Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 210
 | 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 205 | ← | Archive 208 | Archive 209 | Archive 210 | Archive 211 | Archive 212 | → | Archive 215 |
Pentagon UFO videos
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Resolved by moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2021 (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 This is a disagreement over the inclusion of a statement that counters the proposal that "radar spoofing" is an explanation for Unexplained Aerial Phenomena. I regard the statement as a valid inclusion, various other editors do not.
The proposal that Radar spoofing is an explanation for UAPs was added to the article. In line with WP:BAL/WP:NPOV I added the counter argument (that is, if the same incident is also seen by human eyes then Radar spoofing is not an explanation). This was deleted from the article. This was the statement I had added, it was later removed: However, the ODNI report noted that most of the UAPs reported probably do represent physical objects, and so couldn't be radar spoofing, as they were detected by "multiple sensors" and "visual observation". [1] Full quote from the ODNI report that supports the inclusion: "Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation." I have tried to get some compromise on wording here via WP:BRD and discussion on the talk page, but I have had no luck. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Pentagon_UFO_videos#Issues_with_NPOV_on_this_page, posted to 3o where it was discussed but the third opinion editor disqualified themself
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? If a neutral person could look at the suggested inclusion, in it's context and decide if it is a suitable. Summary of dispute by MrOlliePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I don't think this process can really help with this dispute - Deathlibrarian has started a couple RFCs on related POV issues at the article (one of which is currently ongoing), and they have failed to find support from the wider community. I don't think we need more of the same at another venue. - MrOllie (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by LuckyLouieThis may not be appropriate for DR. Deathlibrarian does not appear to understand that edits like this are classic WP:SYNTHESIS. It is possible they have an inability to grasp editorial policies, or there is some cognitive issue, since they often insert text into articles twice, typically in two different places (note they have added a summary header for my username twice to this DR entry). - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by JoJo AnthraxThe filer's desired contributions at Pentagon UFO videos, including the contribution being evaluated here, are WP:SYNTH and WP:OR attempts to weaken a mundane explanation of UFO sightings, and in so doing add/enhance a pro-fringe, pro-pseudoscience POV. Other relevant policies and guidelines include WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Hob GadlingPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Pyrrho the SkepticWhile I agree with the consensus on the issue, I will reiterate my statement from the Talk Page discussion, which is that the paragraph in question would be better with the first sentence only, to give proper balance to the statement before it that it is meant to refute. That way, it gets the point across without needlessly going into the details of one magazine article author's interpretation. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Pentagon UFO videos discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by MediatorI will try to act as the moderator. Read the ground rules. Each of you are responsible for complying with the rules. If you do not comply with the rules, I will fail the discussion. I will try to be neutral, but if one editor complies with the rules and the other does not, I will stop being neutral. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements are not helpful. They may permit the poster to feel better, but they often do not clarify the issues, except to establish having a strong opinion. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. The purpose of discussion is to improve the article or articles, and so should be focused on the encyclopedia. So discuss content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. Comments that get into personalities will be collapsed. Also, do not reply to each other or engage in back-and-forth, except in the space that I provide for you (where back-and-forth can be ignored). Address your answers to me, as the representative of the community, not to each other. Before we begin- I would ask that each editor fill out their summary section above- keeping in mind that long walls of text are difficult to read and process, and also keeping discussion on content, not on the editors. Also, could @Deathlibrarian: please link and/or quote the specific text that they feel supports their statement? Just to be sure we don't have a case of synth going on. Not every involved editor must agree to participate for this to continue- but we do need a majority of involved editors participating in order to have a productive session. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
2nd statement by mediatorUnfortunately there is a very clear consensus here against including the statement- and your source does not directly support your desired statement. It requires some synthesis to get to your statement deathlibrarian- so unless you can find a reliable source that directly states what you are trying to include- the DRN will be closed in 24 hours and the consensus against will have to stand. I’m sorry. Nightenbelle (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
|
God in Islam
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The deletion of the Comparative Theology section appears to have resolved the dispute. If there is any further dispute, such as over whether to restore a similar section, discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview There is a dispute between me and the user @VenusFeuerFalle: about a sentence in the article of "God in Islam" in a specific section titled "Comparative theology". The sentence in question is: "In contrast to the absolute monotheism of Islam, Hinduism is characterized by polytheism and the philosophy of pantheism, which means everything is God or part of Him." Here is what the sources say: "In contrast to the absolute monotheism of the major Western religions represented by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Hinduism is characterized by polytheism and pantheism."
"Hinduism is commonly perceived as a polytheistic religion. Indeed, most Hindus profess belief in multiple deities. While some Hindus believe in the existence of three deities, some believe in thousands of deities, and some others in 330 million deities. This is because of the common Hindu belief in the philosophy of Pantheism. Pantheism considers everything, living and nonliving, to be divine and sacred. The common Hindu, therefore, considers everything as a deity. He considers the trees, the sun, the moon, the monkey, the cow, the snake and even human beings as separate deities."
I only have two questions:
Thanks in advance and sorry for the inconvenience. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:God_in_Islam#Please_be_careful_with_sources How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? If a neutral person could look at the suggested inclusion, in it's context and decide if it is a suitable. Summary of dispute by VenusFeuerFallePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ParthikS8Before I begin, just a note that TheEagle107 needs to put his name in the users involved section, as it is primarily a dispute between him and the other editor, as he said. They are disputing inclusion of those two sentences, with TheEagle107 arguing the sources provided are suitable so those sentences should be included and VenusFeuerFalle arguing they aren't. I haven't been involved in this dispute until now, though I did add my comment to a similar dispute between the two users on another set of issues relating to that page. My own view is that there are questions as to whether the two sentences are relevant to the topic of that section of the article, whether a sweeping generalisation is being made, whether an opinion-as-fact claim is being made, why the statements do not attribute these views to the authors and lastly questions upon the neutrality of the second source. I do not contest reliability or that the sources (at least the first), covers those sentences. So I do not support the inclusion of the two sentences highlighted by TheEagle107 in their current wording with these sources and do not understand why they are relevant to the article. ParthikS8 (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC) God in Islam discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderator (God in Islam)I am willing to act as the moderator if moderation is still needed. I will ask the editors to read WP:DRN Rule A and follow the rules. I will make the disclosure that, as a Christian, I largely but not entirely agree with the Muslim concept of the Oneness and transcendence of God, and I don't think that should affect my ability to moderate. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements may make the author feel better, but they seldom clarify the issues. I am neutral, except that one way to get me to be non-neutral is to ignore the rules that I set forth. Do not respond to each other's statements, except in the section for back-and-forth discussion (which I have the right to ignore). It appears that the issue had to with the section on Comparative Theology, and that that section has been deleted. Does this resolve the issue, or is there now an issue about whether to restore a section on Comparative Theology? Are there any other issues to be discussed? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC) First statements by editors (God in Islam)Back-and-forth discussion (God in Islam)
|
Sri Lankan Moors
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The editors are obviously not ready for a moderator because they are still busy with back-and-forth discussion. The notice says: 'Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.' Continue on the article talk page. When the editors have decided that they are ready to stop the back-and-forth discussion, they can make a new request here for assistance, without continuing back-and-forth. Keep the back-and-forth strictly confined to the facts, because any personal attacks, such as lying, can be reported to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||
|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview User disagrees on the addition on research data involving x-str claiming contradiction. Does not provide sources or data for the so-called contradiction but uses selected sentences from wikipedia articles and goes on unrelated issues such as linguistics. Argues that because sample size not including the entire population size and using unrelated individuals in research and normal things as reasons for removal. The argument goes in circles and the user refuses to allow it to be added. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Sri_Lankan_Moors#Removal_of_X-SRT How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? At least get User:AntanO to provide the sources and data of the contradictions so they can be added if not disengage the argument and allow the research data on genetic relations to be added. Summary of dispute by -AntanOThe result is based on 838 unrelated individuals which is a few samples from 1,869,820 moors. Also, Eastern Moors are Western Moors are not same in terms of culture, language and inter marriage with Sinhalese and Tamil, and the study did not say where were the specimen came from (Eastern Moors / Western Moors). The article says with RS that ... Tamil is the mother tongue of the community whose maternal lineage are Tamil. It is not about linguistics, and it's about "maternal lineage". Apart from the research, you have to understand the community issue in Sri Lanka. The issue is ethnic conversion. If I start to clarify, it might go for some more paragraphs. Also, read Genetic studies on Sinhalese which disputes (with RS) the claim that Moors are not most closely related to Sinhalaese and then to Sri Lankan Tamils are most closely related to Sinhalaese. Sri Lankan Moors discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Are we really going to dispute the factual accuracy of scientific research with some blog post and call the blog a reliable source over actual genetic information? - UmdP 14:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
User UMDP ignores that fact that I raised that so called scientific research is piece of work done by 2 or 3 persons with a few specimen. Do I need to repeat again to make awareness? --AntanO 01:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
|
Second Anglo-Afghan War
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed, at least for now. There are at least two problems with this filing. The less serious is that the filing editor has not notified the unregistered editor, at least not at the address that is listed here. That can be taken care of by notification. The other problem is that there has been at least one other editor involved. The history shows that there was a Third Opinion requested and provided. Either the filing editor should accept the Third Opinion, or they should list the editor who provided the Third Opinion as one of the participating editors. Resume discussion on the article talk page, but be civil and concise. It sometimes works better. A new request can be filed here if all editors are identified and notified. However, since this dispute appears to be a Yes-No question, there isn't likely to be a compromise, so that if a dispute is properly filed here, the moderator will simply determine the wording of the RFC and post the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2021 (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 Both of us are having a dispute over if Afghanistan was a protected state or a protectorate. Brief summary of what a protected state is: [2], and the difference between the two. [3] I am disputing and saying that Afghanistan is a protected state, and the other user claims it is a protectorate. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I wish for someone to help find a solution or to tater to either side, we both have multiple sources that veer and mine also explain the difference between protectorate and protected state, his sources claim protectorate but then go on to explain the defenition of what a protected state is for what the British had in Afghanistan. Which was foreign affairs grants given up to the british only, this is a protected state. a protectorate is more of a puppet-ish to their overlord. Summary of dispute by Noorullah21Me and IP user are disputing over if Afghanistan is a protected state or a protectorate after the Second Anglo-Afghan War, we both have multiple sources that tater. I also explain the meanings between protected state and protectorate, his sources also go on to claim protectorate, but then give the definition of what a protected state is, I am arguing for protected state by the way.
IP user posts sources that claim it is a protectorate, but has the definition of a protected state, the explanation behind this is that protected state was commonly referred to as a protectorate as its side name, but the two meanings have jarring differences hence why I am arguing for the second anglo afghan war page to include protected state instead of protectorate, because Afghanistan only gave up foreign rights access to the British, but did not give up its internal affairs, if it gave up internal affairs access, it would then be considered a protectorate. [8] (one of the sources that state Afghanistan as a protectorate but then describe it as a protected state.
Treaty of Gandamak page also states that afghanistan gives up foreign rights access.
And finally, a source that states Afghanistan as a protected state. Summary of dispute by 199.82.243.110Dispute is that Noorullah21 claims that Afghanistan is a protected state when all sources state that it was Protectorate after the Second Anglo-Afghan war which concluded with British Victory, resulting in Emir signing Treaty of Gandamak making Afghanistan a British Protectorate state. The Treaty was later reformed in 1907 during Anglo-Russian convention and again in 1919 where Afghanistan was given independence where British Government still continued to have influence over Afghanistan. But that is irrelevant to the topic of discussion which was about the result and treaty signed in 1879 which clearly states that Afghanistan became British Protectorate as a result of British Victory and the signed Treaty of Gandamak.
Here are references by acclaimed scholars that Afghanistan became British Protectorate after Treaty of Gandamak. 3rd Opinion also claimed the inclusion of Protectorate. Below references: This is what 3rd opinion said on the [30], Here is my non binding opinion. I am for inclusion of protectorate. David A. Lake writes "Afghanistan after 1879 is a classic example of protectorate". Princeton University Press. Seems enough. Cinadon36 09:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC). 199.82.243.96 (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Second Anglo-Afghan War discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Social Democracy
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as either resolved or not considered to require moderation. After the editors were asked whether they wanted assistance, there has been no request for assistance. Any further disagreement can be discussed at Talk:Social Democracy. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview A prior consensus (minus 1 user) was reached on the second sentence of the preamble, specifically that its economic ideology is a capitalist mixed economy, not socialism. This dispute now is over the very first sentence which states the exact opposite (that it is socialism). The first sentence is directly contradictory to the second sentence. I believe we need clarification on 3 points: 1) That Economic Ideology and Economic Philosophy are synonyms, and are not different. 2) The first sentence directly contradicts the second sentence. 3) Since the second sentence is not in question, the first sentence should be changed to match the second. Unfortunately most of the talk page with this issue has been archived. Let me know if I need to provide relevant archived discussions or any other additional information. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [[31]] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Clarify the 3 points listed Summary of dispute by CzelloI am surprised this post was made -- Twozerooz, I thought we agreed that an RfC was the best way to resolve this issue? However, my summary of the issue is simply that there was no consensus to remove "economic philosophy" from the opening sentence, and Erzan was in discussion with OP about this issue, before OP stopped responding. As the the text remained for the next few months, I assumed the issue was resolved -- until OP chose to remove the text again by deceptively labelling it as vandalism. All I want is for OP to pursue a consensus on the talk page rather than edit warring (something he has been reported to WP:EWN twice for, the second time resulting in a block). This is why I suggested an RfC, and OP agreed to this. Why we've come here instead is rather bizarre. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 15:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Social Democracy discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderator (Social democracy)I am willing to act as the moderator. I will ask the editors to read WP:DRN Rule A and follow the rules. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements may make the author feel better, but they seldom clarify the issues. I am neutral, except that one way to get me to be non-neutral is to ignore the rules that I set forth. Do not respond to each other's statements, except in the section for back-and-forth discussion (which I have the right to ignore). Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. It appears that there is some discussion of whether an RFC is needed, or whether moderated discussion is needed, or perhaps moderated discussion that decides the content of an RFC. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, so Be Specific at DRN. I will ask each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to what they want added to or removed from the article, or left alone in the article when someone else wants to change it. Then I will decide how to proceed further. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC) First statements by editors (Social democracy)Change
to
Reasons were already given above. It looks like everyone understands economic philosophy and economic ideology are synonyms (#1 above). So only #2 and #3 need moderation. For reference, the 'second sentence' that everyone has already agreed to is: "As an economic ideology and policy regime, it is described by academics as advocating economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal-democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented mixed economy." Bolded to highlight the contradictions between first and second sentence. --Twozerooz (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Social democracy)One editor has responded, and has said to take out the phrase 'economic philosophy' from the lede sentence. Does the other editor agree, or will an RFC be needed? They also referred to second and third points needing moderation, and they gave one example. The other editor has not responded yet, so I will ask them again to state concisely what they want changed, or what they want left the same that other editors want changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Social democracy)Third statement by moderator (Social democracy)I am willing to start an RFC if any editor requests it. If there are any other issues, please state them concisely. If there are no issues or requests, I will close this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Social democracy)Seems like a DRN is more appropriate given that this is not actually a conflict regarding subject matter. The issue now isn't related to economics at all, but rather just confusion over synonyms and logical contradictions. Any unbiased party should be able to rectify this. There's already been far too much effort going into what really should be a very simple correction. If Wiki administration really is this convoluted and unworkable, I can definitely see how easy it would be for someone to exploit it through edit warring, canvassing other editors, etc - just to push a certain POV. --Twozerooz (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Back-and-forth discussion (Social democracy)For the moderator's clarification: The dispute was with Czello, but Czello has now canvassed another editor who agrees with him to 'tag out' and take his place. This editor is aware of this DRN and has already commented on it once. --Twozerooz (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
|
Heterodox Academy
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as premature, and badly filed. Discussion on the article talk page is a precondition to any other dispute resolution processes including this noticeboard. There has not been enough of an attempt at discussion, which should involve an exchange of statements, not just the posting of one statement. Also, the filing party has not notified the other editors (and has complicated their ability to notify them by listing all of their names on one line, so that there is no link to their talk pages). Try discussing on the article talk page, Talk:Heterodox Academy for at least two days with at least two statements by each editor. The editors who have said that they want a proposal could start by explaining what sort of proposal they want. (Of course, that might wind up with a Request for Comments, which takes precedence over this noticeboard; but that would be another way of resolving the dispute.) In general, more shorter statements on an article talk page are a better discussion than one or two long statements. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. If so, list each editor on a separate line. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI, but do not edit disruptively. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I have tried several times to add material to the "Heterodox Academy" entry, and my additions have been summarily deleted. I am not a member of Heterodox Academy, and I am not working on their behalf, but I do study free speech--that is my only "connection" to the topic. The editor who most often deletes my work, Aquillion, is the same editor who initially added the material for which I have tried, fruitlessly, to provide context and contrary evidence. After various objections that struck me as misplaced, I put details of a Heterodox Academy study on campus expression in the section entitled "Programs and activities" instead of mentioning the study in "Ideology and reception," as I had before. Originally, I characterized the study as a refutation of the material that Aquillion had inserted, but in the section "Programs and activities," I no longer characterized the material as a refutation; I simply let the data speak for themselves. This new material too was deleted, even though I had framed it differently; a new editor, "Notfrompedro," erased it with the terse remark, "This was explained on the talk page." Plenty of other Wikipedia entries on non-profit organizations provide the details of studies conducted by the very non-profits that are the subject of the entry (see, for example, s.v., "Southern Poverty Law Center"). Some efforts to block my revisions border on the bizarre. Even when I deleted the subtly charged word "formally"--"Heterodox Academy formally describes itself as non-partisan"--because "formally" implies that the self-description is not genuine, my edit was reverted. Extensive conversations on the "Talk" page ("Citing Gallup, Knight, and Heterodox Academy itself") have gone nowhere. Pengortm attempted a compromise intervention, but Hipal responded by insisting on a proposal instead. Given that every single edit that I have made has been reverted, I don't begin to know how to draft such a proposal, and no one else has offered one. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have tried to make my case in the "Talk" section, to no avail: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Heterodox_Academy#Citing_Gallup,_Knight,_and_Heterodox_Academy_itself
There must be some suitable compromise available, but some of the other editors seem unwilling to compromise. Could a couple of seasoned Wikipedia editors who are unattached to the "Heterodox Academy" page have a look at the various edits and suggest a blueprint for moving forward? Summary of dispute by Free Speech Wikipedian; Aquillion; Hipal; Notfrompedro; PengortmPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Heterodox Academy discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Multiple pages
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. There are at least two problems with this filing. First, DRN is a forum to resolve disputes about content of articles. We normally deal with disputes about one article at a time, although occasionally a few articles, and only after extensive discussion on an article talk page. This appears to be a dispute about a policy, the reliable source policy. Questions about policy can be better discussed either at the policy talk page, that is, the reliable source policy talk page, or at the Village Pump. Second, one of the other editors, the main other editor, has said that they do not think that discussion at DRN will be useful. They have recommended WP:ANI. I seldom recommend WP:ANI when there is an alternative, such as Village Pump, but DRN is not the alternative. The editors are advised to take their dispute somewhere else. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2021 (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 Multiple pages - Cork Airport, Dublin Airport, Shannon Airport, Zurich Airport (unfortunately the list goes on) Hello, the dispute concentrates as two users’ interpretation of the Wikipedia policy WP:RS. The users claim that using an airline or airport as a source to support editing on articles, is against this policy which it is not (they have demonstrated their analysis on my talk page.) I have sought to engage to come to an independent resolution, however at points was asked for independent thoughts on which sources are valid which confirmed to me WP:RS was being abused in this instance. Despite multiple points of engagement, I have not been able to come to a resolution. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk points have opened on Talk:Dublin Airport#Passenger_Destinations, Talk:EireAviation#October_2021 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? The users need to understand they are exacerbating an issue that does not exist by fundamentally not understanding WP:RS. Their patten of engagement is confrontational and leads to issues not being resolved. Summary of dispute by The BannerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
In short, EireAviation is refusing to use independent sources but prefers related sources. He is editwarring to remove sources requests and maintenance templates. With his battlefield mentality, refusal to accept arguments and engage in a meaningful discussinion, and refusal to adhere to the policies, I do not think DRN is of any use. AN/I seems a better option. With edits like this one I doubt his intentions. And I would have appreciated it when EireAviation had informed my and @Andrewgprout: about this smokescreen. The Banner talk 13:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC) Summary of dispute by AndrewgproutPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Multiple pages discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Boycott, Divestment_and_Sanctions
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as declined by Nishidani. Moderated discussion at this noticeboard is voluntary, and Nishidani has said that the original research noticeboard is a better forum. I will also advise the editors to be civil and concise. The discussion on the article talk page has been neither. Because of its length, I have not tried to determine which editor is more responsible for the walls of text, and I have not tried to determine which editor is the one who has more breached civility. The editors are advised to take their dispute either to the original research noticeboard or some other noticeboard, and to be civil and concise. Overly long statements do not clarify the issues, even if they make the editors feel better. Disruptive editing may be reported at Arbitration Enforcement, which is more likely to result in quick casualties than WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The disagreement is over the sentence in the lead speaking about Human Rights Watch's opinion. PRIMARY ISSUE: I believe that Nishidani has misrepresented what HRW said, but after a lengthy discussion I realized it's violation WP:SYNTH which might make this easier to resolve. The most relevant part the text from the article says: "Joe Biden’s inauguration as president is unlikely to end governmental efforts to malign the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Campaign against Israel" Based on that, Nishidani has written: "Human Rights Watch's Eric Goldstein considers the charge of antisemitism against BDS a smear." I think one can correctly infer that Goldstein has issues with "spurious allegations", but beyond that it's a guess, and it's blatant synth to assume that Goldstein thinks every single accusation of anti-Semitism against BDS is a "smear". Nishidani claims he's "paraphrasing". SECOND ISSUE: Nishidani insists that the author absolutely MUST be attributed and it's misrepresentation to do otherwise. I've disagreed, and said it can be acceptable, especially to keep things brief in the lead, that a director of HRW, writing on their website, can be referred to as "HRW says.."
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Countering_anti-Semitism_in_the_lead http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Source_falsification http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Jerusalem_Declaration_-_Accuracy http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Source_misrepresentation_(2) http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Summing_up_Goldstein How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? My disagreement with Nishidani feels intractable. I think some additional opinions might help resolve things about if his text accurately represents the article, whether or not it's synth, and what's allowable attribution. Summary of dispute by NishidaniActually the filer left out the fact that another person, who appears to have as much difficulty as I in understanding how the filer reads a simple piece of prose, is also involved (Selfstudier). I advised him to ask for third party neutral input on the WP:OR board. he declined, just as I decline to spent several more days dealing with an editor who, in my view, is intractable. Indeed, he threatened the page that he would editwar and escalate the situation unless I negotiated a deal with him. I'm in my seventies, and have a life to live, and, more importantly, I can't reverse my 90% research offline, 10% wiki contribution work time ratio so that I have to spend my days talking with, for example, bob about how to read a piece of prose. He has a 1,000 edits, I 85,000, most in article construction, not in endless extenuating negotiations on what, to me, is very clear cut. Sorry, but no. The right page for this is the WP:OR board.Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC) Boycott, Divestment_and_Sanctions discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Template talk:Infobox writer
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as abandoned. No notice given to other parties and, apparently, no effort made to check back here to check the status of this application. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:32, 7 October 2021 (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 Dispute over what to include in an automatic short description. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Template talk:Infobox writer#Proposed short description How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Provide input. Summary of dispute by MBPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by NikkimaruaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Template talk:Infobox writer discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
http://ru.wiki.x.io/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8C %D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B8_%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | DRN has no jurisdiction over disputes on the Russian wiki. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Ghost of Shamil on 07:05, 8 October 2021 (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 Back in 2007 there was a murder video posted on youtube by Russian neo nazis, it's a VERY famous cold murder case. It was finally solved after a documentary filmmaker made a film about it, naming the murderers in 2015. The problem with his film is that he also suggests that the murder was a preplanned by the Russian FSB. The Russian editors of wiki, for some reason, block all my attempts to publish pages on the murder case or on that guy. I would like to ask for a third party help. This is THE most famous neonazi murder case in recent Russian history, with dozens if not hundreds of independent publications about it. It must be on Wikipedia. Please help. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? The discussion is not on the talk page but on "pages for deletion" http://ru.wiki.x.io/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%9A_%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8E/7_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%B1%D1%80%D1%8F_2021#%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8C_%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B8_%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please, get someone with common sense who speaks Russian and ask him to take a look at this case. http://ru.wiki.x.io/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8C %D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B8_%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
----
|
Zen
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as abandoned by this filing and filing editor stating therein that they don't see the DRN process going anywhere and that they "don't want to spend weeks or even days just to get a simple edit in". Sorry, but neither Rome nor Wikipedia was built in a day. If the edit that the filing party wants to assert is important, someone else will eventually come along to seek consensus for it who has the time or patience to carry through the process. If the filing party wants to reconsider their impatience, learn how the consensus process works here, and try again, they should indicate that by registering an account to indicate that they're interested enough to stick around to do what needs to be done. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Trying to bring to light an editorial bias is not being received well to the point that I'm just being ignored instead of having the proposed point of view considered.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Zen#Dhy%C4%81na http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Bodhidharma#Wall-gazing I haven't tried any other methods beside trying to point it out, the editor in question does not engage with the material or clarifies why his bias has more weight than conficting information. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Seeing as the editor in question isn't willing to cooperate or discuss, I have no idea. Summary of dispute by Joshua JonathanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
IP is pushing WP:OR, interpretinf primary texts and openlydiscarding the relevant scholarship as worthless and useless. They use the talkpage as a forum, engaging in personal attacks instead of normal responses. Their talkpage-additions don't even come close to trying to gain WP:CONSENSUS for his 'proposals'. They hardly seem able to understand what I write, what the sources say, and how Wikipedia works, let alone to engage in a constructive discussion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Zen discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Tver Oblast
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as not discussed on an article talk page. There has been discussion on the user talk page of the other editor, which is useful but not sufficient, and Ymblanter has said that the discussion should be at the MOS talk page, which I will treat as declining discussion here. Anyway, this doesn't seem to be about the content of a particular article or the content of a particular infobox template. If this is about infoboxes in general, discuss at WT:MOS as suggested by Ymblanter. If this is about the content of an infobox, discuss at Talk:Tver Oblast. If this is about the details of an infobox outline, discuss at the template talk page. If there is lengthy inconclusive discussion on an article talk page or a template talk page, a new request can be filed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The infobox had a parameter with no content, just a citation. I removed the "citation" (which is more of a comment or footnote at best), and it was reverted by User:Ymblanter because they believe it's useful. Essentially, another user added these "citations" long ago to some Russian oblast infoboxes to explain that an oblast anthem doesn't exist, but is permitted by law. Some oblast infoboxes listed "none" and then the citation, or just the citation. Some pages had these, some didn't. Some pages had actual oblast anthems, like Ulyanovsk Oblast, which entirely makes sense in this case. But for the infoboxes like Volgograd Oblast, Vologda Oblast, and others, while there is no content for the parameter, there is a "citation" which explains why there isn't an anthem. I have never seen this in any infoboxes on WP, and to illustrate the fact that there could be an anthem, but there isn't, all in the infobox makes no sense. I'm sure this is a violation of MOS:INFOBOX, but as I explained to Ymblanter on their talk page, it's as if one needs to find a policy on adding periods at the end of a sentence. They stand by their ground that this is useful, and that we have differing opinions. To me, if the indication were that notable, then it would probably be worth noting somewhere in the article, but if the word "anthem" isn't even mentioned in the article at all, why would it be useful to understand that an anthem doesn't exist, but could, in the infobox. Seems very trivial to add any parameter to the infobox that isn't notable at all, or for something that doesn't exist. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? User_talk:Ymblanter#Infobox_blank_parameter_with_a_ref How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Third party comments on the MOS of an infobox Summary of dispute by YmblanterPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I think this is a matter for WT:MOS or smth similar, not for this venue.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC) Tver Oblast discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Russia (disambiguation)
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed due to lack of interest by the parties in using moderated discussion. The parties are engaging in off-and-on discussion in the Back-and-Forth Discussion, but will not make the summary statements being requested by the moderator. This leaves the moderator unsure why they came to DRN in the first place. The parties have wasted their time and the time of the moderator.
The parties are advised to continue their discussion at the article talk page. If that discussion is inconclusive again, they may use a Request for Comments, but they are reminded that any RFC should be neutral. There seem to be different interpretations of policy that should be discussed at the disambiguation talk page or at the village pump. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI. Do not waste volunteer time by requesting dispute resolution at a noticeboard if you do not plan to participate as asked. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2021 (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 User:Korwinski keeps reinstating entries that are simply related to Russia, rather than those that are synonymous with the name. Both User:Bkonrad and I have explained what dab pages are for, but they persist in their behavior. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Russia (disambiguation)#Russia, only Russia How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? More editors supporting and reiterating the dab guidelines may somehow convince Korwinski to cease and desist, though I'm not too hopeful. Anyway, this seems like the least combative next step. Summary of dispute by KorwinskiI was the one who initially started discussion as other party preferred edit war. In order to confirm my point I provided numerous sources and, as per Clarityfiend's request, I submitted my points, sources and reasons for a review. So far:
Also for some odd reason that desire to stick to that rule on one hand removes all entries (even ones that I had confirmed with sources that they can be referred to just as Russia and that do not breach Partial title matches), and on the other they ignored that rule for all the examples that I had provided them with. Considering amount of edits that they make and lack of any specific topic, I can only find that they are biased on this topic for some reason. Korwinski (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC) Summary of dispute by BkonradPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Russia (disambiguation) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderator (Russia)I will open this dispute for moderated discussion. Editors should read the usual ground rules. If you don't understand the rules, ask rather than guessing, but they are written to be understandable. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements do not communicate effectively, even if they make the poster feel better. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion except in the space provided for the purpose. Otherwise address your statements to the community, and to the moderator, who represents the community. It appears that the issue is that one editor wants to add some links, and that at least one editor does not want the links added. So I will ask each editor to provide one paragraph stating why the additional disambiguation links should or should not be included. If there are any other issues, state them in one more paragraph. After we have initial statements, we will decide how to proceed. Two possible ways to proceed would be compromise or RFC, but first provide the opening statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Russia)Second statement by moderator (Russia)Is it correct that the disputed entries are partial title matches? Does that mean that the basic issue is whether partial title matches should be included in the disambiguation page? In the space marked "Second statements by editors", I am asking each editor to make a one-paragraph statement, unless there are any other issues, in which case they should make a two-paragraph statement. I will also mention that the rules say that each editor should reply within 48 hours. If you aren't on Wikipedia that often, either log on to take part in DRN, or you will not hold up a settlement. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Russia)Back-and-forth discussion (Russia)I haven't read most of the recent discussions, but my understanding is that some of the entries on the dab page do not pertain to any recent English usage, is that so? My view is that if a usage is found in recent English-language sources (say, last 150 years, regardless of the historic period talked about in those sources) then it's likely to be encountered by readers and so should be added to the dab page. And if, on the other hand, it's a case of historic curiosity that's long lost any currency (even in historical literature) then it shouldn't be on the dab page, but can instead be mentioned in the article Names of Rus', Russia and Ruthenia (which itself can be linked from the dab page). – Uanfala (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
|
WiFi Sensing
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
| Closed. Apparently resolved by Third Opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I tried to add description about open source efforts and tools that help collect data for WiFi sensing. Another editor cannot agree on the inclusion of the contents and keeps removing the edits. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Arbitration on the dispute and to approve the edits deemed best by you. Summary of dispute by MrOlliePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
WiFi Sensing discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Woke
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. There are two problems with this filing. First, the filing party has not listed the other editors. Second, there has been discussion at the article talk page, but the discussion has been minimal. More discussion might be useful. Continue discussion on the article talk page. If it is inconclusive, a new case may be filed here if all of the editors are listed. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I think material concerning an iconic photo of prominent BLM activist DeRay Mckesson being arrested in a #STayWoke hashtag t-shirt belongs in the section of the article concerning the hashtag. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Sangdeboeuf Talk:Woke#DeRay Mckesson #StayWoke t-shirt How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A supplementary editorial opinion would help. If any party's editorial opinion is obviously out of line with Wikipedia policies, then that party would benefit from learning this. If no parties' opinions are thus out of line, editors would learn to allow editorial disucussions to proceed.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC) Woke discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Battle of Vukovar
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as abandoned by filer. The other party has not been notified on their talk page, four days after a volunteer said that the other party was not notified on their talk page. Resume discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2021 (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 User keeps readding phyrric victory, states it as apart of source, but it does not follow WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX, which finds terms like phyrric and decisive inappropriate to be included in an article. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Try to find a solution to whether phyrric should stay or be removed. Summary of dispute by Peacemaker67Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Battle of Vukovar discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Good 4 U
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as not ready for DRN. There has been discussion at the article talk page, but not in the past ten days. Resume discussion at the article talk page. If the discussion is lengthy and inconclusive after resumption, a new request can be made here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2021 (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 Some users claim Good 4 U is grunge because a source was found for it using a google search. Nothing about the song is Grunge and several users have tried to have it removed without avail. the user that added the source claims it should stay because WP:EXPLICITGENRE but wp:FALSEBALANCE claims even if a source “ explicitly attribute the genre to the work or artist as a whole” If it is a minority view it should not stay because it creates disruption in the article. Grunge staying is clearing creating a disruption. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [[39]] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think grunge should either be removed from the infobox or removed as a whole. Summary of dispute by RonherryPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MPFitz1968Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Good 4 U discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
For what it's worth, there appear to be far more than one mention of "grunge" in relation to this song on the web. There are many, ranging from unsourcable Wikis to Girl's Life. Grunge is not listed as thte primary genre in the infobox but rather tacked on the end of a list, which seems appropriate. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
|
Template:Socialism in the UK
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as pending in another forum. The other editor has started a Request for Comments. A Request for Comments takes precedence over all other forms of dispute resolution. The RFC should be allowed to run. If the RFC was started immediately after this request for DRN, starting an RFC is a valid method of declining DRN and is an alternate but outranking form of dispute resolution. Allow the RFC to run. Report disruption at WP:ANI, but do not disrupt the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview There is a dispute over the scope of Template:Socialism in the UK over what areas of socialist parties should be included. I believe there should be a broad church approach to socialism, including parties like Labour (which is centre-left/ mostly social democratic) to parties like the Communist Party of Britain. This is reflected in Communism nested within Socialism and this dynamic seen elsewhere, such as communist to green parties included within the "socialism in the united states" template. I have conceded to the user that anarchist groups can be excluded. The other user believes there should be a more strict inclusion of only parties that have "socialism" within their name or in the ideology section within the infobox of their article. It would probably be best to see the page's talk page for the nuance of the issue at hand as we have discussed the issue at length and need to find mediation to get around this and continue editing. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Template_talk:Socialism_in_the_UK, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Socialism How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think finding a third party to help decide upon the scope of the template would be extremely helpful so further editing can continue. Summary of dispute by Helper201Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Template:Socialism in the UK discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
United States Army Special Forces
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as fizzled out. The editors have not posted anything for about a week, and did not respond to a request if they still wanted moderated discussion. Discuss at the article talk page. If interest in moderated discussion resumes, a new request can be filed here, and will probably result in an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||
|---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There is an ongoing issue regarding the active or foundation date of the United States Army Special Forces since 2019. Recently, there has been multiple IP users who have reverted this date from 1987 to 1952. The user Thewolfchild has made it a point to raise this issue again on the talk page, there has been an active dialogue between myself and this user but it appears there is a lack of input from third parties and no IP user has commented regarding the changes. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would ask that a third party examines the discussion in entirety and render a neutral third opinion. Lastly, I would ask to provide guidance on how to move forward. Summary of dispute by 50.206.243.186Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 65.127.60.202Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 12.16.108.86Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 207.172.52.155Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 107.77.204.230Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
United States Army Special Forces discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Preliminary Statement by Moderator (Special Forces)Do the registered editors have an unresolved content issue where they want moderated discussion? Are they ready to be civil and concise? Moderated discussion may or may not be the best way to resolve this dispute. If there are only a few possible solutions, such as two or three possible solutions, then an RFC may be better. Please read the usual rules. Each editor may make a one-paragraph statement in the space below. Do not reply to the other editor. If there are no responses, I will close this thread. If there is too much back-and-forth, I will fail this thread. I will only start moderated discussion if two editors both want moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC) Preliminary Statements by Editors (Special Forces)
|
SpaceX Starship
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
| Closed due to lack of response. The ground rules specify that editors should respond within 48 hours to questions by the moderator. The moderator asked a question, and only one editor answered within 48 hours, and that editor wants to keep the criticisms in the Criticisms section. At this time, there is no consensus in support of change, so the criticisms can stay in the Criticisms section. If there continues to be disagreement about where to put the criticisms, the editors may resume discussion on the article talk page, Talk:SpaceX Starship, or they may use one or more RFCs. If the editors want help in publishing an RFC, they can request help on my user talk page. If the editors decide that they do want moderated discussion and are willing to participate actively, a new thread can be filed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Dispute surrounding whether a subsection or section should be allotted to criticism concerning the project and how and where it is being conducted. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:SpaceX_Starship#Should_we_integrate_the_section? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Help us decide if having a subsection or section devoted to criticism is undue or not. Summary of dispute by CactiStaccingCraneThe dispute is about where to put the criticism. I suggested to integrate it to sections, since:
It is ok to put them to a seperate section, however, what I have seen is that the main point of the argument is that there are overwhelming amount of criticism, and I disagreed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC) Summary of dispute by StonkamentsWP:CORG tells us: Summary of dispute by BonewahSummoned to this article via a Third Opinion request, which I offered here. The summary version: Avoid crit sections per WP:CSECTION, incorporate relevant criticisms into the article, cut the trivia. (note, Fcrary had a similar take here but was not named in this DR)
So, yea, that was the discussion after I got there. Not much in the way of consensus building, or arguing of positions for that matter. Taking it all to DRN seems a bit premature, I mean editors could try and make their case on the talk page first, but thats just my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC) Ping me if you need anything further, im un-watching these pages. Bonewah (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC) SpaceX Starship discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderator (Starship)Are the editors still interested in moderated discussion? It appears that User:Bonewah says that they offered an outside opinion and will probably not be participating further, but they may participate if they wish. Read the ground rules. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements often do not resolve the issues, even if they make the poster feel better. It seems that at least one of the issues is whether to have a "Criticisms" section, or to include various criticisms and reactions in the individual sections. Do not respond to statements in the section for statements. Those statements are made to the community, and to the moderator for the community. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the section for that purpose. I will ask each editor to make a one-paragraph statement in the section for statements, explaining what they either want changed or want left the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC) First statements by editors (Starship)A criticism section is appropriate as there are numerous reliable relevant third-party independent sources that cover critical remarks and discussion regarding the Starship project from academics, government officials, and others. Attempting to diffuse the material into other parts of the article would be an ad hoc measure especially given the other sections are mostly about technical specifications and historical details and not about political or environmental issues. None of the included criticism is trivial and readers will benefit from learning that legitimate concerns face the project in a concise, cohesive arrangement. QRep2020 (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC) My opinion is that many of the criticisms are accurate, however, they should be incorperated to the article because the surrounding information would give them some context. Most of the criticisms isn't about Starship itself, but rather about Starship's development, one of which criticize about SN8 launch should be mentioned directly to the dedicated history section. Otherwise, I fully support QRep's opinion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Starship)There are currently four paragraphs in the Criticism section. Is CacciStaccingCrane saying that the four paragraphs should each be moved into another existing section of the article? If that is the case, then we can discuss each of the paragraphs and where it should go. Please state whether the question is only about whether to distribute the four paragraphs into existing sections (as opposed to rewriting or deleting them). After we agree on that aspect of the scope of the issue, then we will proceed to discuss each of them. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Starship)Back-and-forth discussion (Starship)
|
Dorian Abbot
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as premature. There has been no actual discussion between the filing editor and the other editor. The filing editor has made statements at the article talk page. The other editor has discussed related issues with other editors on the talk page, but has not yet responded to the filing editor. Please engage in at least two exchanges of posts before concluding that discussion has been lengthy and inconclusive. Continue discussion on the article talk page. If other editors join in the discussion, they may help to resolve matters. If not, a new thread can be filed here; if so, all editors should be listed (as long as there are not too many). Robert McClenon (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2021 (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 As discussed at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Dorian_Abbot#Edit_war:_MIT's_rationale_for_cancelling_Carlson_lecture_and_Prof_Abbot's_Nazism_reference, I am trying to include mention in the "Dorian Abbot" article of two points that I think are relevant, but a user reverts my edits each time. He gives justification in the Page History, and I don't doubt that he's editing in good faith, but in my assessment he is violating the Neutral point of view guidelines with these reverts. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think it would be helpful to get input from a third party on whether these two points are relevant and ought to be mentioned in the "Dorian Abbot" wikipedia article. Summary of dispute by David EppsteinPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Dorian Abbot discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Grand Duchy of Lithuania
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as apparently the wrong forum. There appear to be at least two aspects to this dispute for which this is the wrong place. There is a dispute about the reliability or falsification of sources. Any question about the reliability of sources should be decided at the reliable source noticeboard. There are also issues about conduct, especially civility or the lack thereof. The best way to deal with conduct issues is for the parties to discuss the content issue, and sometimes that resolves the conduct issue. Alternatively, conduct can be reported at WP:ANI, but the boomerang essay is applicable. The parties can take their dispute to the reliable source noticeboard. If the dispute is taken to WP:ANI and the survivors still have a dispute, RSN will still be there. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There is a content dispute Such triple name is not supported by Lithuanian sources (e.g. Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia) or top-class international sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica (see provided articles). There are many authentic old maps of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (dating before 1795) and not a single of them uses a triple name. It is either Grand Duchy of Lithuania or simply Lithuania. Moreover, the Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth was only proposed, but never actually existed. There is a Reciprocal Guarantee of Two Nations (pay attention: TWO nations) which proves that there was nothing else in the state's names than Lithuania and Poland that later together formed the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The rulers of Poland, Lithuania and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth held other royal titles as well, but these were smaller duchies (e.g. Duchy of Prussia, Duchy of Masovia) which were part of Lithuania or Poland and their names were not included into the state's names (e.g. see: this authentic document from 1791 which includes list of the royal titles).
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? This content dispute requires a decision whenever information about this triple name should be included into the article text or not. In order to avoid any false modern interpretations and ensure WP:NPOV, I suggest to discuss by only including sources published before 1795 as this is about name of a state, not about some kind of niche thing. Summary of dispute by Korwinski
Summary of dispute by SabbatinoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by CukrakalnisPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Grand Duchy of Lithuania discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
List of_coups_and_coup_attempts
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The posts to the talk page do not amount to discussion. The procedure for dealing with disputed edits is Bold, Revert, Discuss. There has been a bold edit that has been reverted. It is often useful to continue the discussion for at least 24 hours with at least two exchanges of posts by each editor. Also, the filing editor has not notified the other editors yet. If the question is whether to include the 6 January 2021 riot as a coup attempt, then that appears to be a question that has been unresolved for months, and that the best way to resolve the issue would be a few more days of discussion followed by a Request for Comments. If there is further inconclusive discussion, then a new request can be filed here for assistance in composing the Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2021 (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 People are removing my edits with vague references to Wikipedia policies, saying that the matter has not reached consensus and calling me disruptive. However, they are not substantially participating on the Talk page or providing other sources. I have explained my edits and provided adequate sourcing. No substantial responses have been given in the talk page for the article in dispute. Instead, my Talk page has been edited, calling me disruptive and making it seem like I am some sort of internet vandal. As to the article, the description of the events of Jan. 6 has evolved since earlier this year as much more is known, such as the release of the Eastman Memorandum. For example, the Associated Press refers to the event as an "attempted coup" (https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-technology-business-social-media-media-07124025bdbeba98a7c7b181562c3c1a) as do many other neutral sources. You can verify this by doing a search on news aggregator. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:List_of_coups_and_coup_attempts
Wikipedia is a source of knowledge. My contributions are valuable but I do not see the value in deleting them out of hand. Please discuss with these moderators the applicability of Wikipedia's policies to this situation. Thank you. Summary of dispute by NoonIcarusPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by AnachronistPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
List of_coups_and_coup_attempts discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Subhas Chandra Bose
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as pointless. One editor says that there is nothing to discuss except inserting a peacock clause. The other editor says that the first editor doesn't want to discuss. Maybe each of them wants a moderator to push the other one into discussion, but DRN doesn't work like that, because dispute resolution is voluntary. The editors should try discussing on the article talk page anyway. That is what it is for. If there is discussion, and if it is lengthy and inconclusive, the editors may file another request here. An editor who wants to treat this as a conduct dispute should first read the boomerang essay, and then file either at WP:ANI or at Arbitration Enforcement. Either discuss content, or report conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The lead of this article is too wordy and doesn't seem like a typical lead on Wikipedia. Rather than introducing the subject, the lead is giving conclusions on his lifework. Also, it is too wordy (almost 50 words in the first sentence) and hence the readability is compromised. It isn't aligned with the guidelines provided at WP:EXPLAINLEAD. I didn't remove any content. I tried to break the long sentences and added some details that actually introduce the subject. but @Fowler&fowler is reverting the changes stating it needs consensus. And as evident by his note on the talk page, it seems like he himself want to rewrite and shorten the lead. It could be the reason for his reverts. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Akshaypatill#October_2021 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Asses the lead and its readability and whether it follows the guidelines given at WP:EXPLAINLEAD Summary of dispute by Fowler&fowlerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Subhas Chandra Bose discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Ultimate Warrior
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | As has been explained to the filing editor repeatedly on their talk page- Youtube is not a Reliable Source If the information you want to present is truly black and white- you should have no problem finding a reliable source to add to the page. But this source will not be included. Period. Furthermore- it is recomended that you review Wikipedia policies before editing further to avoid bans due to WP:NPA WP:3rr and other policies they are breaking. Next, extended discussion must happen on the talk page of the article in question before any dispute will be handled on this page. Finally- this board is for Non-biased mediators to lead discussions- not disciplinary actions. If you believe you have a genuine concern about the behavior of another editor- you are welcome to go to the WP:ANI but beware- currently the only person who would be in danger of disciplinary action is the person who filed this case.Nightenbelle (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Hi, There has been a link that has been repeatedly deleted by someone called gimblibot. Admittedly this ended up in an editwar and seemingly a friend of his decided to block me - and myself only, despite the other party clearly being guilty of and admitting partaking in the edit war. The link involves clear medical analysis of Warrior's autopsy report - by Dr Kevin Horns. Link the the autopsy analysis of Dr Horn by Dr Aziz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8fd7SnTosw&t=2520s It is a lengthy video no doubt, but that shouldn’t make it worthy of instant deletion. If you want a more succinct view of the evidence that is presented in the video this is it: https://www.linkpicture.com/q/Warrior-autopsy-wiki.jpg Now before anyone says 'its only youtube on a small channel' and platform discriminating, I would request looking at the actual evidence being presented. There was actually no myocardial infarction (i.e. heart attack) so the wiki information at present is categorically incorrect and in fact that should be deleted (I didnt so as to allow people to judge for themselves). Again the evidence that is presented in the video analysis and repeatedly deleted: https://www.linkpicture.com/q/Warrior-autopsy-wiki.jpg The full autopsy pdf - publically available information - that Gimlidotnet is both mocking and deleting repeatedly without any clear medical reason: https://easyupload.io/rcfu9r You can also request this for free from Maricopa County Office of the Medical Examiner. Whatever the rules may be of which platform can be referenced (is youtube really black listed?) I’d like to ask fair and unbiased editors - does this really not contribute the discussion and facts in question? Again – is this evidence – the single most categorical medical commentary of Warrior’s death really a violation of wiki rules and worthy of constant deletion and a one sided blatantly biased unannounced blocking? Is Wikipedia really such a clique as opposed to evidence based analysis?
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:GeneralNotability#User%3AEvidenceAlliquots http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:EvidenceAlliquots
1. Allow this quite irrefutable and black and white evidence that undoubtedly contributes to worthwhile discussion in good faith - and in actual fact corrects the misinformation currenly on Warrior's page - to be published. 2. Take disciplinary action against gimlibotnet for frivilous deletion with no good reason except platform discrimination cited. 3. Take disciplinary action against generalnotability for a biased one sided blocking of an edit war
Summary of dispute by GimliDotNetPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by generalnotabilityPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ultimate Warrior discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
