This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.
Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
The dispute must have beenrecently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.
If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.
Volunteers should remember:
Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.
Open/close quick reference
To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).
Current dispute is over cited content has been removed by two users Oz346 and Petextrodon who have repeatedly removed cited content added by me claiming "ruining the flow of the article with unnecessary details". Given the highly controversial nature of the article, I feel that the events leading up to the events of at the core of the article needs to be clearly stated to established the context of the events mentioned in the article. Furthermore, these events have been mentioned in the government commission that has been cited heavily to narrate the events that took place during the time covered by the article. However these editors feel that should focus on the pogrom which I feel that is non-WP:NPOV.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Decide if the content that has been removed should be kept in the article.
Summary of dispute by Oz346
User Cossde wants to have an overly long background section, which expands greatly on Tamil separatism, anti police violence and the 1977 Tamil electoral history. See his preferred version here: [1]. I think this is of undue weight and that the current background section already summarises these topics concisely, without submerging the actual topic of the article which is the 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom. His reliance on the framework of a government commission which has been described as being biased towards the government by other reliable sources, should not be the basis of how an encyclopaedic article on this topic is framed.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
1977 anti-Tamil pogrom discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (1977 pogrom)
I am ready to act as the moderator if at least two editors request a moderator. Please read DRN Rule A and follow the instructions. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion.
Will each editor state briefly what they want to change in the article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). It is not necessary at this time to state why you want to change it or do not want to change it. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroth statements by editors (1977 pogrom)
Cossde: Yes please. I would greatly appreciate your involvement in this matter and agree to follow the rules mentioned.
The key dispute at hand is over the that was added by my and removed by these editors over the write up of the prelude to the events of this article. The removed content explains the events leading up to the riots in August 1977 and were fully citied. These are supported by both primary and secondary sources. A primary source, the report of the Government public inquiry was used since it was heavily cited to detail incidents that took place during the riots, coving majority of the written content of this article. My request is that you review the deleted content and consider what needs to be included to develop a meaningful prelude section that covers the events leading up to the riots in August 1977. Cossde (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please, I would appreciate your moderation. I want to leave the current background section as it is, as I believe the proposed changes by the other user is of undue weight for this article, which is about the 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom. Oz346 (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by moderator (1977 pogrom)
One editor has said that they want a third party to review the content in question and decide whether it should be in the article. The usual function of this noticeboard is to facilitate discussion between the parties rather than to make a decision. I am willing to review the content in question and make a decision as to whether it should be kept, and how much of it, but only if the parties agree that they will accept and be bound by the decision. The reason that I insist that my decision must be binding is that I know that it is otherwise likely that one party will not accept the decision, and then it may be difficult or impossible to find a neutral mediator for the continuing argument. So I have two questions. First, do the editors want me to make a binding decision on the questioned content? Second, are the editors willing to take part in moderated discussion (mediation), which, if unsuccessful, will be followed by an RFC?
I think that the question that I asked to answer had to do with the addition and then removal on 19 February of several paragraphs of background information that was described as excessive detail in an edit summary. I don't consider it to be excessive detail to add to the background section. The details about the Tamil separatist movement and about the killing of the policemen help to understand the background of the violence. At least, that is my answer to what I think the question was. There may be some remaining issues about that content that can still be discussed, but my opinion is that it is useful additional background.
I think the additional section edits of "St. Patrick’s College Carnival" is not a good change, as the events of the carnival are already recorded in clear chronological order in this existing section:
I agree with Robert. Events leading up to the riots helps understand the background to the violance. Only one suggestion here, we could change "Events leading to August 1977" to prelude if that makes better sence. I disagree with Oz346, the section on St. Patrick’s College Carnival should be kept as it gives the diffirent conflicting accounts to the start of the violance.Cossde (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: I did not think this was completely resolved. I left some concerns which went unanswered regarding whether to have a separate section on the carnival divorced from the overall chronology. I would appreciate the moderators decision on that before final closure. Thank you. Oz346 (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Third statement by moderator (1977 pogrom)
Will each editor please state concisely what they want to change in the article, or what another editor wants to change in the article that they want left alone? The purpose of discussion at DRN, or any content discussion, is to improve the article, so state exactly what the issue is about the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Third statements by editors (1977 pogrom)
I believe that a separate section entitled 1977_anti-Tamil_pogrom#St._Patrick’s_College_Carnival is unnecessary, and that its current first paragraph should be removed, with the section being renamed back to the "the ethnic pogrom" as before.
The current first paragraph is as follows:
St. Patrick’s College Carnival
On 12 August, four policemen visited a carnival at St. Patrick’s College, where they assaulted Mr. Kulanayagam, who asked them for an entry free.[9][21] The policemen misbehaved and helped themselves freely to food at food stalls without paying.[21] The four off-duty policemen had tried to enter the carnival without paying the entrance fee, policmen were accustomed to using public transport and entering places of entertainment without paying entrance fee. Many policmen regarded this as a privilage. On 12 August the carnival orgernizers resisted and a scuffle ensued, with the uniformed policemen on duty coming to the aid of their colleagues. [15][better source needed] On the 13th, the same policemen again went to the carnival where they clashed with locals around midnight. Two policemen were injured and hospitalised as a result.[21] The policemen had claimed that they had gone in search of two men wanted for a rubbery, this was rejected by Sanson.[21]
This information is better integrated in the existing 1977_anti-Tamil_pogrom#Jaffna_District section, where the chronology of events can be followed more logically from August 12th onwards. Having the events of the carnival separated from the subsequent days does not flow well. At the moment there is also repetition of content.
Finally, there has been a dispute about the reliability of a source used in that section, which I feel should not be in the article, as the author Chandraprema has been accused of gross human rights violations as part of the Sri Lankan security forces, and for glorifying Gotabaya Rajapaksa. See discussion here: [2]
I don't agree with Oz346, given that many sources accpete that rioting started after the events at St. Patrick’s College Carnival and that there are conflecting accounts of what happened there as shown in the current St. Patrick’s College Carnival section, it is common sense to keep it where it is. Much of the events there after are very much based on events reported in the public hearing. I leave it to Robert McClenon to make a call on it. Cossde (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to raise another content issue that has come up. Petextrodon has removed a secondary source that have reviewed the report of the public hearing [4], which does not mentioned any bias and have stacked up sources to claim that the report is bias [5]. I reques that this be included in the scope of this DRN. Cossde (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth statement by moderator (1977 pogrom)
Read DRN Rule D again. There has been editing of the article. I had closed this discussion briefly, and some of you may have taken that as a signal to resume editing. So I am not going to parse the exact times at which the edits were made to determine which edits were improper. But do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. If you continue to take part in this discussion, you are continuing to agree to DRN Rule D.
At this point we need to identify what the content issues are. I see at least two issues. The first is whether to have a separate section about the St. Patrick's College Carnival. I will only provide an opinion about keeping or merging the section if the editors agree to abide by my opinion (because otherwise we will need to find another mediator). The second is an issue about the removal of a source. There are also issues about the reliability of sources. Are there any other issues?
Any issues about the reliability of sources should be referred to the Reliable Source Noticeboard. I am asking each editor to please identify all of the sources about which there are reliability issues, and the points in the article that are the context for the issues. Please also identify any other content issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth statements by editors (1977 pogrom)
Yes, I agree. I think the issue of the reliability of sources has been settled via a RSN, with the source and related content removed based on the RSN outcome by me and Oz346 cleared the few bits I missed. Hence I feel that this issue is settled.
I feel the issues at hand are:
1. A separate section about the St. Patrick's College Carnival
2. The content on the section on the public hearing (Presidential Commission of Inquiry) the current narrative is not WP:NPOV, it gives WP:UNDU weight with several sources making it feel as if the report is generally accepted as bias, while other sources that have quoted it and does not claim its bias have been removed [6]. Cossde (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Yes the first issue is whether to have a separate section about the St. Patrick's College Carnival, or whether to merge it. I will agree and abide with your opinion.
2. The second issue, is that Cossde wants to add repetitive information about the Sansoni reports explanations for the riots. One source already summarises them (Kearney), there is no need to repeat them again with another source (Manogaran). In addition, multiple reliable sources do question the objectivity of the Sansoni report.Oz346 (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Yes, I will abide by your opinion on whether St. Patrick's College Carnival remains as a separate section.
2) The second issue concerns a newly added content by Cossde which I removed. It's a summary of the Sansoni commission report by another author (Manogaran) which is unnecessary since the summary by another author (Kearney) already exists. Both authors give descriptive summaries of it but remain mute on the overall bias of the report. -- Petextrodon (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fifth statement by moderator (1977 pogrom)
First, my opinion is that a separate subsection on the St. Patrick's College Carnival provides useful background information. Second, if there are any changes that any editor thinks should be made to the article, please state exactly what language in the article you want to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as failed. I sort of thank User:Ftrebien for reporting that there had been edit-warring of the statements by the editors. DRN Rule A and its siblings don't say not to rearrange statements by editors, because I didn't think of making a rule. I probably will add such a prohibition to the rulesets. It is unfortunately clear to me that the editors are not taking part in moderated discussion constructively. I don't monitor user talk pages of editors, and didn't notice a long exchange between two editors, which wasn't collaborative. I am failing this discussion. There are two remaining avenues for dispute resolution, which are not mutually exclusive. A Request for Comments can be used. That is the alternative that may improve the encyclopedia. A report can be made to WP:ANI. That is the alternative to stop conduct that interferes with improving the encyclopedia. If there is an RFC, it should be neutrally worded. An editor should read the boomerang essay before reporting to WP:ANI. This moderated discussion has failed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The dispute revolves around determining whether the MP4 file format is an open format. It is an open standard according to the Library of Congress, which is a secondary source. After I provided a reference to the Library of Congress, the other user removed the reference, changed the “open” status to "not open", and restored the previous references to GitHub, starting an edit war. A third opinion agreed that the GitHub sources were not that reliable. After another revert, the other user changed the status again to "not open" by adding references to one organization's definition of "open" (then the article was protected in that state...), and in the discussion this editor questioned the authority of the Library of Congress in defining what open means, while ignoring references that point to different interpretations of the term by different standards organizations and governments. I believe there is a problem in understanding the definitions.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Asked for a third opinion, which is now involved in the discussion and agrees that GitHub was not a proper source
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I think you can help by reaffirming the reliability of the Library of Congress as a secondary source for this information, by directing the question about the definition of "open" to the relevant articles, and by supporting an edit request at the end of the talk page.
Summary of dispute by Svnpenn
update: in the spirit of trying to find consensus, I have suggested to remove the "open format" marker, or replace it with something less contentious. user Fernando Trebien has referred to this as "nonsense"
I am of the opinion that user Ftrebien has acted in bad faith. they engaged in reversals themself, also they even went so far as to edit other articles, in service of their agenda:
removing links and text that had been added by third parties. I am fine with removing the GitHub links, and keeping the LOC link. however LOC is a non-technical government agency, and as such is not an arbiter of what is an open format. they are welcome to their opinion, as is Ftrebien. to my eyes, these are currently the best links on the subject:
which supports that MP4 is NOT an open format. further, the standard itself explicitly forbids reproduction:
> All IEC Publications are protected by the publisher's copyright and no part of any IEC Publication can be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means (graphic, electronic or mechanical including photocopying) without the written permission of the publisher (please see Copyright on IEC Standards in Database Format).
which means its not a https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_license, and in turn the format is not open. if other or better links are available, I am open to adding them. however the current references (basically just the LOC link) are not enough on their own to determine that MP4 is an open format.
Summary of dispute by VQuakr
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Disagreement on the applicability of sources and the content supported by those sources in the context of WP:SYNTH and WP:USERGENERATED, though the latter may already be resolved.
A markedly similar dispute between the same participants (except myself) is happening at ISO base media file format. I believe both articles should be included in the scope of this dispute resolution effort if the case is accepted. VQuakr (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MP4 file_format discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I am ready to act as the moderator of this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. Are there any article content issues other than whether the file format should be listed as an open file format?
We should list the MP4 format as an open file format if reliable sources state that it is an open format. We should not try to determine from the definition of an open file format and from technical information about the file format whether MP4 is an open file format, because that would be original research. Is there a disagreement about whether any source is a reliable source? If so, we should ask the Reliable Source Noticeboard for an opinion on source reliability. Will each editor please state what sources they are relying on. Are there any issues about whether the format is an open format that are not about the question of how to label the format? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroth statements by editors (MP4)
The source I presented is the description of the MP4 format from the Sustainability of Digital Formats website from the Library of Congress's Digital Preservation program. An archived version shows that since 2012 the Library of Congress describes the format as an "open standard" and this document as a "fully realized draft" (the most mature draft status; all statuses are called "drafts"); the document was updated in 2023 with no change to "open standard". An open file format is a format specified by an open standard. Previous RSN comments on the Library of Congress appear generally favorable in a number of contexts, but it seems no one has ever asked about its suitability regarding technical or legal information, as is the case in this dispute. The article on Digital preservation cites the Library of Congress several times.
Will each editor please state what sources they are relying on. The only source I have seen discussed (discounting user-generated sources and sources whose use would be original synthesis) is the Library of Congress source above. I do not have concerns about this source's reliability, but the way it supports the "open" descriptor of the format is less than ideal because it is a single word in a data table rather than a discussion in prose with commentary. Even with this limitation, in the absence of reliable sources stating otherwise I agree it is an adequate source to use in the infobox. Are there any issues about whether the format is an open format that are not about the question of how to label the format? No, to the best of my understanding. VQuakr (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
link was originally provided by Fernando Trebien, but only serves to show that the matter is contested. which is why I suggest that the key "open format" be removed or changed to something with consensus. Svnpenn (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hopefully you can then understand why arguing about a topic that has little to no official sources is a good use of anyone time. hence why I suggested that we stop the argument and just remove or use an alternate key such as "open license" or "open access" Svnpenn (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the value of the "open format" specifier is contested, I argue that we should simply remove it, or change the key to something else, such as "open license" or "open access". this will quickly solve the debate. the "free format" value is not contested, nor are "open license" or "open access" that I am aware of. so to summarize:
"open format" is contested, value could be YES or NO
"free format" is not contested, value should be NO
"open license" is not contested, value should be NO
"open access" is not contested, value should be NO
Fernando Trebien point is that "open format" has an agreed upon value, when one of his own links argues against that point:
This says nothing about the MP4 file format and using it would be WP:CIRCULAR. I brought this up in the discussion to help clarify the various meanings of the term “open” by different organizations. I also argued that some organizations on this list are much more influential than others. We should follow the judgment of a reliable secondary source regarding the common usage of terminology. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> This says nothing about the MP4 file format and using it would be WP:CIRCULAR.
"this" is ambiguous, so I will assume you mean the whole comment? if thats the case, I would direct you to these pages:
I believe the value of "open format" should be NO, or alternatively we could remove the "open format" key, since its value is contested, or replace the key with another key such as "open license" or "open access".
> I brought this up in the discussion to help clarify the various meanings of the term “open” by different organizations.
right, but ironically the link actually argues against your own point, and only serves to add to the ambiguity of the proper value of "open format".
> We should follow the judgment of a reliable secondary source regarding the common usage of terminology
I agree, but in this case, as you've demonstrated with your previous link, consensus has not been reached on this topic.
the edits in question bypass the previous point of contention, so I dont see how ANI applies here. the current disagreement appears to be unlikely to resolve, so the best course would be to remove the contested content, until such time as an agreement can be reached. did you have anything in the spirit of compromise to add? I have tried bending over backwards here to find a middle ground, and the other parties seem unwilling to move from their original position even a little. Svnpenn (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also, you failed to mention that YOU have also returned to editing:
WP:RULEA only discusses editing the article, and I believe my edit summary made clear why I felt that particular template edit needed reversion with some urgency. VQuakr (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you're knowingly skating the rules, in order to keep your record "clean" and paint me in a bad light. both edits result in a change to the contested article. Svnpenn (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to fail a case immediately after it is open, because sometimes one or more of the editors only read the rules once and didn't understand that they were violating the rules. I will fail the case if an editor files a report at WP:ANI, but one of the reasons for this noticeboard is to prevent disputes from going to ANI. So I would like to try to restart this discussion.
Please read DRN Rule A again. I will repeat a few points. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask the questions, and the participants will answer the questions. Be civil and concise. I am now asking the participants: Do you want to take part in moderated discussion, and do you agree to follow the rules? Moderated discussion will not result in sanctions on editors unless it fails. A report to WP:ANI usually results in somebody being sanctioned, so read the boomerang essay before going to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Reliable Source Noticeboard has said that the Library of Congress is a reliable source. I will add that they should not be described as a non-technical agency, because they are a depositary for data and are concerned with usability of the data.
> I am now asking the participants: Do you want to take part in moderated discussion, and do you agree to follow the rules?
honestly I dont want to take part in moderated discussion, but it seems thats the only option at this point. if an option is available to "close" this discussion, and send it back to the original parties to resolve, I think that would be best. since this escalation started, the situation has changed. I am willing to compromise on the original point, and have offered some paths to resolution. However if a moderation discussion must continue, yes I will follow the rules, and if I encounter a new rule I will respect it after learning it.
I am not answering the question of "open format", because I think its an unanswerable question. links have been provided on both sides that show this ambiguity, and I think all parties agree that its not a clear answer. so it doesn't seem right at this point to continue arguing for one side of that question.
again my current suggestion is to remove the "open format" key, or to change the key to "open license" or "open access", because those keys will have a consensus for their value.
I do not want to fail a case immediately after it is open... Fair enough. Please read DRN Rule A again... Done; agreed. I agree to moderated discussion and the rules including regarding replies (sorry!). The infobox should show MP4 as an open format as is shown in this version, because the only reliable source presented so far describes the format as open. VQuakr (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-read DRN Rule A and agree to continue to be moderated. I still support the same same version of the article as VQuakr. I disagree with the latest changes during dispute resolution that removed the "Open format" field from the infobox and added an "Open license" field, for the reasons in this comment made 5 hours before these changes. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second statement by moderator (MP4)
Moderated discussion at DRN is voluntary. An editor can decline to take part in moderated discussion, or can withdraw from moderated discussion. In that case, other forms of dispute resolution will be used. One editor wants to close this discussion and send it back to the original parties to resolve. I assume that means to resolve by discussion on the article talk page. The risk is that another editor may choose to file a report at WP:ANI. So I will ask all the editors whether they want to continue to take part in moderated discussion.
> So I will ask all the editors whether they want to continue to take part in moderated discussion.
I have suggested several compromise solutions, including:
remove "open format" key
replace "open format" key with "open license"
replace "open format" key with "open access"
add "open license" key
add "open access" key
all of which I believe have been rejected by the other editors. in addition, I dont believe either of them have provided any compromise solutions. the other two editors demonstrate an unwillingness to compromise, even in the face of obvious contention on the question of the content. if that remains the case, then I suppose the best course is to continue with moderated discussion, as perhaps a moderation can help to find a compromise solution. however if the other two editors can communicate a willingness to compromise, then I would like to send the matter back to the original parties. I am willing to find a compromise here.
> If so, please state concisely why MP4 should or should not be listed as an open format.
I will say again, I do not think the question of "open format" should be answered on Wikipedia, at least not at this time. I dont think compelling evidence or consensus have been provided on either side.
A file format is open if it is specified by an open standard. This is explicitly stated by two references in the Open file format article: LINFO.org (4th paragraph) and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (4th paragraph). The other references in the article do not contradict these two references, except for one reference by an advocacy group which I have contested. The LOC's definition of open format (2nd paragraph of the Disclosure section) states that it is a standard that is documented and approved by a recognized standards body and contrasts that with proprietary format for which documentation is not publicly available. These definitions mostly correspond to the text and references in Wikipedia in Open file format and Proprietary format.
Assessing MP4 as an "open format" based on the definition of the term may not belong to the scope of this dispute resolution but may help it. I think that MP4 should be listed as an open format because:
None of these references (LOC, LINFO and the Commonwealth of Massachussets) say that an open file format must be specified by an open access standard (one that is made available at no cost), although some organizations may adopt this requirement to assess a standard as "open", as shown in Open standard § Comparison of definitions. Unlike the LOC, these organizations are primary sources for the definition of open format that should be given different weights according to their notability in legal and technical fields, and some of them are advocacy groups or individuals and should not be considered.
I contested one statement in the Open file format article which incorrectly associates the notion of open file format with open license (confusingly synonymous with free license and implying open access). This incorrect association is not explicitly supported by the reference in the text, which is a draft by an advocacy group and is therefore not verifiable and cannot be used to define open file format nor to assess MP4 as an open format. The other uses of the term "open format" in the Open file format and Proprietary file format articles match the definition of the LOC with respect to no requirement of open access (no requirement of availabily at zero cost to be considered open).
Yes, we can continue moderated discussion. MP4 should be listed as an open format per WP:WEIGHT and WP:V because the only reliable source presented describes the format as open. VQuakr (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Third statement by moderator (MP4)
It appears that two editors say that MP4 should be listed as an open format, and one editor says that it should not be listed as an open format. The reasons for listing it as an open format are clearly stated, and rely on a secondary reliable source. So what is the reason for saying that it is not an open format?
One editor says that the two other editors have shown an unwillingness to compromise. There are some questions where compromise is not feasible, and this appears to be one of them. However, they also say: I do not think the question of "open format" should be answered on Wikipedia, at least not at this time. Do they mean that it should not be answered for MP4, or that Wikipedia should not be indicating whether formats are or are not open, because of the ambiguities of definitions of what is an open format? If the issue is that Wikipedia should not be stating that formats are or are not open, then maybe WikiProject Software would be a better place for the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Third statements by editors (MP4)
> what is the reason for saying that it is not an open format?
I am intentionally not commenting on if MP4 is an open format, because I dont think the question is answerable currently, either on Wikipedia or broadly. The other editors have given reasons why one might consider MP4 an open format. for a reason why you might say its not an open format, you simply need to look here:
> An open file format is licensed with an open license
finally, one of the editors own links proves against their own point, in that it shows how different international bodies define "open format" differently:
Again, I am no longer trying to answer the question "is MP4 an open format", because I dont think its an answerable question, as I hope the above demonstrates.
> Do they mean that it should not be answered for MP4, or that Wikipedia should not be indicating whether formats are or are not open, because of the ambiguities of definitions of what is an open format?
Other formats have a clearly defined answer, for example:
> WebM is an open media file format designed for the web.
such a clear answer is not currently available for MP4 that I am aware of. I have today contacted the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) to try to better answer this question.
WebM is an open media file format designed for the web.
Slightly off-topic, but here the Library of Congress can again help us advance Wikipedia's goal of remaining neutral by giving due weight to available sources (especially secondary sources) and employing consistent terminology across related articles. LOC's description of WebM mirrors the expression "open source format" used by the primary source, which can be understood as an open format. "Open source" includes the notion of "open access", which is the case with the documentation of WebM. Such a description does not apply to MP4, so the LOC correctly used the term "open standard" for MP4 as it is publicly available but not necessarily available for free. The main references in WebM use the term "open source" when talking about the standard and the associated software tools that are being developed together, and they use the term "open format" when referring to the format itself, implying that "open" has the same meaning in both cases in their own documents. If the LOC document was written by WebM's developer AOMedia, it would probably say that MP4 is not an open standard, but as a secondary source that aggregates this type of information from multiple sources, LOC is aware of the history of competing definitions. In the case of WebM, I would keep the reference to the primary source for now, as the LOC document is only a "partial" draft, not its highest standard, and this is probably because the WebM format, unlike MP4, is still actively developed and is expected to undergo significant changes from time to time. Even LOC's partial draft includes many references that can be used by other Wikipedians to improve the article on WebM as LOC improves its draft until it is final.
Compared to other organizations like the ITU-T and IEEE, which had a big impact in defining digital data formats since the 1980s which has been extensively recorded in the literature, AOMedia is a relatively recent player (founded in 2015) and its main contributions are the specification of the WebM container (just a restricted subset of much older Matroska, intended to lower implementation costs) and AV1, none of which have (yet) sufficient weight to redefine traditional terminology (we can only make this judgment when secondary sources start to do so). ITU-T in particular is a close partner of ISO and IEC which standardized various digital data formats that are still widely used, namely MPEG PS still used in cable television and DVD and its descendants MPEG TS used in Blu-ray and MP4 now used in cable television as well and a lot of streaming media, and also the often associated video codecs MPEG-4 AVC (still used often for live streaming due to its optimal tradeoff between quality and computational complexity on the encoding side) and audio codecs MP3 and AAC. Even today's large streaming services, like YouTube, Netflix and Amazon Prime Video, that use WebM or AV1 also offer their media content in these other formats. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the issue is that Wikipedia should not be stating that formats are or are not open, then maybe WikiProject Software would be a better place for the discussion.
Based on the work made by many other Wikipedians over the years, I believe Wikipedia should state whether formats are open or not. There are some discussions in the archives of WikiProject Software regarding open "source" software, and only a little about "formats" and "standards". We may continue there, but the subject is so specific that we may have to wait a very long time for any reply. I asked for opinions there 9 days ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software § Comments on MP4 as an open format needed, and so far we had none coming from this project. VQuakr joined the discussion from my request for a third opinion but I believe they are not involved with WikiProject Software. The article about Open file format is rated high importance for WikiProject Computing, I also asked for opinions there around the same time. A natural next step would have been to launch an RfC, but I decided to go to Dispute resolution first as it seemed to me that the other party was not aware of the specifics of the subject and also due to some actions that I perceived as misconduct, such as unfounded accusations of vandalism ([9], [10] and [11]) and bad faith [12], which might have been because the user describes themselves as novice and is unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and spirit. I also currently see many of the actions taken as this conflict unfolded as multiple instances of different forms of tendentious editing by the other party, especially those made after having learned from a second editor about Wikipedia policies and guidelines ([13] after [14], [15] and [16] after [17]), and I expected that moderation would help them understand that, although it made clearer a persistent general pattern of disruptive editing[18]. The guidelines on dealing with disruptive editing expressly recommend dispute resolution before an RfC if too few participants are involved. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ali Amin Gandapur
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I think moving the Sobia Shahid audio to her page is a good idea, but I don't get why Sheriff keeps deleting my other edits. Mine are neutral, unlike his, which claimed, "Critics say his appointment as Chief Minister has damaged the party's image and ability to govern well." Gandapur has only been in power for a few days, so how did they come to that conclusion? I get that it's written in the article but we are supposed to maintain neutrality on Wikipedia.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Your most recent edit also had its issues, which led to its reversal. You removed the sourced information from the start which captured the gist of everything about his remarks against Maryam. Additionally, what you assert you added concerning Maryam barely scratched the surface of the offensive remarks he made about her. Furthermore, your attempt to mitigate sexism against Sobia by introducing unwarranted and unrelated content from an unidentified Twitter account was questionable. Thus, the burden of explanation should fall on you instead of me in this instance. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ali Amin Gandapur discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - Discussion has been in progress on the article talk page for only a few hours, not 24 hours. Continue discussion on the article talk page for 24 hours. Be civil, and comment on content, not contributors. I am neither opening nor closing this case at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by moderator (Ali Amin Gandapur)
I am ready to act as the moderator. Please read DRN Rule D. The subject of the article is a Pakistani politician, and articles about Pakistani politics and politicians are covered by the ArbCom decision on India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. I will repeat a few rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. That already hasn't worked. The moderator (me) will ask the questions, and is the representative of the community. The editors will address their answers to the moderator and the community.
Do the editors agree to abide by the rules, and agree that the contentious topic procedure is in effect?
The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the encyclopedia. So I will ask each editor: What do you want to change in the article, or what do you want to leave alone that another editor wants to change? You don't need to say why at this time. I will ask that in the next round. Exactly what is the content dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to abide by the rules and that the procedure is in effect. I'm sort of okay with how the page looks now, but the part about being "misogynistic" is being taken out of context. In Gandapur's speech, he quotes Maryam saying "jaisa moo vaisi chapair" which translates to "As the face, so the slap" in English. Gandapur then proceeds to respond to her threat with "I have a lot more to say but I will only say this to her (Maryam) that if we come to slap then you will get slapped so much that your [real] face will be uncovered from the Rs80 million [cosmetic] surgery you have done from our [tax] money." I believe someone who knows Urdu can vouch for me as there really isn't a misogynistic element here. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree by the rules and procedures. Currently, I have no intention of altering anything further, and I also prefer that other editor refrains from making any further changes to the "Controversies" and "Arrest" sections. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second statement by moderator (Ali Amin Gandapur)
It appears that one editor is satisfied with the current version of the article. I am not exactly sure what the other editor wants changed. I see that there is a controversy involving another politician, Maryam Nawaz, whom Gandapur says had expensive cosmetic surgery at public expense. I don't see any discussion of a controversy about cosmetic surgery in the article on Maryam Nawaz, and so wonder whether discussing it only in the article on a different politician is undue weight. However, I am asking the editor who wants to change the wording to indicate exactly what they would like the article on Gandapur to say. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My position is that what he said was NOT misogynistic. He quoted Maryam's threats about slapping where she says "jaisa moo vaisi chapair" which translates to "As the face, so the slap", Gandapur replies to it by saying "if we come to slap then you will get slapped so much that your [real] face will be uncovered from the Rs80 million [cosmetic] surgery you have done from our [tax] money." I think a Wikipedia admin who knows Urdu can verify this. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found any evidence of Maryam saying what was quoted by the other editor. Furthermore, the sources characterize the behavior of Gandapur as misogynistic and sexist. I believe we should stick to what the sources say without adding our own interpretations. I'm fine with the current version of the article. If the other editor agrees, we can close this discussion. Otherwise, I'm not inclined to make changes that deviate from the sources' essence. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either there isn't a disagreement about the content of the article, or the disagreement hasn't been stated specifically. If either of you want any change made to the article, please read Be Specific at DRN, and state what you want changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other editor must clarify precisely what they wish to remove or add. They objected to the term "misogynistic," which has been removed. However, they still believe there is an issue, so they need to specify what it is. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On the Sri Lanka Armed Forces page, Cossde claims through his edits that the UN report supports the following sentence which he has added, which states "with the LTTE preventing the civilian from leaving as they used them as human shields and attempted to create an humanitarian crises."
Despite this he has repeatedly reinserted this sentence not supported by the citations into the article.
The UN report which is cited in the news articles after Cossde's OR sentence explicitly states this on p.65, and actually contradicts Cossde's claim:
"the Panel believes that these actions did not, in law, amount to the use of human shields insofar as it did not find credible evidence of the LTTE deliberately moving civilians towards military targets to protect the latter from attacks as is required by the customary definition of that war crime (Rule 97, ICRC Study))."[1]
There is also no mention from any of the reliable sources cited that the "LTTE attempted to create an humanitarian crises" as he claims. It has failed WP:BURDEN yet he persists.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
By checking that the added sentence is supported by the existing citations or not, and to decide whether to keep it in the article.
Summary of dispute by Cossde
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Oz346 is correct in quoting of the UN report, however as ususal Oz346 has cherrypicked points, avoiding broader context. Said qoute comes from the chaperter titled "Legal Evaluation of Allegations" which states that "current evaluation is limited to the legal characterization of the allegations; the Panel's view that a certain allegation would not violate internaitonal law should in no way be interpreted as an endorsement of the underlying activity." The UN report then goes to state that "The Panel's determination of credible allegations against the LTTE associated with the final stages of the war reveal six core categories of potential serious violations: (i) using civilains as a hunman buffer (ii) killing civilians attempting to flee LTTE control; (iii) using military equipment in the proximity of civilians; (iv) forced recruitment of children (v) forced labour; and (vi) killing of civilians through suicide attacks.". At one point the report states "Civilians were increasingly sacrificed as dispensable "cannon fodder" while the LTTE fought to protect its senior leadership.". It also mentions that "the role of the Tamil diaspora, which provided vital moral and material support to the LTTE over decades, and some of whom refuse to acknowledge the LTTE's role in the humanitarian disaster in the Vanni, creating a further obstacle to accuntability and sustainable peace". Frances Harrison in his book Still Counting the Dead: Survivors of Sri Lanka’s Hidden War does mention that credible evidence that the LTTE itself wanted to deliberately create a humanitarian disaster. Cossde (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Human buffers is not the same as human shields, as the UN report explicitly mentions. None of the sources cited after your sentence makes the claim of human shields, so it is original research.
2. Likewise, the phrase you added claiming the "LTTE attempted to create a humanitarian crisis" is more original research not supported by the references cited. Having a role in the humanitarian disaster is not the same as "attempting to create one". Oz346 (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by UtoD
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
My main opposition was the WP:UNDUE addition of an incident of sexual abuse by peacekeepers from 2004. It is extremely undue and would be indiscriminatory to add random instances of historical abuse to every SL armed forces page. I agree with Cossde's assessment assessment of the other issue on the UN report but I am willing to allow changes if the WP:UNDUE addition on the peacekeeper incident is removed. -UtoD14:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Petextrodon
The dispute is over the following sentence that user Cossde added and user UtoD re-added:
"with the LTTE preventing the civilian from leaving as they used them as human shields and attempted to create an humanitarian crises"
Evidently neither user has bothered to read the cited source properly since the UN report explicitly contradicts the claim on the use of human shields as explained to them multiple times by myself and user Oz346. Furthermore, by placing that sentence right after "with most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war being blamed on Sri Lankan Army shelling", an impression is created that most civilian casualties were caused by the LTTE's use of "human shields" although the cited source does not state this. --- Petextrodon (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sri Lanka Armed Forces discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First Statement by Moderator (Sri Lankan Armed Forces)
I am ready to begin moderation of this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A and agree to abide by its rules. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors.
It appears that one of the issues is an edit that has been made and reverted concerning allegations of the use of human shields during the Sri Lankan Civil War and also concerning sexual abuse by peacekeeping forces. Is that the only content issue? If there are other content issues, please state what they are. Also, will each editor please state concisely why they think that the contested and reverted edit either should be restored or should not be restored?
Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First Statements by Editors (Sri Lankan Armed Forces)
First statement by Oz346
(1) The following sentence is not supported by the citations:
"with the LTTE preventing the civilian from leaving as they used them as human shields and attempted to create an humanitarian crises."
The UN report which is cited in the news articles after this sentence explicitly states this on p.65, and actually contradicts this claim:
"the Panel believes that these actions did not, in law, amount to the use of human shields insofar as it did not find credible evidence of the LTTE deliberately moving civilians towards military targets to protect the latter from attacks as is required by the customary definition of that war crime (Rule 97, ICRC Study))."[1]
There is also no mention from any of the reliable sources cited that the "LTTE attempted to create an humanitarian crises". I believe that this original research should be removed, as it is not supported by the citations and has failed WP:BURDEN.
(2) Regarding the sexual abuse by the peacekeepers, I see no valid reason why it should be removed from the section on peacekeepers. It is reliably sourced and not excessively long, and therefore neither fails WP:BURDEN, nor is it of undue weight. Oz346 (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by Cossde
First Issue: As I explaned before, the UN report clearly states that "The Panel's determination of credible allegations against the LTTE associated with the final stages of the war reveal six core categories of potential serious violations: (i) using civilains as a hunman buffer (ii) killing civilians attempting to flee LTTE control; (iii) using military equipment in the proximity of civilians; (iv) forced recruitment of children (v) forced labour; and (vi) killing of civilians through suicide attacks." Which represents the sentence in question. Similar counter accusations have been writen of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces in the LTTE article. Hence it is due balance to either keep this sentance in the Sri Lankan Armed Forces page or remove it and the accusations against the Sri Lankan Armed Forces LTTE article to achive balance. This has been prevented by Oz346 [22].
Second Issue: Regarding the sentence on the Sri Lankan peacekeepering scandle, the same content has been included in the Sri Lanka Army page. This is creating WP:UNDU having the same content repeated in two pages. Similar scandles reported in other armed forces such as the French Armed Forces have not been included.
1. Agreed with Cossde. If the issue is that the section is too much about LTTE then it should be allowed to be added to the LTTE page.
2. The Peacekeeper section is clearly WP:UNDUE, it is already mentioned in the Sri Lanka Army page, where it is still undue but less than in the Armed Forces page. There is no reason to add it to the Armed Forces page again, the page is not an indiscriminate list of historical individual instances of abuse and its inclusion in any way gives too much weight to it, making it a WP:POVPUSH. -UtoD16:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by Petextrodon
Yes, those are the two disputed issues.
First issue concerns the following sentence which I think should be removed: "with the LTTE preventing the civilian from leaving as they used them as human shields and attempted to create an humanitarian crises."
It should be removed because: 1) it's not supported by the citation which in fact contradicts it as the quote cited by user Oz346 shows; 2) it's excessive given the LTTE's responsibility for war crimes, which isn't even the focus of the subsection, is already mentioned.
Second issue concerns the following sentence which I think should be re-added: "Sri Lankan peacekeepers have been embroiled in a child sex ring scandal in Haiti, with at least 134 soldiers being accused of sexually abusing nine children from 2004 to 2007."
Users Cossde and UtoD state that this sentence is WP:POVFORK, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE. I still am not sure what they mean by the first accusation. I don't see how the existence of one sentence about a topic that has a separate article goes against Wiki policy. As for the last two, I don't think they apply since the issue of sexual abuse by Sri Lankan peacekeepers in Haiti is directly relevant to that section "Deployments in peacekeeping missions" and the case is notable enough as it was a major international scandal spanning three years involving 134 Sri Lankan soldiers. More details dealing with the general history and missions of the peacekeeping force can be added so that the sentence about the scandal becomes less prominent. In any case, a single sentence about a major and very relevant scandal is not undue weight. --- Petextrodon (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second statement by moderator (Sri Lankan Armed Forces)
The two issues are the contested statement about the use of human buffers toward the end of the Sri Lankan Civil War, and the reporting of the alleged sexual abuse of the peacekeeping forces. I would like each editor to make brief statements (a) about the reason why the statement about human buffers should or should not be removed; (b) about why the reporting of the alleged sexual abuse should or should not be included; (c) anything else that should be changed in the article.Robert McClenon (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second statements by editors (Sri Lankan Armed Forces)
Second statement by Oz346
1. The contested statement is about the use of human shields, not human buffers. The UN report differentiates between the two, and rejects the definition of human shields. They are not the same thing, legally they are defined differently.
I repeat from the UN report:
"the Panel believes that these actions did not, in law, amount to the use of human shields insofar as it did not find credible evidence of the LTTE deliberately moving civilians towards military targets to protect the latter from attacks as is required by the customary definition of that war crime (Rule 97, ICRC Study))."[2]
The statement about human shields should not be included because it is not supported by the citations, and is OR.
2. Regarding the sexual abuse by the peacekeepers, I see no valid reason why it should be removed from the section on peacekeepers. It is notable enough to be mentioned by multiple reliable sources and is not excessively long. It therefore neither fails WP:BURDEN, nor is of undue weight. Oz346 (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second statement by Cossde
The UN report clearly states that it finds "credible allegations" against the LTTE for using civilains as a "hunman buffer", "killing civilians attempting to flee LTTE control" and "using military equipment in the proximity of civilians".
Regarding the peacekeepering scandle, repeating the same senetances in the Sri Lanka Army page and in the Sri Lanka Armed Forces page is a clearly WP:UNDU and as I said before similar peacekeepering scandles (and sadly there are many) in other armed forces such as the French, doesnt appear in these pages. In the example of drug trafficking in the Haitian Armed Forces seems to be a very poor example, since it meets no WP standards, let along having proper citations. Furthermore, the Haitian Army doesnt have a page of its own and is redirected to the Haitian Armed Forces page itself. The primary issue here is that the same content is repeated in two pages Sri Lanka Army and the Sri Lanka Armed Forces. Cossde (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second statement by UtoD
1. There are multiple sources that explicitly claim Human Shields for example 12 pages 15, 38.
2. The peacekeeper claim is already present in the Sri Lanka Army page and even there it is WP:UNDUE and adding it to the Armed Forces page, which is not about individual historical incidents is extremely WP:UNDUE. It should not be added and preferably removed from the SL Army page as well and should be limited to the pages of the specific unit/mission. Because it is giving a single historical incident extreme undue weight. The pages are not for every single individual incident that a military unit got involved in during a military's existence. And when it is repeated indiscriminately upwards through articles by WP:CFORKING then it becomes a WP:ADVOCACY issue. -UtoD19:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second statement by Petextrodon
1) The issue is about "human shields", not "human buffer". Once again, the UN report explicitly denies that "human shields" as defined under international law were used. This is original research on the part of user Cossde. Cossde continues, stating the LTTE "attempted to create an humanitarian crises," which is again original research since the UN report only refers to "the LTTE's role in the humanitarian disaster", not that it attempted to create one. Finally, it's undue weight in a section dealing with the war crimes of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces and not those of the LTTE (which is extensively documented in its own page), especially given that LTTE is also already named in the paragraph as a culpable party.
2) Child sexual abuse in Haiti by Sri Lankan peacekeepers should be included since it was a major international scandal and one small sentence is not undue weight nor excessive. The Armed Forces of Haiti page itself has an entire paragraph on drug trafficking by its military officers. --- Petextrodon (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Third statement by moderator (Sri Lankan Armed Forces)
The two issues are the contested statement about the use of human shields toward the end of the Sri Lankan Civil War, and the reporting of the alleged sexual abuse by the peacekeeping forces. I am now asking each editor who wants any change made to the article with regard to either issue to specify exactly what they want changed in the article. Also please identify any possible compromise language. If there is no compromise, we will compose and publish a two-part RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Third statements by editors (Sri Lankan Armed Forces)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I have made repeated requests on Talk:Heiner_Rindermann and WP:BLPN to reach a consensus edit on Heiner_Rindermann. The current edit contains innuendo suggesting that Rindermann is racist and that his academic output is pseudoscience. The references provided do not substantiate these statements. I consider the content to violate the conventions of WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH and have tried on several occasions to edit the page, and to add quality tags. On each occasion my edits have been reverted, usually without discussion, and in the the last three instances by User:Generalrelative. I am asking disinterested editors to intervene so that a consensus edit can be reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nangaf (talk • contribs) 05:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
This looks more like a behavioral matter for AE (we're dealing with the race & intelligence contentious topic area) than a legitimate content dispute. And to clarify, I was referring to the SPA Mr Butterbur in that edit summary, who was clearly canvassed off-Wiki, likely by the same topic-banned (and now-blocked) IP user who initially canvassed Nangaf. If we are going to have a dispute resolution over content, it seems odd to leave out the other two experienced editors –– besides Zenomonoz and myself –– who have told Nangaf they're wrong here: Hob Gadling and Grayfell. But yeah, I'd really prefer not to deal with all this gaslighting in the first place. There is a rough consensus among the experienced editors that the status quo doesn't violate policy, and Nangaf's efforts at WP:PROXYING for a banned user appear (to me) to have veered into WP:TE territory. Generalrelative (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:BLPN issue, and it is already there (as well as other places, like ANI) The real issue is the policy on BLP and if the sources support the claims, which is why BLPN is the correct venue for this discussion, not here. Dennis Brown - 2¢07:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed due to lack of notice, and as incorrectly filed. The editor who filed this case was logged out at the time, probably by accident, and did not notify the other editor. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case request can be filed; the filing editor should be logged in, and must notify the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The wikipedia article "Dragon" indicates that dragons are magical creatures. I realized that they could also be real creatures as aliens on other worlds. I tried to make this edit in the Wikipedia article but someone else reverted the edit and said I could not make the edit. This is not fair and there is no reason for this and it would be very useful, so can you please acknowledge the need for the edit? Please see on talk page "Dragons are not just magical creatures".
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
This is obviously unfair so please confirm I can make the edit.
Summary of dispute by MattMauler
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Dragon discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
This discussion is premature; talk page discussion is not exhausted yet, and you have no independent reliable sources to support your claims. I suggest you withdraw this posting and continue to discuss on the talk page, offering your sources. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as declined. Two of the editors who have been notified have declined to participate at this time in DRN, which is voluntary. Continue discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Current dispute is about 3 things:
1) Certain footnotes [28] (this could seem very minor, but for some reason we couldn't agree).
2) Adding nationality info into infobox, similar to infoboxes of Spain and France.
3) Adding ethnic in front of Turks and Kurds in ethnicity field (especially if there is not going to be a nationality field in the infobox)
The discussion is mainly due to the fact that the word "Turk" could mean either ethnicity as in "ethnic Turk", or it can mean citizenship as in "citizen of Turkey"
I brought the dispute here because I doubt anyone in the talk page is going to bother with Wikipedia:Wall of text
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
There is a lot of repetition, and back and forth in the talk page. I think a more structured exchange moderated by a 3rd uninvolved party would improve the communication and hopefully lead to a solution.
Summary of dispute by Uness232
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Austronesier
I won't participate in this DRN. The thread about the disputed content was opened less than 48h hours ago (23:19, 7 March 2024). The article is widely watched, so I believe we can get input from a maximal number of editors in the next days. And if consensus is not reached by then, I decisively prefer RfC over DRN. –Austronesier (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed. I am closing this case as also pending in another forum, WP:AN. It has not been taken to WP:AN by any of the participants, but there is discussion at WP:AN, and they have imposed ECP on the talk page as well as the article. I will make a note at WP:AN that consideration was given to opening a thread here, but that I am deferring to the admins at WP:AN, at least until they have the off-wiki canvassing sized up. Please use good judgment. Be civil and concise. When the AN case is resolved, if there is a content dispute, it can be brought here, and will be discussed under DRN Rule D. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Sweet Baby Inc. is currently the main part of a big controversy in gaming community. Many facts confirm that this company has written the plot (or subplots) of many games over the past decade.
The problem is that it has only been confirmed by individual employees of the company, including the CEO and writers. These employees also started the controversy in the first place, by posting tweets asking to mass-report a Steam group and related Steam curator that was pointing out which games were affected by Sweet Baby Inc. Along with the group and curator, said employee also insisted on mass-reporting the personal account of a person behind the group and curator, quote "since he loves his account so much".
Everything I described above is covered in the article only from Sweet Baby Inc. point of view (or not covered at all) and editors can't reach a consensus on this.
The main problem is: this is not covered well by mass media outlets considered WP:RS, and information provided by reliable sources goes against how majority of actual people from gaming communities see the situation, not to mention it goes against WP:UCS. You can learn more from discussions on the related talk page.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Provide guidance on how to maintain neutral point of view when there's not enough reliable sources (because the entire event is unfolding on forums, which are not a reliable source), while adhering to common sense. Reliable sources are not supported by an absolute majority of people in this case, and it doesn't take much research to see why.
Summary of dispute by TE(æ)A,ea.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I think that Moon darker's own statements above are sufficiently damning to their own position that I have little to add; they're overtly asking that we ignore WP:RSes based on their own WP:OR, based on what their personal unsourced opinions about how the majority of actual people from gaming communities see the situation, based on what they consider common sense, and based on their personal unsourced belief that reliable sources are not supported by an absolute majority of people in this case}. Obviously, these wouldn't be a reason for us to diverge from reliable sourcing even if it were true, though I don't even think they are true. There's nothing more to say to that - they've fairly clearly indicated that they're here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and "correct" what they see as inaccurate coverage in WP:RSes. Obviously a dispute resolution request cannot grant them the ability to ignore WP:RS or to cite things from forums based on their personal belief that the opinions from those forums are in some hypothetical majority of gamers, nor can they present strung-together screenshots and primary sources pulled out of context to present some sort of argument just because a few people on Twitter believe it... so unless someone has a policy-compliant argument to make here I'm not going to participate further in any DR case.
I should also point out that the dispute is less than a day old and that numerous people have weighed in on the relevant discussion that Moon darker did not include here (virtually all of them, at a glance, clearly opposed to his position); for these reasons, as well, I don't see any value to this attempt at dispute resolution.
As an additional note, I have made a relevant amendment request to ArbCom here, which (while not directly about this dispute or article) does mention it and may preclude participating in this; I think it's clear that this ought to fall under the GamerGate general sanctions, but because it was renamed to gender and sexuality that may not be the case. To reiterate, though, I won't participate either way; there is not enough here to productively engage. --Aquillion (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I suspect the fact that I have declined to participate may have been overlooked, I have tagged myself as a non-party and removed myself from the list. My view is that this has already been decided by a clear consensus on the page's talk, and I have no intention of participating further here or being a party to this case. --Aquillion (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Harryhenry1
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MrOllie
There are many more editors commenting on the talk page than are listed here, and more are arriving due to off-site canvassing. There's an WP:AN thread about the situation, and several editors have been repeatedly bringing up the possibility of WP:RSN discussions on the article talk page. I don't believe that it will be possible to get everyone to follow the DRN rules in this case, so I decline to participate. - MrOllie (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Katacles
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Dumuzid
I want to say that while I do not doubt the filer's good faith in bringing this here, I am not sure it is particularly susceptible to a dispute resolution process. By my lights, it is simply a question of reliable sourcing for an article. While I certainly know it's not satisfying, I think the only real solution here is to wait and see if there is more 'pickup' in more traditional and reliable (in the Wikipedia sense of the term) outlets. That said, if I can contribute to some kind of resolution, happy to do so. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm respectfully declining being included in this as I am not an involved editor in the dispute, and have never edited the article itself. My only participation is in an administrative capacity with regards to the article's talk page. I would have nothing of value to add to this DR. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!06:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Masem
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Sweet Baby Inc. discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
General discussion
Comment on summary by Rhain: the reason this article was created in the first place is "events occuring on forums". I deem it impossible to cover events occuring on forums without covering the primary sources. It might imply that the best way to deal with this situation is to WP:PROD the article in question.
Comment on summary by Aquillion: I noticed that you didn't mention WP:CS. If you take all the numbers into consideration, I don't see how is it possible for you to "don't even think they are true". Either you are acting on behalf of the company in question here, or, uhh, I don't even know what else could it be. Also, it's not about WP:RGW, it's about balance in coverage of both sides.
In general, I propose broader use of WP:CS and WP:SELFSOURCE in this article, because it's simply impossible to cover everything by WP:RS. That's my last comment until a third party arrives to handle this matter.
I don't understand your references to WP:CS (though I have cited WP:RS and numerous aspects of it to you repeatedly, which is the really important policy here.) What part of WP:CS or WP:RS do you think helps you? You've vaguely indicated that you that you believe WP:ABOUTSELF / WP:SELFSOURCE could somehow help you add your personal theory of what the controversy is "really" about to the article, since you're disappointed that none of the WP:RSes who have covered it have described it the way you like... but I've already explained why that's not workable. You need to actually readWP:ABOUTSELF (and WP:SYNTH, which is related here.) WP:ABOUTSELF is not usable for exceptional claims about third parties, for self-serving claims, or for structuring an argument out of primary sources that isn't stated in any of them. WP:ABOUTSELF is for things like uncontroversial biographical details or for "this company has X employees", not for flashpoints in major controversies. The very fact that you want to use WP:ABOUTSELF to lay out your personal theory for what you think the controversy is "really about" shows why it is utterly unusable here. Again, these are not obscure complicated niche aspects of how sourcing works, or niche details of sourcing and policy that are up for debate and interpretation, but fundamental aspects of how we write Wikipedia articles. We do have secondary sources, and they're very clear; you just disagree with their focus and conclusions. And that's fine! The solution to that is to write letters to them asking for corrections and retractions, or to wait and hope that other sources cover it in a different way, not to demand that Wikipedia ignore its sourcing policies. (And, for the record, the article was created a month ago, although it was stubbified and draftified until the recent controversy led to it being re-expanded.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding on my last answer, the initial discovery of Sweet Baby Inc. happened around half a year ago, but back then employees of the company didn't attack any independent curators, and nobody dug too deep into it. I'd assume that initial drafts of the article date back to around that time frame. -- Moon darker (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel it's impossible to cover the event fully without relying on forums and other primary sources, then the article will never cover it fully to your liking—it's not Wikipedia's job to right great wrongs, just to report information that is verifiable using reliable sources. I will not be responding here further (for now) per the notice atop this section. Thanks. – Rhain☔ (he/him)07:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, please advise if IP users can participate in DRNs? Can't find any info besides that the filing user must be logged in. The IP user in question has called an administrator (Masem) in, and I'm afraid it might separate discussion into several unrelated threads
Also is ok in general to add users to open DRNs that are at risk of going stale, considering reaching consensus on the talk page would be quite unlikely? There should be a place to discuss things productively. --Moon darker (talk) 07:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First Statement by Moderator (Sweet Baby)
I am ready to act as the moderator for this case. Please read DRN Rule A and indicate that you agree to conform to the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion.
The purpose of article dispute resolution is to improve the article. So I am asking each editor to state, concisely, what they want to change in the article, or what they want left alone that another editor wants to change. Do not provide a long explanation of why you want or do not want the chance. We may or may not go into that later. Just tell what you want to change.
I agree to follow ground rules described in DRN Rule D and I understand that the ArbCom contentious topic sanctions are in effect.
I want to expand on current text of "Online backlash and harassment" part of the article. Ideally, by including information from primary sources to explain the reasoning behind actions of various gaming communities per talk page. If you believe this request is a viable one for RSN, it would be great.
Alternative 1 is to revert to this revision of the page and reconsider used sources for this particular article via RSN.
In its current state, the article seems to be about as neutral as it gets given the current set of sources. It still has factual problems that need to be addressed, for example: Within weeks, the group had more than 210,000 followers - it's not the group (which has 107k subscribers), it's the related curator - but that's on the "reliable"source, not to mention problems with more exceptional claims.
It's still pretty alarming that we've been discussing similar changes for almost a week and article editors refused to compromise, but now that problems with article were put under a magnifying glass by external actors, many issues were addressed overnight.
For now, I have exhausted all my energy to deal with further issues about this article.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Dispute over the origins of Matzoon. We have been having extensive discussion in the talk page whether or not Matzoon should be mentioned as a product of Georgian origin, alongside of Armenian origin or not. There are number of sources that mention the origins of the product as Georgian as well as Armenian. We need help resolving this dispute as the discussions are not going anywhere and because of the reason that opposition refuses to further discuss this issue.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Both countries should be included as origins of the product; As there are number of sources providing basis for this resolution.
Summary of dispute by Vanezi Astghik
I'm not the only user in the discussion and I will not be participating in this case for the following reasons: the discussion was opened only 5 days ago, imo it hasn't developed to the stage of requiring a DRN, the user still has not provided sources stating their claim of origin and mentions the same sources that don't support it here, and the user even tried to circumvent the discussion and their own DRN by requesting an extended confirmed edit (in the edit request they don't even mention the current discussion) with same unverifiable sources that were already discussed and shown not supporting their claim of origin - it resulted in a rejection by the edit request reviewer [29]. The kind of actions such as the latter (circumventing a discussion and requesting an edit despite users actively opposing them) additionally don't inspire me to participate in something initiated by this user. Vanezi (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Lemabeta
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
in the source it says: Springer. p. 212 - "Matzoon (En); mazun (Fr, De); matsun, matsoni, maconi. Short Description: "Of Armenian origin; Georgia, Caucasus (USSR); traditional product; the milk of ewes, goats, buffalo, or cows or mixtures thereof; yoghurt like product traditionally made from boiled milk and an undefined starter culture; firm consistency and acidic flavor."
My interpretation of the source is that the author names the countries from where the origins of Matzoon/Matsoni is from, thats why he mentions Georgia, Caucasus(USSR), alongside Armenia.
My oppositions opinion is that because it doesn't say specifically "Of Georgian origin" and says Georgia, Caucasus that it doesn't need to be mentioned in the article that origins of Matsoni are also from Georgia.
My opinion is also also agreed by the European Union, Switzerland, United Kingdom through a bi-lateral agreement about Geographical Indications registration[30]
who recognizes the patented copyright laws and geographical distribution indication of Matsoni.
"DESCRIPTION OF THE FINISHED PRODUCT AND RAW MATERIAL:
MATSONI is a Georgian traditional cultured milk product, which is prepared from the milk of cow, buffalo, goat, sometimes sheep or their mixing. The cultured milk fermentation gives the product named “Dedo”, which consists of bacterial strains, existed in the local area of Georgia.[31]
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF PRODUCTION:
Obtaining, processing and fermentation of milk for MATSONI production takes place in the whole territory of Georgia. Fermentation for obtaining of cultured milk product occurs by the “Dedo” consisting of local bacteria strains."[32]
Also the opposition, who are Armenians refuse to accept other kind of sources which also call Matsoni as "Georgian yoghurt", they delete the any attempt of writing it as "of Armenian and Georgian origins" even tho legally Georgia has more claim over it.
The sources they deleted are following: [33][34][35]
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed for now as inadequately filed. The filing editor has not included the other editor in the list of parties and has not notified them, although they have named them. Also, it appears that two other editors have now made comments on the article talk page. So, for now, the editors should discuss on the article talk page, and are reminded to be civil, and to comment on content, not contributors. If discussion including the new editors remains inconclusive in 48 hours, a new case request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I am concerned with User:DTParker1000's ongoing edits to Rio Grande 223 and similar pages such as Rio Grande 268. In my opinion the tone involves puffery and broad non-academic claims. I also raised complaints about the reliability of the sources used. I have removed DTParker1000's edits to the 223 page several times, and he has retorted that I am trying to delete the history of the subject. DTParker1000 has stated that he finds my view point on the relevant history to 223 to be too narrow, and dry focused on the mechanical history of the locomotive itself, and that his writing provides relevance to the history of the engine. I have retorted that his writing has caused scope creep, and burdens the article with a broad history lecture full of his opinions and biases that is irrelevant to the locomotive's actual historical importance. I have also contended that the photos of similar (but not the same) locomotives DTParker1000 has added also distract from the article's purported purpose to focus on 223, especially when 223 itself is adequately covered by the photos already in the article. DTParker1000 has also accused me of deleting talk page logs, which I believe is a false accusation.
After some back and forth on WikiProjectTrains and other pages such as Rio Grande 268, the debate escalated on the talk page for 223 with several other editors chiming in within the last few days regarding their opinion on the edits. With multiple editors now chiming in and sharing barbs, there is a lack of consensus on what to do with the 223 page, and it is causing contention with people removing or rewriting segments of DTParker1000's additions to the page. My own emotions are hot enough, that I figure that while I believe my concerns still stand, I need to take a step back and cool my own thoughts on the situation to allow for a more civil tone to enter the debate. A Third Opinion on the 268 page suggested we bring this as a DRN request to resolve it.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I have gotten very heated myself in this discussion and would appreciate a more neutral arbitrator to help civilly resolve this. While I do feel passionate about the subject, I admit I haven't been the most civil with DTParker1000 in all of my interactions so far. We need to resolve the scope and content decisions on the 223 page, and determine how to best represent the history of the locomotive beyond DTParker and I's opposing views on how to do it.
Rio Grande 223 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as this is not the proper venue to appeal Ukrainian Wikipedia blocks or any Wikipedia blocks for that matter. The editor in question should file appeals following the procedure outlined to them when they were blocked in that wiki. — ♠Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 23:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Unblock my account and have another reviewer verify my contribution.
Telegram discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since 2021, a page that was relatively positive and informational has had a series of edits that introduced negative bias. At this point the page serves mainly to discredit the practice of trap-neuter-return.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Looking for a neutral third party to mediate so this page can function as a neutral information source. Of the two editors involved, one is positive about TNR (myself) and the other is negative. Need to find the neutral middle ground.
Summary of dispute by Geogene
Academic sources have called the subject of this article "cat hoarding without walls" [37] and have suggested it may be enabling mental illness (How is the person who must save 25 to 30 cats in their home different from the person who sees themselves as the savior of 25 to 30
cats in a park? Some “cat people” may be “collectors,” and it is possible that TNR is enabling and supporting some people who need psychologic counseling and assistance.) [38]. To quote another paper, this one by a CDC researcher, Such programs generate support and enthusiasm from
many animal welfare advocates, yet these managed feral cat “colonies” are not innocuous.
Feral cats can cause considerable mortality to local wildlife (Jessup, 2004, Hawkins et al.,
1999, Baker et al., 2008), act as reservoirs for feline-specific diseases (Cohn, 2011, Al-
Kappany et al., 2011, Nutter et al., 2004a), and transmit zoonotic diseases to humans (Nutter
et al., 2004a, McElroy et al., 2010, CDC, 1995, CDC, 2008b). Additionally, claims by TNR
advocates that managed colonies can reduce feral cat populations and control rodents are
contradicted by research (Hawkins et al., 1999, Castillo & Clarke, 2003, Longcore et al.,
2009, Gunther et al., 2011). [39] And then we have this recent New Yorker piece, [40], which presents the TNR movement as not based on science but driven by an ideology that is unable to compromise. So what basis is there to expect a positive article? Geogene (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
trap-neuter-return discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
And additionally, I would like to point out this well-intentioned joke of yours on your talk page, where you told the opposition, I don't recommend going down that alley. If that alley has rats, any community cats can handle them better than you can[42]. Reliable Sources say that the term "community cats" is misleading, as it's a partisan misnomer used by TNR advocates to normalize cats in the outdoors, and falsely imply that they exist with the consent of the local community, and/or that the community has some kind of responsibility towards them, [43], and/or that it is "a message to the community" that the cats must be accepted if they're wanted there or not [44]. Additionally, cats, whatever you want to call them, are not effective against rats. [45]. I'm a little concerned to see a moderator on NPOV in the TNR article, repeating two different pro-TNR talking points unbidden. Let me just point out also that the internet in general loves cats so much that it doesn't take criticism of them well, and this is presenting issues here on Wikipedia already. Geogene (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon While I can't choose what option they'll take next, I think that, as a new editor with about 30 edits, they would do better learning the WP:NPOV policy than studying up on every possible avenue of dispute resolution. And then, they could consider responding to points I've already made with policy-based argumentation to defend their position. Geogene (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (TNR)
I don't think that I will be accepting this case for moderated discussion. I am not sure what the next step should be, and so am not yet closing this case. It does not appear that mediation is likely to work, because both editors are approaching mediation with wariness and possible hostility. I see that both editors have established positions that are far apart on the overall outlook toward trap-neuter-return, largely because they are far apart on outlooks on the animals (feral cats) that are the subject of TNR. It appears that there may not be enough trust between the two editors to be able conduct mediation without checking on things and looking at the rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted on the Teahouse to request another moderator be added to this Dispute Resolution ticket with a short summary and also updated the trap-neuter-return Talk page with the current actions for transparency and record-keeping. Nylnoj (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One possibility would be for the editors to find another moderator. I have no particular advice on how to do that, except that they could request one at the Teahouse or Village Pump (Miscellaneous). (I would be glad to have another moderator to share the case workload with.) However, I am not sure that another moderator will be able to bridge the distrust between these two editors, especially now that they know that their talk page will be watched and their humor taken issue with. Another option is WP:ANI, but that is often problematic.
I have followed the page for Mainstreet Research of and on for the past 7 years. I noticed that shortly after a polling error occurred in Calgary in 2017, that a full section was added to that company page referencing the error, then in 2019 when another error took place, it was added.
As someone who works in this field in Canada, I am familiar with both polling arror and the industry. Instead of being considered a subject matter expert, I am accused of conflict howevere. When I made the initial edit, I posted this message as the basis for the edits to the editor who reverted the document (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ontlib20)
I have cited every other public opinion firm page available, and cited "Controversies" each was involved with, yet this one firm is the only one with a section dedicated to it's polling errors. All polling firms have errors, it is a statistical gusrantee that this happens.
I am of the opinion that this is malicious in nature, otherwise even one other firm would have a similar reference.
Now I am being threatened with having my editing ability restricted. I have clearly explained multiple times with citations on why I believe the edit is reasonable.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
The discussion is here, it escalated to a threat pretty quickly, I don't believe either editor is familiar with either a) Canada or b) the polling industry and it appears nobody took the time to read my detailed response.
Allow my edits and stop threatening me, I have cited all the other industry pages, this feels like personal and malicious content. Or ask the editors who are insisting on the section staying to post all the polling errors for all polling firms, be consistent.
The dispute relates to the page of Ziyavudin Magomedov, a Russian oligarch imprisoned in Russia. I’ve had several disagreements with a fellow editor, Odlainer2024, over recent months and despite the fact we’ve traded several long messages on the Talk Page we haven’t reached a consensus. I’ve tried to integrate many of Odlainer2024’s suggestions, but we don’t seem to be getting anywhere. The dispute is quite complex, but written as briefly as possible it essentially boils down to:
• The length of the lead section, and the prominence/due weight given to claims which are either: a) not relevant enough for the first paragraph, b) reproduced in a very similar form elsewhere in the article or c) overly detailed/obscure for the lead section.
• Along similar lines, there’s a question about the due weight/prominence given to certain material. This is primarily within the "Career" section, as well as the proposed “proximity to Putin’s regime” section. This proposed section details every potential connection Magomedov, or family members had to the “Russian elite” prior to his arrest which I’ve argued creates a misleading impression for readers. A very detailed breakdown of the problems here, and Odlainer2024’s responses can be found on the Talk Page.
• The length and use of quotes which are often several lines long and not properly summarised and contextualised. This means that the contents of the quotes are often deployed as an appendage to re-iterate/emphasise a particular narrative.
There are also disagreements about the approach to editing the page, and in some places, the actual content/sourcing and language used. I’m happy to provide more detail, but there is already a very detailed Talk Page discussion. The most relevant material will probably be found in recent posts.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Hello, I and others attempted to reach a WP:Consensus regarding the role of Belarus in the article Russo-Ukrainian War, but the issue is quite complicated and requires a strong, broad and long-term WP:Consensus. I think that in the infobox (and elsewhere in this article) Belarus should be described as a "co-belligerent" or as "Supported by" in the side of Russia in this war (e.g. like that) because of Belarus exceptional role in this war which is already more than just "Supplied by" (e.g. military hardware to Russia).
The role of Belarus in this war is exceptional because during the highly intensified phase of this war since 24 February 2022 (see: Russian invasion of Ukraine), the Russian Army forces were allowed to: 1) invade Ukraine from the Belarusian territory through ground (1, 2); 2) Russian jets have taken off from Belarus (from Belarusian airbases) to subsequently enter Ukraine from Belarusian airspace (3); 3) Belarus allowed Russia full access to its military airbases for Russian military aircraft to launch aircraft and its army installations to shoot artillery and missiles from Belarusian territory towards Ukraine (4, 5); 4) see more info here: Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Consequently, although no evidence was collected that the Armed Forces of Belarus themselves invaded Ukraine (which would make Belarus a full belligerent in this war), the role of Belarus is clearly not equal to other military suppliers (e.g. United States/Germany to Ukraine; Iran/North Korea to Russia) because they have never allowed to use their territories for direct military actions against Ukraine/Russia (and their armies), while Belarus allowed to do that.
Many sources describe Belarus as a "co-belligerent" in this war: Institute for the Study of War (6, 7), Ukrainian sources (8, 9), and others (e.g. 10, 11).
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I think that a qualified help is necessary to start a broad WP:RFC discussion (by informing as many users as possible through Wiki projects, etc.) and reach a WP:CONS. I believe that in the upcoming RFC other users should be informed about my arguments provided here in the "Dispute overview" section. To simplify the upcoming RFC voting, I think that the users should be given three options regarding the role of Belarus: A) Co-belligerent; B) Supported by; C) Supplied by.
Summary of dispute by Mzajac
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Slatersteven
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
At its heart, the issue really is not about Belarus, but attempts to claim parity with NATO.
Belarus allowed Russian forces to launch attacks from its soil but did not (as far as I am aware) participate. As such it both did more and less than just supplying arms. This creates a rather odd situation where they are not (technically) a belligerent but also are not uninvolved. Thus is seems that they need a middle-ground approach. Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Parham wiki
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by RadioactiveBoulevardier
I doubt that another round of discussions will forge a clearer consensus at this time, despite the passage of some real time and the topic-banning of a major and…polarizing contributor. I think Slatersteven is right about “wait for the historians” (which means big thick hardcover books of sober analysis, not ideology-laced works like those of Timothy Snyder and the infelicitously named Serhii Plokhy).
It sounds like Pofka wants Belarus listed as a co-belligerent. This is, as Cinderella157 said, WP:EXCEPTIONAL (since the term has a specific formal definition). The term has occasionally been bandied about by biased sources like our old friends at ISW (which is, last I checked, still a post-neocon Washington think tank) and stuff but it would be functionally equivalent to listing Belarus along with Russia with no caveats.
This possibility was at multiple points raised by Mzajac and, unlike the use of “supported by” to represent Belarus’ unique status during the initial invasion, was not endorsed by a plurality.
On other pages I’ve already stated quite a lot (although by the metrics a fraction of the amount several others have written). I don’t see the point in rehashing old arguments when diffs are forever.
In fact, I would like to continue the slow fade from talk pages in this topic area. I have better things to do –having already fallen down the rabbit hole that is EE studies at college, I don’t feel like being contrarian and realistic is consistent anymore with the part of me that enjoys sipping tea with cute refugees and erudite dissidents.
I hope some of this late-night stream-of-consciousness has been helpful to the DR process. While I’m not leaving RUSUKR entirely, I’ve pretty much had more than enough of the talk page atmosphere.
Summary of dispute by Cinderella157
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Slatersteven summarises the situation quite well. The evidence omits where Pofka added Belarus to the infobox under the heading of Co-belligerence. It was deleted by me with the summary: A WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. The status of belligerence is not supported by the body of the article per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. There is nuance to co-belligerence here. It is not consistent with the usual meaning - engaged in the fighting. From the discussions, there is clearly no appetite to add Belarus to the infobox as a co-belligerent because it is too nuanced in this instance. Supported by is depricated unless there is an affirmative consensus (RfC) to use it as in Russian invasion of Ukraine. As Russian invasion of Ukraine is a daughter article, of the Russo-Ukrainian War, I am in two minds that the RfC at the invasion article supports inclusion in the war article but other editors have indicated the need for a separate RfC in recent discussions. That is fine. Just start the RfC using the RfC at the invasion article as the template. On a side note, Supplied by in the war article is clearly and end-around the deprecation of "supported by", contrary to the spirit and intent of the RfC deprecating "supported by". It should be removed. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, the first question is whether Belarus should be listed at all. The second is how. But the distinction might be moot. My observation is that an RfC to list Belarus under "supported by" would likely gain consensus. An RfC with multiple options would likely result in "no consensus" just because that is commonly how non-binary RfCs conclude. A binary RfC for anything other than "supported by" will not, in my considered opinion, result in "consensus for". This seems to me to be an unusual DR, since the solution is evident - an RfC. It appears to be a case of asking advice on what the RfC should ask, when this usually occurs through TP discussion. My advice is to make an RfC to list Belarus under "supported by". It is better to go with the flow than to try to push shit up-hill with a pointy stick. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Russo-Ukrainian War discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Ukrainian War)
I am ready to act as the moderator for discussion that may lead to an RFC. We will use DRN Rule D because this dispute involves a contentious topic. Some topic areas in Wikipedia are subject to battleground editing because they have been real battlegrounds in the past. Eastern Europe has been a battleground too many times in the past century and is the bloodiest battleground of the twenty-first century. If you agree to take part in this discussion, you are agreeing that Eastern Europe is a contentious topic.
@Robert McClenon: Yes, I fully agree that this contentious topic is highly problematic due to likely disruptive editing and that is why I have requested assistance to reach a long-standing WP:CONS about the role/status of Belarus in this war in order to prevent battleground editing in this article in the future. Currently, I have no additional questions to you Robert.
By the way, in June 2023 Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko claimed that "the only mistake we made’ was not finishing off Ukraine with Russia in 2014" (see: full article), which makes it clear that Lukashenko also tractate the current Ukraine as the enemy of Belarus and seeks for Ukraine's defeat militarily (clearly acting as co-belligerent). I think "co-belligerent" is a suitable middle ground approach for Belarus between belligerents (Russia and Ukraine) and military suppliers (United States, France, Germany, Iran, North Korea, etc.). -- Pofka (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by moderator (Ukrainian War)
One editor has made a statement and thinks that Belarus should be listed as a co-belligerent. There was an opening comment that Belarus should be listed as providing support. If there are no other viewpoints presented, the RFC will ask the community whether to list Belarus as providing support or as a co-belligerent.
A proposed RfC must explicitly state something to effect: "Should Belarus be listed in the belligerent section of the info box with Russia: a) no, b) without qualification, c) under a heading of Co-belligerent, or d) under a heading supported by".
To choice a), listing Belarus as providing support or as a co-belligerent is not actually a binary question. Belarus is not listed at present. Continuing to not list it is an option.
To choice b) where multiple belligerents are listed in the same column of the infobox, they are ipso facto co-belligerents, by which, listing Belarus under an explicit heading of "co-belligerent" is redundant, if not ambiguous.
Trying to list Belarus under an explicit heading of co-belligerent is ambiguous and would attempt to convey nuance for which the infobox is totally unsuited. Such a proposal will (in my humble and experienced opinion) be shot down in flames faster than a SCUD missile heading for Jerusalem. If Pofka wants to continue to push this uphill with a pointy stick, then all I can say is knock your socks off (ie - go ahead). Cinderella157 (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second statement by moderator (Ukrainian War)
Is there agreement that the RFC should state something to effect: "Should Belarus be listed in the belligerent section of the info box with Russia: a) no, b) without qualification, c) under a heading of Co-belligerent, or d) under a heading supported by".?
@Robert McClenon: I mostly agree with the upcoming RFC voting choices suggestion described in your second statement (according to Cinderella157's first statement above), but I think that Belarus should be described as "co-belligerent" not only in the infobox of this article, but elsewhere in the article as well (otherwise it would likely violate infobox guidelines). Moreover, I repeat once again that information and sources from my initial statement ("Dispute overview" section) should be also provided in the upcoming RFC (before these a, b, c, d voting choices) because many users-voters might not be fully familiar with the role of Belarus in this war and why it is significantly different from other military suppliers (e.g. United States/Iran). Here is how I think the RFC should look like:
Extended content
This RFC was initiated because it is necessary to reach a strong WP:CONS in article Russo-Ukrainian War regarding the role of Belarus in this war.
The role of Belarus in this war is quite exceptional because during the highly intensified phase of this war since 24 February 2022 (see: Russian invasion of Ukraine) the Russian Army forces were allowed to: 1) invade Ukraine from the Belarusian territory through ground (1, 2); 2) Russian jets have taken off from Belarus (from Belarusian airbases) to subsequently enter Ukraine from Belarusian airspace (3); 3) Belarus allowed Russia full access to its military airbases for Russian military aircraft to launch aircraft and its army installations to shoot artillery and missiles from Belarusian territory towards Ukraine (4, 5); 4) see more information in dedicated article: Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Consequently, although no evidence was collected that the Armed Forces of Belarus themselves invaded Ukraine (which would possibly make Belarus a full belligerent in this war), the role of Belarus is possibly not equal to other military suppliers (e.g. United States/Germany to Ukraine; Iran/North Korea to Russia) because they have never allowed to use their territories for direct military actions against Ukraine/Russia (and their armies), while Belarus allowed to do that. Moreover, in June 2023 Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko claimed that "the only mistake we made’ was not finishing off Ukraine with Russia in 2014" (see: full article).
Popular sources already describe Belarus as a "co-belligerent" in this war: Institute for the Study of War (6, 7), Ukrainian sources (e.g. 8, 9), and others (e.g. 10, 11).
Please provide your opinion how Belarus should be described in article Russo-Ukrainian War (in the infobox and elsewhere in this article where events since 24 February 2022 related with Belarus are described):
A) not as belligerent (in the infobox and content of this article);
B) without qualification (in the infobox and content of this article);
C) as co-belligerent in Russia's side (in the infobox and content of this article);
D) under a heading "supported by" in Russia's side in the infobox and as military supplier of Russia in content of this article.
I have created a draft RFC for review, at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/RFC on Listing of Belarus. Please review and comment on it. It is not an active RFC, and has tags to deactivate it until it is moved to the article talk page. Do not !vote in it. Comment on it here, not in it.
@Robert McClenon: If you think that a more extensive explanation why the role of Belarus is likely exceptional in this war should not be included, then I think the RFC draft (Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/RFC on Listing of Belarus) should be at least modified like that: "Should Belarus be listed in the infobox (and accordingly described in other parts of the article concerning the events since 24 January 2024): (a). no (as at present); (b) as supported by; (c) as a co-belligerent; (d) without qualification?" The RFC should not be simplified only towards the infobox but must cover the whole article because with the provided RFC draft of yours, Robert, we will most likely be voting to violate/ignore WP:INFOBOX guidelines or no because information provided in the infobox must be described in the body of the article as well. We cannot vote to whenever describe Belarus as a co-belligerent in the infobox only, but not elsewhere in the article, so I disagree with your currently proposed RFC draft, Robert. Please add my suggested green text with a wiki link to article Russian invasion of Ukraine to RFC draft and then I will support it. -- Pofka (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth statement by moderator (Ukrainian War)
User:Pofka - Please do not attribute positions to the moderator or lecture the moderator. I have no specific desire to present the role of Belarus in this war as exceptional. I think that you do, and I am trying to work to ask the community if they agree with you. If you want to help me help you, you can do it by not being harsh in your correction.
I have revised the draft RFC in accordance with your comments, and am now asking you and the other editors to comment further on whether it is ready to go live.
Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth statements by editors (Ukrainian War)
Fourth statement by Pofka
@Robert McClenon: Sorry if I sounded harsh. I was just trying to explain how I think the question in the upcoming RFC should be presented. I fully agree with the updated RFC draft, but I think there is a grammatic mistake with that dot between "in the infobox. and accordingly". Shouldn't it be a comma or brackets? -- Pofka (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fifth statement by moderator (Ukrainian War)
I have unarchived this thread. If there are no further comments on the draft RFC within 24 hours, I will move it into the article talk page and enable it to be a live RFC.
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - - - - -
The CAHSR Authority has requested that trainsets built for the line meet the following specifications, among others: a maximum testing speed of 242 mph (389 km/h), a lifespan of at least 30 years, the ability to operate two trainsets as a single "consist" (a long train) which is no longer than about 680 feet (210 m), have at least 450 seats and carry eight bicycles, earthquake safety systems for safe stopping and exiting, business class and ordinary seating as well as child-friendly family areas, food service, and on-board Wifi and train information displays.
[PP] The train design, its development program, and procurement timeline is shown in more detail in a presentation to the Board in February 2024.[61]
- - - - - - - -
Does the second paragraph contravene Wikipedia rules? This is an example of an important issue, since there are a number of links to external sources where more information on that topic is available.
Thanks for your input.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:California High-Speed Rail#Clean-up and Harmonization
Talk:California High-Speed Rail#This article is a mess
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
(1) I think there is a great deal of value in providing references to more information in external links.
(2) CAHSR is undergoing a lot of different activities now. The project is not static, so an entirely historic perspective is inadequate. So, I think that timely/transitory information (which will eventually be deleted/replaced) should be provided.
My inclination is to try to do these, not whether or not they should be done.
What is the consensus on this?
Summary of dispute by Nweil
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Shannon1
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by XavierItzm
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Citing
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DracaenaGuianensis
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
California High-Speed Rail discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
– Discussion in progress.
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– New discussion.