Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 87
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 80 | ← | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | Archive 88 | Archive 89 | Archive 90 |
Contents
- 1 Super Bowl LII
- 2 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine
- 3 Dzhokhar and_Tamerlan_Tsarnaev
- 4 atlantis
- 5 Highland Clearances
- 6 Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh
- 7 Israel
- 8 2011 Turkish sports corruption
- 9 Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion
- 10 Bartlett High School (Anchorage, Alaska)
- 11 My talk page and the page of one particular editor
- 12 OMICS Creations
- 13 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 February 12
- 14 Serbs
- 15 Assassins (hardcore band)
- 16 Six Flags Magic Mountain
- 17 Basic income
- 18 List of metro systems
- 19 Saint Francis High School (La Cañada Flintridge)
- 20 Talk:Azerbaijan
- 21 Assassination threats against Barack Obama
- 22 Egypt at the 2012 Summer Olympics
- 23 Artpop
Super Bowl LII
Re Super Bowl LIII, wrong forum. Disputes over article deletion should follow the process in the deletion policy, being first taken to the administrator who deleted the article, then being taken to deletion review if satisfaction cannot be had through the deleting administrator. (As for the issues at Super Bowl LII, that appears to be a conduct dispute which should be taken to AN as this noticeboard does not handle conduct disputes, but the listing editor's discussion and comments appear to really only go to LIII not LII, despite the title and pagelink.) — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Dealing with a persistent editor who keeps removing my comments or edits. I've tried creating Super Bowl LIII posting it with experimental data and even removed the score and stuff but the article was written off as a "hoax" when it is clear that the article is about a future event. In addition, a protection bug prevents me from reposting the article and now I have to use a period in the title. The article was proposed for deletion but someone keeps jumping the gun. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've responded on my talk page and tried restoring my comments but the person I am dealing with has reverted. How do you think we can help? 1. Advise the other user not to take it personally and realize he or she is just one of many people who contribute and may encounter things he or she doesn't agree with. 2. To repair the original title and allow editing in a way that conforms to the rules. It's true the "results" were made-up, but I was in the process of removing them and creating a generic page for the game. In addition, the article's existence should be discussed as creating and deleting repeatedly is counterproductive. Clearly this is a dispute that needs to be resolved without fighting. There were previous attempts to create Super Bowl LIII before I created my account, so restricting creation of an article that's going to get created eventually was somewhat odd given that other editors will have to use a different title until the problem is fixed. Summary of dispute by Zzyzx11Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Here's a summary of my actions:
I feel that this user quickly went here to WP:DRN before this issue was "discussed extensively on a talk page". As you can see, one problem is the the creation of Super Bowl LIII. (with the period) which circumvents a salted page (this circumvented page now appears to have been deleted by yet another admin). I am also concerned that he still trying to scrub mention of New Orleans on those articles, and falsifying of title of the reliable source.[12][13] I would have also mentioned that on his talk page (and the reason why articles on future Super Bowl are usually deleted per rule 1 of WP:BALL, or that he should also consult with the admin who salted the Super Bowl LIII), but again he jumped the gun here on DRN before I could catch up -- and further investigate the actual concerns and respond appropriately (like the comments below). Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Super Bowl LII discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine
Futile. Primary participant in dispute has declined, as is his right (participation in moderated content dispute resolution is always voluntary), to participate here in lieu of additional talk page discussion and possible RFC. May be refiled here if those actions prove fruitless. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
All editors that have commented in that section have been included, per dlv999 request. Dispute overview The topic of the article is tht 'UN Partition Plan of Palestine'(1947). The dispute concerns the background section, which covers several milestones during the British Mandate period(1918-1947), one of the paragraphs within covers one of the commissions, the Peel Commission, notable for being the first to state that the mandate had become unworkable, and suggest Partition for the first time. Its rejection by both parties, led the following Woodhead Commission technical commission, to decide that no partition could be devised without agreement. User dlv999, have made and or supports several inclusions to that paragraph, which he claim to be significant to the topic( per WP:RS and NPOV). Those inclusions providing detailed perspective of one of the involved parties, describing in details one of the recommendations and the reason for reject the Peel plan. I became concerned that those inclusion(and their volume) do not contribute to the nominal subject(UN Plan) of the article, instead cover in detail tangentially related subject(Peel Plan) in a biased maner since it only present on side. In violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and possibly a WP:COATRACK. I have repeatedly asked dlv999, to support his claim that his inclusion is WP:DUE in the context of the UN Plan, he ignored my request or changed the subject. Most recent discussion Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have started several discussion, tried to narrow the topic so we address only one issue at a time, tried to offer compromise by addressing various concerns noted. Nothing productive came out of it, dlv999 ignore my request, change the subject or quote vague regulations to fill his posts. How do you think we can help? Address the issue of policy, concerning the inclusion of those details, without substantiating that they are WP:DUE in the context of the UN Plan, NOT Peel Plan. Summary of dispute by dlv999Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Personally I think this is premature. There are a large group of active editors interested in the article. I would like to see other editors express an opinion on the talk page to see if there is any consensus behind either PLNR or my proposal, or if some sort of compromise can be agreed. If that is unsuccessful perhaps an RfC to include the views of uninvolved editors. I think the wider group of editors we can involve the better. I think a long drawn out debate between myself and PLNR is not going to be the best way forward. Dlv999 (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by AnonMoosPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Not sure why I'm significantly involved; haven't edited that section of the article (that I can remember), or expressed an opinion on the specific matter under dispute (I only expressed a general opinion that the 1947 Partition Plan article is probably not the place to go into any great detail on the 1937 Peel Plan, which was a very different plan proposed under very different circumstances). AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Zero0000Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TrahellivenPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Dzhokhar and_Tamerlan_Tsarnaev
Help request not within the scope of this noticeboard. Your request should be placed on the article talk page, if the problem has not already been solved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview This article contains information in the Shared Background section which I can find no substantiation. In April 2002, the Tsarnaev parents and Dzhokhar went to the United States on a 90-day tourist visa, where they founded the company, Credit Collections Bureau, currently located in North and South Dakota. The company was later sold to a private friend of the family.[29][30][31] The footnotes contain no information about Credit Collections Bureau. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've attempted to talk with the head of Credit Collections Bureau. He hung up on me. How do you think we can help? Please provide verifiable information regarding this citation.
Summary of dispute by nullPlease 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.
Dzhokhar and_Tamerlan_Tsarnaev discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
atlantis
Premature. No extensive talk page discussion (preferably at the article talk page) as required by this noticeboard and by all other moderated content dispute resolution processes at Wikipedia. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Is the history of Atlantis fiction or Mythology. I changed "fictional " to Mythical" and he changed it back Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion,rather one sided How do you think we can help? Public input Summary of dispute by bender235Wow, didn't expect this to end up here. Anyhow, here's my brief summary. The question is: in the lede of the Atlantis article, do we refer to Atlantis as a "fictional" or "mythical" island? I insisted (and still do) on describing it as "fictional", because "mythical" implies connection to Greek mythology or religion. However, Atlantis, unlike for instance the Fortunate Isles, does not exist in Greek mythology or religion. It only exists in Plato's work, and is therefore as fictional as are Meropis, Panchaea, or Nephelokokkygia. And for the record, one may consult peer-reviewed essays by classicists on the topic ([15], [16], [17]) if one does not believe me. --bender235 (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC) atlantis discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Highland Clearances
Failed. Listed for 9 days, 5 since last edit, and no volunteer has chosen to take it. Consider seeking advice at Reliable sources noticeboard or filing a Request for comments, if those have not already been tried. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There is a paragraph in the lede claiming that sectarian (anti-Catholic) motives are suggested by scholars to have been a factor in the Clearances. The reference given does not support this claim, and the IP editor tells us on User talk:94.173.7.13 that it's unverifiable because primary sources do not exist. I feel that the paragraph should be removed until appropriate secondary sources (i.e. the scholars said to be doing the debating) are produced, and should not be in the lede until there is a consensus to that effect. A bold edit has resulted only in a couple of reversions. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on User talk:94.173.7.13 and Talk:Highland_Clearances#Roman_Catholicism:_Reading How do you think we can help? Consider this issue in the light of WP:Verifiability, edit if appropriate, recommend or carry out any further action. Summary of dispute by 94.173.7.13This is a case of obduracy on the part of those who seek to remove information where there is a clear provision of a source. It can only be taken that there is some emotional investment in the content of the article and that they are unwilling to permit the addition because it reflects badly upon their emotional state. Despite this, I will broaden the source and link it in conjunction with another section in the same book, so that this flippant disregard for a written authority (who is elsewhere given acceptance in the article on other points beyond the point in question) ceases. My addition is not for or against anything. Beyond pages 49-51: pages 325-326 directly and incontrovertibly relate to my addition. I will quote a brief section of it directly: 'Bland and Fletcher also suggested that the Government should buy or sequestrate the lands of the chiefs, and send to the Barbadoes any who objected. Such lands should also be cleared of clansmen who grumbled, and the country settled with decent, law-abiding, God-fearing Protestants from the South. The Highlands should, in fact, be colonized. It was a proposal that created considerable interest, but it was not accepted, at least not in detail.' This section directly suggests the important point that necessarily deserves the attention it receives in the article as so written. That there is debate amongst historians as to how much the clearances were tacitly anti-Catholic. I am not saying it was, or it wasn't. Merely that there is clear second-hand proof of anti-Catholic sentiment that may or may not be in the spirit of the actions of those who subsequently were responsible for clearing The Highlands of it's native population. As such, there isn't doubt that it is, not only at very least, something of crucial consideration when enlightening those who seek information on the subject of The Highland Clearances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.7.13 (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC) The only further comment I would make is that the provision of a direct debate between different scholars should not be necessary. Such a debate is in written (paid-for) specialist journals, or between the scholars themselves in lectures, or verbally. If it is necessary that Wikipedia articles require two first-hand opposing viewpoints then the vast majority of Wikipedia could not function. Prebble suggests the debate, and I am not in any doubt about such a debate because why else would be discussing it here: in the Dispute resolution noticeboard.94.173.7.13 (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by CamerojoThe sources quoted by the editor simply mention in passing a number of examples of where Catholics or Protestants are referred to. While there is no doubt that religion - Catholic vs Protestant - had been the cause of much friction in the past, and undoubtedly was still an issue for many at the time, there is no claim in any of the sources quoted by the editor that religious intolerance was an important factor in the Clearances. Although a complex topic, the main source quoted by the editor (Prebble) and other major works on the Clearances mentioned on the Talk page would probably agree that money was at the root of this particular evil: it was more profitable to run sheep on clan land than to support tenant farmers. The first paragraph of the existing Wikipedia article summarises that nicely. The paragraph in dispute, which follows the first paragraph of the article, has very little to support it. In my personal researches (http://youbelong.info/public/Three_Clearances_and_a_Wedding), I have not encountered any "debate amongst historians" on the claim made by the editor. Therefore I believe that the paragraph should be removed. Camerojo (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by SabrebdPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This is a case of the sources failing verifiability and an editor not accepting the consensus on the article talkpage that arises from that fact.--SabreBD (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Brianann MacAmhlaidhPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Andrew GrayPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
My apologies for not posting here sooner; I stumbled across the talkpage after the DR was opened and had not realised it was here! I have since tried to disengage from an increasingly circular discussion (I should go and do something more productive...) but this is my summary of the dispute, if useful. I have tried to engage with the IP user here for some days. They appear to have a clear belief - an understandable one, but incorrect - that historians have stated the Highland Clearances were in significant part related to Catholicism, or motivated by sectarian, anti-Catholic beliefs. The original claim is, on the face of it, a plausible argument - we all know Scotland has long been a rather sectarian past - but as far as I can tell, this interpretation is not widely accepted by historians. Having done the reading over the past few days, I am if anything surprised by how little it's been discussed as an issue! The sources identified to support this are mentions of single incidents or discussions of related topics which seem to have been heavily overinterpreted. It is noticeable that even the author primarily invoked as supporting the thesis, John Prebble, later wrote a book on the Clearances which does not discuss sectarian motives at any kind of broad level - it's mentioned as a contributory factor in a single specific case, and appears twice in his index. More modern historians are similar - I've consulted Tom Devine's two recent books on Scottish history & Scottish emigration, which should be fairly representative, and he does not seem to draw any significant link between sectarianism and the Clearances. The user builds on the divergence between sources to conclude that there is an ongoing historical debate as to the level of significance. However, I have not been able to find any evidence of an ongoing historical debate touching on the issue, and no convincing evidence for one seems to have been presented other than these original interpretations. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Highland Clearances discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Camerojo: the source confirms several important points that substantiate my addition. First, that there were was a considerable Catholic population in The Highlands. Second, that the Catholic population was more prone to Jacobitism. Third, that there was unease with these facts amongst the population (Protestant or not) who were loyal to the Hanoverians. The later addition that I made as concilatorystep in ending this dispute, broadens this, as I said it does, to include anti-Catholic sentiment that directly ask for punitive measures to be taken against Catholics that not only resemble the measures that were subsequently put in place, it is precisely what did occur. I am, in light of this, not adding considerable dimension to the article? If there was a historical event that had one cause only (i.e. money) we could safely burn all the history books written on any subject, for being stupendously superfluous.94.173.7.13 (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
|
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh
Abandoned or withdrawn by filing editor, did not respond to questions posed by volunteer. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview removal of proper cited content, dispute over some secondary citation sources, addition of improper and controversial content and edit-war threatening, blockage threatening over user pages. Have you tried to resolve this previously? tried to discuss the issues and had made modifications in edits according to consensus How do you think we can help? admin intervention, judging citation sources credibility, user-conduct misbehavior Summary of dispute by vanamonde93My side of this case is easy to state. On the 27th of January Kswarrior added a few sentences to the page, concerning supposed RSS volunteer work during the Sino-Indian war, and Nehru's recognition of it. The source used was a right-wing news website. Maunus and myself both reverted it once, telling KSW to find a better source. He returned with 7 sources and several paragraphs of content. Of these 7, one was the website referred to previously. A second was the autobiography of Advani, a lifelong RSS member. Three other sources, which I will describe in detail if needed, were books from obviously RSS affiliated publishers and authors (one of them is a hagiography of Golwalkar). All these sources seemed eminently unsuited to the article, and I removed them, explaining my reasons on the TP. The final two sources were borderline academic works, and I LET THEM REMAIN, a fact KSW continually ignores. I then attempted to reason with KSW on the TP, while reverting his attempted re-additions multiple times. He responded in a remarkably incoherent manner, and also made several ridiculous accusations against DS (who also reverted a couple of times) and myself. After a gap of several days, he reappeared, adding the same content, only this time he also removed some other cited content from elsewhere in the article. He did not engage us on the TP. He was reverted several times, and DS finally reported him to ANEW, and as a result he was blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Darkness ShinesKSW is wrong. Simple as that really. He needs to stop removing stuff he does not like, and that is all I have to say on the matter Darkness Shines (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh discussionpositive cited contents are repeatedly removed from the article, negativity is hyped, forceful addition of controversial stories, making article non neutral and biased towards negativity, for neutrality both type points should be there and must be proved by reliable sources
Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here (and the current coordinator). I am not opening this for discussion at this time but wanted to ask the listing editor a couple of questions. @Kswarrior:
So, knowing that would you prefer to stay here on just the issue of reliable sources or move over to RSN? If you'd prefer to stay here, would you please restate here what edit you're trying to make and list the sources which you're trying to use to support it? I'm sure they can be dug out of the article history, but it would help the volunteers here if you might restate them. Once you've done that, we'll wait to see if Darkness Shines cares to join in, as there's not much that we can resolve here without his participation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
|
Israel
Futile. At least one primary participant in the dispute has declined to participate here, so there's not much that we can do. If not tried already, a request for comments might be considered. If the question is whether or not particular sources are adequate, a request at reliable sources noticeboard might help. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There is currently a dispute as to how to describe the geography of Israel in the lead of the article. Originally, the article read that Israel shared borders with the West Bank and Gaza Strip (among other borders). Some editors have insisted on adding "the Palestinian territories (or State of Palestine) comprising the West Bank and Gaza Strip on the east and southwest respectively." All reliable secondary sources put forward do not refer to the territories of the West Bank and Gaza as Palestine. In addition, encyclopedias and other sources that have country profiles for Israel do not refer to Israel as bordering "Palestine," nor do they have entries on any country called Palestine. (See, e.g., Encyclopedia Britannica;Encyclopedia Columbia; Library of Congress Country Studies, Washington Post Country Profiles; Infoplease). All sources indicate a Palestinian state is yet to be established. AP, NY Times. The sources likewise never use terms like "president of Palestine," etc. In addition, they identify incidents originating there as from the West Bank or Gaza Strip, never as Palestine. Indeed, discussion of the prospects of Palestinian statehood is important, and it is included in the following paragraph, where it discusses the status of Israeli–Palestinian negotiations in the lead. Further explanation is included in the body. But the intro describing Israel's geography should be kept neutral and factual. Reliable secondary sources guide us and they are in agreement with their terminology. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Ample discussion on talk How do you think we can help? Hopefully point us in the right direction and make sure each editor is making a proper inference from of reliable sources, in line with WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:PSTS. Summary of dispute by Sean.hoylandI am unable and unwilling to collaborate with editors whose ability to deal with evidence is handicapped by their beliefs. It is a waste of time, so I will not be able to participate in this process. Editors who are blinded by their beliefs should not be editing Wikipedia, particularly in topic areas covered by discretionary sanctions such as WP:ARBPIA. Furthermore, making false statements about evidence is not okay, ever. Editors who do this should be removed to prevent the kind of disruption and waste of resources that inevitably follows from such things. No one in the WP:ARBPIA topic area should need to deal with nationalist advocates who have the capacity to ignore evidence, just like no one should be wasting their time engaging with editors who deny the facts about evolution or any number of topics that attract denialists. In a minimalist effort to confront the misinformation and misuse of Wikipedia's processes, here are some facts, actual data whose existence cannot be denied by any editor who follows policy. It is no one's fault that there are sources that say these things. It is just how it is.
There are of course many sources that conflict with the editor's beliefs. I am not a therapist and Wikipedia is not therapy, so there is really nothing that can be done here to help Precision123 overcome whatever it is that drives his denialism. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC) I am definitely not going to participate here at DRN. This issue cannot, in my view, be resolved here because that requires certain basic behavioral attributes that are apparently absent in this instance. I say this as someone who has edited in this topic area for many years. And to PLNR, you are treating me like a person and when you would be better served treating me more like a bot. I have no opinions on the issue that matter and it is a mistake to assume that I do. There is information in sources and the decision procedures described by policies and guidelines. That's it for me. What I think about a real world issue doesn't matter to Wikipedia or me. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by SerialjoepsychoAfter reading everything written on this page I am unwilling to take part. I see no possible way for a constructive discussion to take place. Thank you for your time.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Sepsis IIPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I won't waste my time here as the only solution is that Precision, like all those whose sole goal is to spread their Palestine denialism, be banned. Sepsis II (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by PLNRPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Israel discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I'm sure if you were to read some of the worst media coming out of states which deny Israel's existance you would not find Palestine bordering any state called "Israel". Most of the world recognizes Palestine as a sovereign state, so you found a few articles which further your Palestine denialism, congrats, the mainstream view is that Israel and Palestine touch the green line. Sepsis II (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Coordinator's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am not "taking" this or opening it for discussion at this time, but merely seeking some clarifications:
Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
|
2011 Turkish sports corruption
DRN and other moderated dispute resolution processes at Wikipedia do not handle matters which are pending at other noticeboards. Please give the NPOV noticeboard listing time to be addressed and completed before seeking dispute resolution. If the IP edit war continues, consider seeking page protection at RPP. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview This article lacks a neutral point of view, I have already made my cae to the neutral point of view noticeboard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal_article) 10 days ago but today, things became really frustrating for me. Some IP adressed users are attacking the article using my edits, I know it is not the right way to do things but the reason for that is they finally found a voice in wikipedia. You can see all the reasons for my edits from one of the inolved users talk page;(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LardoBalsamico#2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal_article) which really sumarizes my siutation. I can understand the users attacking but don't accept their ways. As you can see from here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:93.115.94.149#About_2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal_article) I have did the best I can to calm the situation. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have made my case to the articles talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal#A_bit_biased.3F) and also to mentioned users talk pages; (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi#2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal_article), (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LardoBalsamico#2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal_article) How do you think we can help? By finalizing this situation and making the article neutral rather then accusatory for one football club. Summary of dispute by LardoBalsamicoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Fortuna Imperatrix MundiPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
We're all grateful to Rivaner for calling this meeting. We all know him as a man of his word. A modest man who will always listen to reason. Personally, I'm quite interested in the two IPs who have edited it today and yesterday; what do other parties think? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 2011 Turkish sports corruption article discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion
Not a content dispute. Guy Macon (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by 174.236.68.115 on 07:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I voiced my concern over a user trying to reverse a deletion nomination on article Tommy Oliver. The user removed my comment suspected I was blocked under an account. I reposted the comment but he/she removed it again. It appears this user is being persistent and I need assistance. Have you tried to resolve this previously? User should be patient with IP users and not revert actions out of plain suspicion. Two other named users whom I mentioned already have a discussion on his talk page on the matter How do you think we can help? Remind the user to assume good faith when dealing with new users or comments he might not agree with. Summary of dispute by Ryulong174.236.68.115 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who opened this case is suspected of being a sockpuppet of a banned user. His existant knowledge of Wikipedia, expressed in the fact that he knows what a block log is, that he knows what 3RR is (a term no longer officially used by the community), and that he knew where to find this page just shows this clearer. As I suspect that this IP is a user who has harassed me in the past several weeks, I've opened up an SPI. In short, there is no dispute here. Just me reverting a banned user's sockpuppets.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by ansh66Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by AndyTheGrumpPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Bartlett High School (Anchorage, Alaska)
DRN does not accept cases pending at another noticeboard such as BLPN, but the help requested is also not within the purview of this board - there are no editors with more editing authority than others. - TransporterMan (TALK) 03:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Bartlett High was mired in a huge sex scandal where male teachers were being predators on female students. It was nationwide news, even in the New York Times, and ended with one teacher being convicted of felony sexual assault on a minor and the law being changed and named after another teacher to prevent further sexual assaults on student. Other states adopted the "Satch Carlson Law" as a model for their own laws (Carlson was a popular English teacher and also a local/national columnist). Since at least 2007 an accurate and well-annotated summary of this was included on the Bartlett page. Other editors have looked at it in the past and made minor changes, but it has stayed essentially accurate and intact. Two months ago "John From Idegon" decided it was inaccurate and in violation of terms, so he deleted that section wholesale. I returned it with the notation that it was all accurate and properly sourced. He repeatedly killed it, claiming no one was convicted in the case (completely not true and well-sourced). We took it to a discussion board where he misrepresented what it said, continued to insist a guilty plea was not a conviction and continued to kill the info. Myself and others told him he was wrong. But he finally got a friend of his to lock the thread so that the material could not be returned to print. He has refused to explain further on the discussion board,linked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN#Bartlett_High_School_.28Anchorage.2C_Alaska.29
Appealed to logic and reason, facts and accuracy, but that hasn't worked. How do you think we can help? John may be well-intentioned but he hadn't even googled the case even after being challenged on it. I think someone with higher editing powers than he should look at the disputed info and settle it once and for all. He may be a nice guy but he's clearly in over his head in the areas of legal issues, public records, etc. and can't seem to face the facts. Summary of dispute by John From IdegonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Mr. StradivariusPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Bartlett High School (Anchorage, Alaska) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
My talk page and the page of one particular editor
We do not deal with conduct disputes here. Please continue contact with an admin. Thanks. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Cowhen1966 on 16:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute My talk page and the page of one particular editor
Users involved Dispute overview I feel unfairly victimised and attacked by this particular editor. It started off with 2 main editors but I feel that one in particular has been very vindictive towards me even to the extent of putting my hard worked on article up or deletion. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have contacted an administrator. How do you think we can help? I would like to be given a fair chance to grow on here but I can't do this with this editor harassing me! Summary of dispute by SitekuPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
My talk page and the page of one particular editor discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Note to DRN volunteer(s)This is a duplicate request, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hounding NE Ent 18:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
|
OMICS Creations
Wrong forum. For page protection go to RPP — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Existing article OMICS Creations comes under films and movies companies. Frequently redirecting to un-known Scientific Publishing Group by group of WP users. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried from last fifteen days but they are looking like syndicate editors How do you think we can help? OMICS Creations should be fully protected from syndicate editors as per talk : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:OMICS_Creations Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
OMICS Creations discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 February 12
First, this noticeboard does not handle conduct disputes or disputes pending in other forums (see the instructions above). Second, this listing is block evasion by blocked user InstantWikificaton. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC) (DRN coordinator) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Users have been persistently reverting new editors who comment on deletion review page. Although a couple of edits are from fake user accounts one, this doesn't mean every new comment should be rejected Have you tried to resolve this previously? Attempted to repost comment but page was made read only and I had to change my username How do you think we can help? Remind these users these users to assume good faith and not bite the newcomers Summary of dispute by TarcPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by JNWPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Shall we assume good faith regarding the new user filing this report? The description above misrepresents the situation. The blocked new accounts were sockpuppets, and have not added to the conversation; rather, recent edits by the user have been for the purpose of deleting a comment referencing the existence of socking. JNW (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by YunshuiPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by InstantWikificatonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 February 12 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Serbs
Futile due to non-participation of primary disputants. Consider request for comments if dispute resolution is still desired. |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I wonder why reliable sources are not used there in order to reach a more realistic estimate on the number of the Serbs worldwide. As it currently stands that article claims a number of 10-12 million Serbs. Aside form their numbers in Serbia as per the 2011 census, which is 6 Million, the remaining data is questionable. Even so the numbers in the table barely add up to 10 million. The 12 million data comes from biased and nationalistic Serbian POV-sources. PS. If I see Правичност refuses to participate in that duscussion and will not accept its results. Chek here. Jingiby (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have reported User:Правичност for edit-warring, but the topic was locked by an admin. How do you think we can help? Using neutral, reliable, actual sources and reaching prevealing consensus. Summary of dispute by ПравичностPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by SokacSources of User:Правичност the terrible colored are with nationalism and sensationalism. The current sources are only Serbian.
Jingiby has given reliable and neutral sources (Ethnologue - Languages of the world. and UCLA Center for World Languages - UCLA International Institute, Serbian.). Wikipedia should be based on reliable and neutral sources and not on the sensationalism, nationalism and POV. --Sokac121 (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Serbs discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm a regular volunteer and the current coordinator here, but I am not "taking" or opening this for discussion at this time. I just want to note, for the benefit of the other DRN volunteers, that it appears (reason 1 and reason 2) that one of the primary participants in this dispute may not participate here. If that proves to be the case, this listing is futile and will likely be closed for that reason in a couple of days. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
|
Assassins (hardcore band)
Improper venue. The G4 tag should be restored again and the page creator should state his reasons for non-deletion on the article talk page. Per CSD:If the page creator removes the tag again, he should be reported to ANI for potential blocking. Otherwise a CSD worker, probably an administrator, will come along and either remove the tag as unfounded or delete the article and that is the proper venue for this matter, not here at DRN. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Briefly, however page was marked for deletion prior to any user talk or agreement consensus on page improvement. (User:GMoneyWCAR) Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I noticed an article about a Detroit area hardcore band was created. Looking at the article, it did not appear to be notable per WP:BAND , and I submitted to articles for deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Assassins_%28band%29 The consensus was delete, and the page was deleted. It was recreated, with more sources added. The additional sources did not establish notability further, and I applied speedy G4 tag. This was repeatedly removed by the page creator, who posted to my talk page arguing that the page met WP:BAND 7, threatening to report me for my 'benevolent'(?) agenda. This band does not, as far as I can see meet WP:BAND 7. It is not among the most notable hardcore bands, or the most notable in the Detroit area. I also feel that it seems likely that the page creator has a conflict of interest. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussing on user talk pages, articles for deletion No dialogue was established to resolve this in a proper format. (User:GMoneyWCAR) How do you think we can help? Advise of correct WP:BAND interpretation, discuss possible conflict of interest No conflict of interest exists in this setting. I created the page due to popularity of artist in the hardcore genre. Page meets criteria as established. (User:GMoneyWCAR) Summary of dispute by GMoneyWCARPrevious page was deleted prior to artist signing to major music label. Current sources fall with notability guidelines as presented on challenging user's talk page. Further, user being from Michigan does not grant biased reasoning on page deletion. Artist page is the same as many other musical acts and should be granted approval to stay. I do not have any other agenda other than to report factual information and I do not gain anything from this page's creation. Assassins (hardcore band) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Six Flags Magic Mountain
The parties are willing to collaborate, and parties' participation has ceased. Sjmoquin (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Wackyike on 00:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview A ride called the orient express is gone from the website. While it is still on the park map, being gone from the website is evidence that it's gone. However, another editor wants me to cite that it's gone instead of just removing it from the article. That editor doesn't want to discuss any further, but we have no consensus. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The only thing we've done is try to discuss it. How do you think we can help? I am not sure. Summary of dispute by JlACEerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Absence from a park website tells us nothing, particularly since the website has conflicting information. It is listed on the map on the website but it is not listed on the list of rides page. That does not mean it has been removed. On the contrary, I know it is there, I just rode it last week. As I told this editor, he needs to show a bonafide source that indicates the attraction has been removed. If it had been removed — which it has not — there would have been a story about its removal somewhere. Having it disappear from one page of a park website, yet still remain on the park map is not indicative of removal.—JlACEer (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Dom497Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
@Wackyike: "The park website is still considered reliable even if it does have mistakes" - WHHHHHAAAAAATTTTT????? So your pretty much saying that the website can list the ride name as something completely different than its actually name, list a ride being 3000 feet high when it is really 300 feet high, list the duration of the ride as 2 seconds when it is really 2 minutes.....and its still a reliable source? (These aren't examples from the Magic Mountain website; however based on what I quoted you saying, these could be on the website and it wouldn't make a difference). Also, I would like to here your reasoning why the ride would be gone if it was still on the park map (saying that its an error isn't valid because the same point applies to the website).--Dom497 (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Six Flags Magic Mountain discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The orient express is a minor attraction at the park. If the park did shut it down(I don't know if it did or not), they may not have announced that. The only real coverage of that ride that I know of is the park's website. Now, if a ride like Viper were to shut down, then that's a different deal, but we're talking about a ride that never has a line. I don't know why it's on the park map, but since it's not considered an attraction per the website, it needs to be presumed defunct.Wackyike (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
(Emphasis added.) When a website apparently contradicts itself, i.e. in this case the attractions page vs the map, then you must "analyze, ... interpret, or evaluate [that] material" in order to figure out what it means in reference to the absence of the Orient Express on the attractions page. And, indeed, that is what all of you have been doing in the foregoing discussion. That means that the website cannot be used for establishing the absence or presence of the Orient Express. Similarly, an email sent to an individual editor is "unsourced material from your personal experience". Other editors, much less average users of Wikipedia who rely upon sourcing under the verifiability policy to determine the accuracy of Wikipedia, cannot know whether that email is true or false or a fraud. (I'm not making an accusation here, but just speaking in the abstract.) While it may be marginally useful in figuring out why the website omits it from the attractions page, we shouldn't be engaged in figuring that out for the reasons just stated above. The website should be removed as a source for the presence of the Orient Express. If a secondary reliable source cannot be found, then the reference to the Orient Express ought to eventually be removed from the article altogether even if it is still obviously there from personal inspection because information cannot, per the verifiability policy, cannot be in Wikipedia if it is not verifiable through a reliable source and personal inspection is, like the email, "unsourced material from your personal experience". Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Comments re existing source and 24-hour closing notice: Whether the existing source listed for the Orient Express is or is not reliable and adequate is outside the original scope of this DRN request. Discuss that issue at the article talk page and if you can't come to a conclusion about it, try the reliable sources noticeboard or come back here. Let me just comment, however, that if the current source is not reliable, the best practice here at WP is, first, not to be in too much of a hurry to remove the listing from the article. Instead, remove the source and {{cn}}-tag the listing and leave it there for a month or so to allow others a chance to find a replacement source. If it's not found, then copy the listing over into a collapsed section of the talk page (per the PRESERVE policy) to preserve the material so it can be easily replaced if a source is found. Having said that, I think that we may be done here on the issue that was originally filed. Unless someone objects, I or another DRN volunteer will close this listing as resolved ater 15:00 UTC on 18 February. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
|
Basic income
Futile. While the editors other than the listing editor have varying reasons for nonparticipation, it's clear that most or all of them do not care to participate here. (As is their right; participation in moderated content dispute resolution is always voluntary.) While I may be wrong, it appears to me that the listing editor, a newcomer (at least based on edit count), is struggling with fitting within the confines of what Wikipedia is and/or wants Wikipedia to be something other than it is. On the outside chance that I'm right, let me suggest that he read the essay on Wikipedia, bicycles, and wagons. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Content that is defendable as being high quality has been deleted from the page under accusation that is a blog source. The content included the most important element(s) of the page, and was deleted without replacement, leaving the page in a state of being uninformative, and the remaining content disjointed, and certainly not any higher quality than what was deleted. ...................>>> There is rudeness towards me in attempting to repair the page. The concerted interest in attacking the page and one particular source would appear to be consistent with a biased agenda, and the core issue is the relative importance and mandate priority for Vandalism vs. Reliability. ...................>>>
Have you tried to resolve this previously? nothing, other than being victimized by other attacks. How do you think we can help? Clarify policy conflict by prioritizing vandalism over Reliable sources. Recognize common sense need to have a section describing the topic, and why basic income is proposed. Permit me to add the completely uncontroversial list of proposed benefits of basic income to the basic income page, and then let the world improve on its phrasing and references. Summary of dispute by GliderMavenPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The user is (still) mischaracterising removal of material that is unreferenced as 'vandalism'. He/she has already been blocked for this once so far. He/she thinks we should add it even though they can only reference it to a website that is not remotely a reliable source. He/she firmly believes that anyone that deletes such unreferenced material has an ulterior motive. He/she apparently can't be bothered to find any reliable sources for any of the deleted material, and instead is trying to forum shop it around Wikipedia in the hopes of finding someone else who also doesn't think that that pesky verifiability is needed. Please I beg of you, help them WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.GliderMaven (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by DougwellerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
It's a conduct issue by someone who doesn't like our WP:NOR policy and is continuing to label editors as vandals when they continue to remove unsourced or badly sourced material. When blocked for 48 hours "for egregious personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith after warning" he continued the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith in his unblock requests. ANI is a more appropriate venue for this. Dougweller (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Bobby TablesWrong venue. This is a user conduct issue, not a content dispute. Godspiral is repeatedly characterizing good-faith (and correct) edits as vandalism, ignoring policies such as WP:RS, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF, as well as showing signs of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:COMPETENCE. This should be taken back to the talk page, with appropriate action taken against Godspiral if there is continued disruption. Bobby Tables (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Basic income discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
It should not be permissible to accuse me of bad faith here. We should all be able to agree that the page is in terrible shape. Its a good faith assessment, and in fact obvious, that it is now in worse shape than before the deletions. If these actions are obviously, or at least in good faith assessment, destructive, then bringing up the word vandalism is necessary, though it turns out that [WP:COMPETENCE] is likely the most relevant issue. I've provided evidence of destruction/vandalism, but have not seen any evidence that the content or reference that was there was of poor quality. Competence and vandalism should be held at a higher priority mandate than subjective and unsupportable claims against verifiability. The distinction between righting great wrongs and basic common sense only become subtle when common sense is greatly abused. Mistaken moderation policies should not be above correctability. The competence issue is extremely important here. It doesn't matter if there are 100 wikipedia style voices against me, if none of them have the competence to understand their actions are destructive, or the competence and patience to assess verifiability on the subject. I created the page about 1 year ago. These were the best references at the time, and it seemed like a considerable effort to produce. To address the statement "I have not even bothered to submit replacement material", the competence and obvious hostility issues do give rise to concerns of bad faith. It requires an extremely high effort to restore the quality that was in the page, compared to the effort to refine what was there. The perspective presented to me by the users involved seems deeply flawed, and you will ideally provide them with guidance to be more cautious in destroying pages for which they are unable to competently challenge the material. Without that caution, they are apparently well aware of the expectations of hostility that arise, and it makes repairing the page virtually impossible. Godspiral (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
|
List of metro systems
Pending in another forum (NOR noticeboard). Per the instructions, DRN does not accept matters which are pending in other forums. Also, the two editors who have responded have only made conduct allegations and DRN does not accept matters which are conduct disputes, only content disputes. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview As the title of this article says - This is a List of metro systems, not a List of metro operators. Operators and systems aren't the same. This may work to list metros in North America when there's usually only one operator, but in other regions like Asia, there are multiple operators for one system. Editors are currently listing them by operators, which is going against the purpose of this article. For example, the Seoul Metropolitan Subway which is defined by the official operators (which are in Korean, so editors are shunning these based on language barriers) and a reliable secondary source in English to be a single system. The official operators of the system define Seoul Metropolitan Subway as follows on their legal laws:Source: General rules, Terms of Passenger Transport, Seoul Metro. Source: Terms of Passenger Transport, Incheon Transit. I also brought this reliable secondary source to them, which is from Railwaytechnology.com, a "global procurement and reference resource providing a one-stop-shop for professionals and decision makers within the railway and rail transport industries" as quoted from their website: Source: Railwaytechnology.com I have highlighted system in bold. The other editors' claim that it is a "tradition" and "custom" to list them by operators is clearly wrong and can't override the purpose of this article, which is to list metro by systems, not operators. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Lengthy discussions for weeks, but only ignorance and personal attacks in return. How do you think we can help? Just like the name of this article says, we must sort it by List of metro systems, not by List of metro operators. Summary of dispute by BsBsBsThis is an egregious case of Forum Shopping.
The obnoxious behavior forces editors to spend days of their time and research answering frivolous allegations, time that no longer is spent on productive work. User:Massyparcer's rich knowledge of Wikipedia procedural matters does not suggest that seven weeks is all the experience behind this account. There is an overbearing smell of a sock. I had not edited this topic for years before returning two weeks ago to mediate in an edit war that was about to go nuclear. I regret very much that I did. On 14 February 2014, admin Ymblanter had warned Massyparcer: "You likely will be community banned." I respectfully suggest to the panel to consider measures that will protect Wikipedia and its editors from abusive behavior. Barring this, the editor should be made to understand that Wikipedia edits require sources. BsBsBs (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by IJBallIn brief, this is nothing more than a content dispute that has been resolved by consensus on the List of metro systems Talk page against the complainant, Massyparcer, who is now attempting to reverse the verdict by calling in the administrators. The situation is well summarized by BsBsBs above, and I agree with pretty much everything BsBsBs has written above. At the least, Massyparcer's editing can only be categorized as "disruptive". At worst, his occasionally threatening or insulting behavior is something more. I second BsBsBs in suggesting that it's possible that a "time out" is warranted for User:Massyparcer. Mscho527 Summary of dispute by Mscho527Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
List of metro systems discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Saint Francis High School (La Cañada Flintridge)
I am closing this case as it was filed prematurely and does not meet DRN's requirements as listed at the top of this page (ie. not adequately discussed on the talk page). Please join the article talk page discussion on this issue (thread opened today) and consider WP:RSN if there is further issues regarding the reliability of a specific source. Thank you. — Keithbob • Talk • 16:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Whether or not 1) two entries were referenced 2) whether the references were appropriate. After the initial removal of the information, I found two references. Those were deemed to be not sufficient, so I have now been reverted 2 x. One reference was from the school's facebook page, and the second was from the Congressional record. Those two references should be enough for those small entries. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussing it on my talk page. How do you think we can help? Convince JFI to stop Wikipedia:MOLEHILL. These are small points on the page and the references are good. Summary of dispute by John from IdegonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Saint Francis High School (La Cañada Flintridge) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Azerbaijan
Filing editor has created a new section and intends to discuss whether the Caucasus map is appropriate in that section. The dispute for which this listing was made, dealing with the Etymology section, thus appears to be resolved. Whether the map is appropriate for the new section needs to be thoroughly discussed at the article talk page before seeking dispute resolution, if necessary, since the Wikipedia considerations involved in including the map in that section are entirely different than those for the Etymology section. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview In my opinion, the map "Russia at the Caucasus" of 1847 year with the term "Azerbaijan" could be used in the article as it describes the using of this term in history. But user Divot is against of it. He thinks that there is some error on the map, but there are no sources claiming that. It is just Divot's own opinion. There are enough sources saying that the term "Azerbaijan" was used for the lands on the north of Araks river as it's shown on the map. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on the talk page. How do you think we can help? I'd like an outsider to judge matters from the viewpoint of Wikipedia policies and conventions: are separate articles warranted, or not? The conclusion of mediator will stop edit warring on this issue. Summary of dispute by DivotPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by KreodontaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Taron SaharyanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by GrandmasterPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I believe the map is a historical source, and such could be used in the article to illustrate the relevant chapter. Grandmaster 18:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by HablabarPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Azerbaijan discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Coordinator's note: This case has been relisted due to its premature archiving due to having been originally manually listed on February 12. I've readjusted the "do not archive until" date to reflect the original listing date, plus a day or two to allow for it having been off the list. I had added Kreodonta and Taron Saharyan to the original listing because at the time this was first listed they had not been involved in the discussion but had been very active in the edit war at the archive page; they've not edited since February 12, however, so it may be possible for a DRN volunteer to achieve a mediated result without their participation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I didn't changed my mind. Divot's arguments are not reliable. He claims that the map is wrong. But it is just his own opinion. There are a lot of sources saying that the term "Azerbaijan" was used also for the lands on the northern part of Araks river. In the map we can see it clearly. Divot refers to Bournoutians words, but they are not published in reliable sources. The arguments of Bournoutian are not logical and not reliable. So there are no any proofs that the map is wrong. Divot and other users want to remove this map just because they don't like it. This issue needs solution. --Interfase (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused. By "first map" are we talking about "Russia at the Caucasus" or about "Ancient countries of Transcaucasia"? If we've gone back to talking about Caucasus, I presume that Interfase's comment, above at 21:34, 21 February 2014, is in response to my second bullet point, above, but I don't see what that argument has to do with the meaning of the word "Azerbaijan" which is all that the Etymology section is about. It's not about what territory the term includes, it's only about how the word originated. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
|
Assassination threats against Barack Obama
Conduct dispute. DRN does not handle disputes which are primarily conduct disputes. Consider RFC/U or ANI for conduct disputes. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I am tired of going over a half-truth with user Scjessey. He insists on calling Obama an African-American, which is half the truth, as any geneticist will tell you. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The user will not listen to what I say. He feels as if he is right, no matter what. He refuses to accept the science involved. How do you think we can help? Either make him leave me alone, or assign him to other articles. He watches the article like a hawk. Summary of dispute by ScjesseyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Assassination Attempts Against Barack Obama discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Egypt at the 2012 Summer Olympics
Closed at the request of both parties who seem to have worked out some steps of progress on their own. — Keithbob • Talk • 18:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Canadian Paul on 18:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview User:Raymarcbadz has a history of content blanking Country at XXXX Season Olympics articles (not enough room to paste diffs here, but they can be provided upon request) and refuses to accept content in these articles unless they are structured his way. He has been reverted for these actions in the past, but continues to ignore the consensus, claiming that similar articles don't look that way. Now, at Egypt at the 2012 Summer Olympics, he is removing content and restructuring the article in ways that are contrary to WP:MOS (such as having material in the lead that is not in the body, a violation of WP:LEAD, see [22]) We wouldn't have good articles like Great Britain at the 2010 Winter Olympics or 1346 without people going above and beyond to create in-depth articles that standout from the usual content production of similar articles. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion has thus far been ignored, so aside from reverting (which I don't want to do), this has been the first step. How do you think we can help? Since I am heavily involved in Egypt in the 2012 Olympics, I am requesting some additional help in discussing this issue to maintain a cool head and prevent myself from aggravating the dispute (or someone to tell me that I'm flat out wrong, so I can move on). I'm aware that this isn't a perfect case for dispute resolution, but it's also sort of inappropriate for WP:ANI, so if there's a better place to take this, please let me know. Hi User:Canadian Paul: DRN requires prior discussion and the talk page for this article is blank. Can you please provide a link to prior discussion or at least attempted discussion? Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by RaymarcbadzOkay. Here's my problem. At first, I didn't expect the article to be filled out with larger content, until I decided to revert back to the previous edits that I made before. Assumingly, you might have placed the article in your watchlist and then alerted me on my talk page about your problem simply because I may have a disruptive behavior by lessening the content in the article. Facing another dilemma on me (the other is related to the Winter Olympics), I might rather give up my plan. Was DRN a necessary tool to discuss this? It's a waste of time for me. I can't handle a situation anymore. Instead of removing the contents, I'll just simplify the sections he made before in the article, and/or proofread them to make it polished and concise. Raymarcbadz (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Egypt at the 2012 Summer Olympics discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Artpop
After consulting with Transporter Man I am now closing this case due to continued incivility, by involved parties, despite repeated warnings. Discussion may continue on the article talk page or concerned parties may file a case at the Administrator's noticeboard (WP:ANI) if they wish. Good luck with your dispute. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Filed by Reece Leonard on 19:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Various users engaged in a debate on what the critical consensus should be listed as as much as four months ago, but in the past month the disagreement was brought up again with three main contributors. I've cited two sources that claim the consensus is generally positive, and STATicVapor has consistently refused to discuss them in lieu of his own research and interpretation of what the critical consensus is and will cite certain parts of a source that I have cited myself (Metacritic) and ignore others that contradict his viewpoint, namely the consensus that is stated on this source's page that aligns with my claim. IndianBio initially sided with STATicVapor, but after I spoke with him on his talk page and presented my analysis, we both agreed that a larger viewpoint was needed on the discussion as he agreed my analysis was factual and necessary the conversation. STATic has been adament in his adherence to his own WP:ORin the past (converting the Venus (Lady Gaga song) page to one of a promotional single was a chore that he opposed for quite a while based purely on his own conjecture). The consensus listed on the ARTPOP page is factually inaccurate; Metacritic is the only source that those who argue for the "mixed to positive" consensus are willing to cite, even though Metacritic forms a conglomerate of reviews for the sole purpose of using them to form a weighted, calculated score and consensus. In the matter of this album, the consensus is "generally favorable". There are more mixed reviews listed on the cite, but I'd like to combat that statement with multiple points: 1) Focusing on the number of categorical reviews is overly simplistic; It doesn't tell the whole story. It's also not the approach that Metacritic, the source where this information is coming from, adheres to. Picking and choosing information from a source and ignoring others doesn't make any sense. 2) Even if you were to go by the standard of focusing on the number of reviews in each category (again, an act that Metacritic, the source being cited, does not practice), twelve of the reviews that are listed as "mixed" are literally one percentage point below being listed as entirely positive and cannot simply be passed off as mixed. They consist mostly of 3/5 star or 3 and a half/5 star reviews, otherwise known as positive reviews with reservations. If those reviews are discounted, the vast majority that STATic has been claiming to exist in the mixed section evaporates. 3) I realize that gossip sites and the blogosphere has had a field day with the dip in critical acclaim for the artist at hand, but you can't go by what gossip sites say (most of the sources STATic has listed are either gossip blogs or small journals); yes, the acclaim is less than her previous works, but the trend is still generally positive, as proven by the consensus listed on Metacritic and the consensus reported by an actually credible journal (the Huffington Post source I listed on the ARTPOP talk page that states that the consensus was positive from the multitude of critics that they sourced and linked to, something none of his sources did). As dealers of fact, it is our job to ignore the noise of the blogosphere and report on what is sourced and provable; in this case, the critical consensus is generally positive. I recognize that the reaction has been more ambivilant than her previous works, and have advocated for a disclaimer being listed after the (sourced and factual) consensus of "generally positive". The reception page should read that the album "recieved generally positive reviews, although the response was much more ambivalent in comparison to Gaga's previous work", as this addresses the obvious issues that users have raised as well as reports the consensus as it truly is according to sourced fact. Reece Leonard (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've approached both parties individually to discuss the issue but agreement has not been achieved. How do you think we can help? Provide an outlet for more input and mediate between the three users. Summary of dispute by STATicVaporClearly unnecessary, a local consensus would be best for this. Please comment on content not contributors, you seriously have a problem with that Reece. My name has to always be thrown into your responses at least five times. Anyways, Metacritic indicates that the album received 21 mixed reviews and 9 positive reviews, now why in the world would we say it received generally positive reviews, when over twice as many were mixed. I never had a problem with listing it as mixed to positive, but listing it as generally positive is just ridiculous and not adhering to a WP:NPOV. The other source brang up by the Reece, was a cherry picked source that states only 10 of the album's reviews, some of which were positive. But the source did not say it received generally positive reviews, so more WP:OR on his/her part. As I said earlier in that thread on Talk: Artpop; it is not hard to find multiple reliable sources saying it received mixed, mixed, mixed, and mixed reviews that also summarize the album's critical reception. STATic message me! 19:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by IndianBioPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Here I am. The thing is that I am myself confused as to why and where this blew up to the epic proportions. Was DRN really necessary? I see that the discussion and the rage is still continuing in the talk page. The thing is that Reece Leonard has some good points, which are being dismised by Static Vapor instead of acknowledging them in a civilized manner and then come into a consensus. Little bit of dirt throwing is going on which needs to stop and for this neither party is ready to give it up. I guess that may be the reason DRN was needed. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Reminder to all involved partiesWe understand that content disputes can be frustrating and can create intense feelings about other editors however, WP:DRN is a content only forum and does not deal with or consider behavioral issues. For this reason we ask DRN participants to avoid references to other editor's actions or behavior and just stick to the merits of the content under discussion. Please keep this in mind as the case proceeds and thanks for your participation at DRN! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Artpop discussionThe case is now open. The locust of the dispute seems to be how to characterize a work by Lady Gaga. Some editors have characterized the work as receiving "generally positive" reviews while others characterize it as "mixed". Is this the dispute in a nutshell? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
(→) The situation is getting too dirty at Talk:Artpop#Critical_Reception. If this continues very soon administrators need to intervene. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that a consensus for the "mixed" option was actually reached on this issue by 5 of the 6 editors involved (the other being Reece) by 00:11 on 21 November 2013. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Core of the disputePlease STOP the personal attacks! We are not here to discuss behavior or motivations. We are discussing content only. If the personal comments continue I will simply close this case. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Regarding the content:
Is this an accurate summation of the core of the dispute? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Reece cites:
STATicVapor says:
What do others think?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Comments on early closing of this caseHi folks, I'm sorry but you are mis-using this volunteer forum whose purpose is to moderate content disputes between editors who are willing and able to communicate in a civil manner. In addition to the admonishment below from our DRN coordinator, Transporter Man, I have also issued two prior warnings that personalizing the discussion and behaving in an incivil way would not be tolerated and that a speedy closure would be the result. After consulting with Transporter Man I am now closing this case. You may continue on the talk page or if you feel that an editor has been engaging in personal attacks or chronic incivility than you may want to file a case at the Administrator's noticeboard (WP:ANI). Good Luck.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
DRN coordinator's note: Okay, this is enough of this. Here at DRN we do not discuss editors, only edits. Please wholly refrain from discussing one another. Do not discuss, mention, or complain about one another's POV, biases, likes, dislikes, conduct, motives, characteristics, editing patterns or practices, or anything else about one another. If you believe that you have legitimate complaints about another editor's conduct, take them to RFC/U or ANI, but do not discuss them here at all. I'm invoking Wikipedia:MEDIATION#Control of mediation to collapse the foregoing discussion. Further discussion of such matters will be deleted without notice. Please feel free to continue the discussion, but limit it to content, not one another. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
|