk:Panagiotis Kone#Contradicting_sources
- 14 Talk:Chai Vang
- 15 Talk:Kurds#Flag of_Iraqi_Kurdistan_is_not_the_flag_of_all_Kurdish_groups
Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Bias
Filed by Miesianiacal on 18:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC).
|Two opposing positions on content presentation were presented, with generally well-supported arguments. After extended discussion, and proposal of a compromise solution, which was considered, neither side ultimately modified their stance. An argument was made by a moderator that one side in fact appeared to be well-supported by policies and guidelines, while the other, while not contravening PAGs, was not equally supported - this did not encourage movement. RfC would likely have a good chance of arriving at a consensus, if parties wish to pursue that option. --Tsavage (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)|
Talk: David Lisak
Filed by Jvpwiki on 03:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC).
Filed by Spacecowboy420 on 08:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC).
Filed by Jonathan Tweet on 18:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC).
|Closed as no dispute. I've looked at the RFC results and discussion and feel that there was a moderate-to-strong consensus there that the Gospel section should go first. In light of that, there is no dispute as the matter is resolved by the RFC. That does not mean that editors who disagree with it may not continue to seek a new consensus through discussion at the talk page, though they should take care not to become tendentious. If those opposing this result question my evaluation of the consensus, I'd recommend that they seek a consensus evaluation through AN. Finally, even if I had not closed this for this reason, I would have closed it as being stale since no DRN volunteer has chosen to take the case after being listed several days. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)|
Filed by Altenmaeren on 17:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC).
Filed by Crazyseiko on 21:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC).
|Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. This might also be a good case for a request for full page protection if the non-discussing editor continues to revert. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)|
|Procedural close for three reasons. First, the filing party hasn't listed any other editors or notified them. Second, the discussion was about a month ago. Third, the filing party doesn't appear to be requesting dispute resolution about an article, but to re-open a question about whether a particular source is considered reliable, which is in the scope of WP:RSN, which failed to resolve the issue, but isn't in the scope of this board. I suggest that the question of whether the source is reliable would be better addressed by a properly publicized Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)|
Filed by Red Rose 13 on 19:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC).
Filed by BrightYellowSun on 17:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC).
|Procedural close. Not all of the parties who have been discussing on the article talk page have been listed. It is the responsibility of the filing editor to list and notify all of the editors. The filing party may refile after listing and notifying all of the editors who have been taking part in the discussion. If this case is refiled properly, I will not be acting as moderator because I provided a third opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)|
|Procedural close: the parties have not extensively discussed the issue on a talk page. There have only been four relatively short posts, three of which are from November. Please discuss the issue extensively on the talk page. If parties do not contribute to the discussion on the talk page, Wikipedia:Responding to a failure to discuss may be a helpful read. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 19:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)|
Filed by Makeandtoss on 22:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC).
|Closing due to lack of response. If editors want to resolve this dispute, an RFC is one option. Edit-warring, which was tried previously, is not an acceptable option, and may be reported at WP:ANEW or WP:ANI. All editors are advised that discussion of content disputes, including removal of material citing BLP, is not optional in Wikipedia. Content disputes must be discussed rather than addressed by edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)|
Filed by XDopplegangerX on 23:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC).
|Procedural close for three reasons. First, the other editor hasn't been notified of this filing. Second, this case, as filed, was very badly malformed. I have tried to correct this, but have done enough work correcting this filing so that I don't feel like notifying the other editor. Third, there has been no discussion on the article talk page. There has been discussion on a user talk page, but it wasn't about article content. My advice is to discuss article content on the article talk page. If there is discussion on the talk page but it doesn't resolve the content issues, the editors may refile here without prejudice. Persistent incivility may be reported at WP:ANI. Closing. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)|
Filed by DevilWearsBrioni on 18:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC).
|Procedural close as incompletely filed. There has been adequate discussion at the talk page. The filing editor has listed themselves and two other editors. The filing editor has not notified the other editors, and it is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editors. Also, one other registered editor and an unregistered editor have taken part in the talk page discussion and in the editing of the article, but have neither been listed nor notified. The filing editor may refile this case if they list all of the involved editors and provide them with proper notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)|
Filed by Lance616168 on 17:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC).
|Neither of the editors commented after being asked to provide concise civil neutral comments. It isn't clear that there is a content dispute at all, since neither of the editors are participating in this dispute resolution. If the editors have been on vacation, either of them is welcome to refile this case, but they should be aware that they need to participate actively during moderated discussion. If there are specific content issues, an alternative would be Request for Comments. Conduct issues can be taken to the edit-warring noticeboard or WP:ANI, but read the boomerang essay because your own conduct may also be examined. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)|
Filed by Alborz Fallah on 10:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC).
|The discussion on which flag to use — which is very close to being too stale to handle here, having ended on November 30 — has now obtained a new element of whether a flag should be used at all under Wikipedia guidelines. Those facts, together with the fact that at least one major disputant in the earlier discussion is no longer available, suggests that this case is not ready for dispute resolution and needs further discussion at the article talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)|