Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions
→Talk:Arrow (season 1)#First name or last name?: new section |
Herr Gruber (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 163: | Line 163: | ||
*'''Volunteer note''' - The preconditions for discussion here have been met, consisting of inconclusive discussion on the article talk page and notice to the other editors of this filing. Participation in this forum is voluntary, so we are waiting for responses from the other editors. Due to the large number of editors, if discussion here is also inconclusive, [[WP:RFM|formal mediation]] may be considered. Editors are reminded that to be civil and concise, both on the article talk page and here. Editors are reminded that any discussion of firearms control legislation or gun politics is subject to [[WP:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] (but that is a procedure for expedited sanctions against disruptive or tendentious editing, not for suppressing collaborative editing). [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 15:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Volunteer note''' - The preconditions for discussion here have been met, consisting of inconclusive discussion on the article talk page and notice to the other editors of this filing. Participation in this forum is voluntary, so we are waiting for responses from the other editors. Due to the large number of editors, if discussion here is also inconclusive, [[WP:RFM|formal mediation]] may be considered. Editors are reminded that to be civil and concise, both on the article talk page and here. Editors are reminded that any discussion of firearms control legislation or gun politics is subject to [[WP:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] (but that is a procedure for expedited sanctions against disruptive or tendentious editing, not for suppressing collaborative editing). [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 15:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''Volunteer note''' - Will the editors please keep their comments prior to the case being opened to a minimum, and confine them to content? I have one question for each editor before a moderator opens the case: Are each of you willing to engage in moderated discussion? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Volunteer note''' - Will the editors please keep their comments prior to the case being opened to a minimum, and confine them to content? I have one question for each editor before a moderator opens the case: Are each of you willing to engage in moderated discussion? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC) |
||
:I don't really see the point; there's already a consensus here that Felsic's edits do not belong on the page, he seems to just be trying to go somewhere else to get someone to overrule that. [[User:Herr Gruber|Herr Gruber]] ([[User talk:Herr Gruber|talk]]) 07:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== ill-considered accusations of impropriety == |
== ill-considered accusations of impropriety == |
Revision as of 07:49, 24 July 2016
|
Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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.
|
Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
Rafida | In Progress | Albertatiran (t) | 32 days, 15 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 5 hours | Albertatiran (t) | 1 hours |
Methylphenidate | Closed | Димитрий Улянов Иванов (t) | 8 days, 11 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 11 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 11 hours |
AT&T Corporation | Closed | Emiya1980 (t) | 2 days, 8 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 1 days, 13 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 1 days, 13 hours |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 02:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Current disputes
Talk:Capital punishment#Blanket deletion.
Both involved editors, including the one who filed the case, have refused to participate. I do not recommend formal mediation, because it seems likely that they will refuse to participate again. It is not clear whether the issue has been resolved. If it hasn't, I recommend an RFC. KSFTC 17:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:SIG MCX#Criminal Use
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Felsic2 (talk · contribs)
- Faceless Enemy (talk · contribs)
- Miguel Escopeta (talk · contribs)
- Herr Gruber (talk · contribs)
- RunnyAmiga (talk · contribs)
- DHeyward (talk · contribs)
- Therubicon (talk · contribs)
- Thomas.W (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
There is a dispute over whether to mention the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, the worst mass shooting in modern US history, in the article about the main weapon used, the SIG MCX. The weapon's use has been discussed in many reliable, mainstream sources, has affected the sucess of the manufacturer, and has been a factor in the passage of gun control legislation. The MCX article was only created following the shooting, and the weapon is not especially notable for anything else. No one has suggested any compromise text.
- @Felsic2: I think I've asked this before so if you've answered it, I didn't see it and I'll retire in shame. To you, SIG MCX right now doesn't pass muster because the Orlando shooting isn't mentioned there. If someone had created it exactly like it is now before the shooting, would you have nominated it for deletion? I honestly believe the non-Orlando sources I found (linked below) confer notability. Am I wrong? Aren't Guns and Ammo, American Rifleman, etc. reliable sources with enough visibility that they confer notability? RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- @RunnyAmiga: No need to retire. Perhaps I should have left out the part about the article being created as a result of the shooting. Ultimately, that doesn't matter. While the MCX may meet the notability threshold based purely on publications devoted to firearms, in the general mainstream the weapon is only known for this one event.
- The core issue, I believe, is compliance with WP:NPOV and specifically WP:DUE. If there are a hundred sources talking about the weapon in the context of the Orlando shooting, then we're violating NPOV by omitting that information. A secondary but related issue, which I've amended below, is the determination of which sources may be used for weapons articles. If we exclude material about real-world uses of the weapon, and if we exclude mainstream sources, then we're creating a walled garden of interest only to gun enthusiasts and collectors. Felsic2 (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- If we get rid of stuff that has no interest to anybody outside of enthusiasts, I'll get to work deleting about 90% of all articles on here about anime because I, like a majority of people, don't watch anime and I don't understand almost any of that stuff. This seems to be decently-sourced but is this anything anybody but the most hardcore fans care about? Nobody's disputing that we can't use non-criminal mainstream attention as a standard because for all but a few guns, there's really no such thing. And if you're right, that real-world usage and subsequent media attention are what determine notability, you're talking about going down a really, really dark path because we'd have to have some kind of minimum standard. If a wife comes home and shoots her cheating husband and his mistress with, to take a redlink example, a Mauser P04 Naval Luger, that obviously wouldn't count. But what would? Seriously: in your head right now, come up with an answer. And before you type something up, are you sure that's where the line should be, and had the crime been just a tiny bit less severe, or had one fewer article been published in the paper, that would be the difference maker between creating an article and not creating one? RunnyAmiga (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Felsic2: I think I've asked this before so if you've answered it, I didn't see it and I'll retire in shame. To you, SIG MCX right now doesn't pass muster because the Orlando shooting isn't mentioned there. If someone had created it exactly like it is now before the shooting, would you have nominated it for deletion? I honestly believe the non-Orlando sources I found (linked below) confer notability. Am I wrong? Aren't Guns and Ammo, American Rifleman, etc. reliable sources with enough visibility that they confer notability? RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Oops, this should wait until the volunteer starts the case
|
---|
|
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
There has been talk page discussion.
How do you think we can help?
An agreement on how WP:DUE should be applied to article content would be helpful.
- And, whether only sources that are specifically about firearms, and written by firearms experts, can be used, or if academic references and mainstream journalism are allowed as well. Felsic2 (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Or more specifically if journalists who transparently have no idea what they're talking about (with the one you prefer to bring up containing a major error in the title of the piece) are valid sources on what they're talking about. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Faceless Enemy
Summary of dispute by Miguel Escopeta
Summary of dispute by Herr Gruber
Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
USER:Felsic2 is a disruptive editor whose edits consist entirely of uninformed gun control POV-pushing in articles where it has no place; he wishes for a "list of crimes" section to be associated with a couple of firearms the US gun control movement currently dislikes based on ignoring the guidelines at WP:UNDUE re: recentism and the guidelines at WP:GUN re: criminal use not being notable by itself. When this was rejected by multiple editors in multiple locations he tried to sneak the same non-expert sources back in on the MCX page using a "reception" section which was mostly quoting PR fluff and wouldn't belong in the article even without those sources. His arguments generally consist of ignoring everything his opponents say and repeating what amounts to "but muh sources!" and a lot of wikilawyering. When users get frustrated at his ignoring them, he then plays the martyr card. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC) |
- Regarding the claims made above: the claim that it has resulted in the passage of legislation is false (the legislation in question is 12 bills in California introduced last December), the "reliable, mainstream sources" are news articles (hence the notes regarding WP:UNDUE guidelines on recentism) written by laymen with no meaningful expertise on firearms or crime, and there is no real reason to have the section Felsic2 desires when weapons like the AK / AKM series (which have been used in even worse crimes) do not; usage sections are not a standard feature of firearms articles since reliable sources on firearms do not feature such information (even Thompson SMG devotes all of two sentences to criminal use, due to referencing a gun history book entirely about it). The rifle itself is notable for being used by special forces units and being highly successful for the manufacturer. Herr Gruber (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by RunnyAmiga
To me, there are two questions about weight and notability that, if answered fairly, mean this whole thing will stay stalled. There's a solution but it's not this infinite back-and-forth between everybody listed here.
1. Had the MCX not been Mateen's primary gun, would it get an article? Felsic2 seems to believe no; I disagree. There are reviews from reliable publications (Guns and Ammo, Gun Digest, etc.) that ought to be enough to say it's notable. That the MCX didn't have an article until shortly after the shooting proves little except how behind Wikipedia is on this topic.
2. Had Mateen's primary gun been an obscure, rare gun built by a boutique company, would it get an article? Consensus seems to be no; I disagree. This discussion can get grounded in policy until it's dust yet it would still be strange that a gun that suddenly faced publicity like this wouldn't be considered notable. And if this is correct, then so is Felsic2: it makes no sense that this media firestorm doesn't get a word.
This whole thing could have been avoided if Wikipedia had a few high-output editors who specialize in firearms. I don't know if it's possible to recruit people like that but if it is, we should. Barring that, the encyclopedia will suffer because the SIG MCX article, and probably lots of others like it, should have been created long before June 20.
That said, I moved away from that discussion primarily because the pile-on by (mostly) Herr Gruber, Miguel Escopeta, and Thomas.W was, for lack of a better phrase, fucking gross. (Here's a microcosm: "[t]rying to cheat your way around the WP:GUN policy," "fanboy cruft," "you're just a big time sink for other editors..." Do any of you actually read this shit before you post it?) Even with this escalation to dispute resolution, it's inevitable that these editors are about to come in, re-state everything, refuse to compromise, throw bombs, and accomplish nothing. RunnyAmiga (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Back-and-forth discussion hidden. Keep comments here to a minimum until a volunteer opens the case, and then follow the instructions of the volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Summary of dispute by DHeyward
Summary of dispute by Therubicon
Summary of dispute by Thomas.W
I'll write a longer comment tomorrow, when I expect to have more time, but I want to point out that this isn't just about the SIG MCX but just as much about the AR-15, where Felsic2 has been pushing the exact same agenda for quite some time now, refusing to listen to what other editors say, refusing to accept that other editors don't share their opinion, and either not being able to understand what they're being told when pointed to policies (in this case primarily WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS), or not wanting to understand what they're being told. Just like on SIG MCX. Making it, IMHO, a clear case of both tendentious editing and refusal to get the point. Thomas.W talk 19:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Talk:SIG MCX#Criminal Use discussion
- Volunteer note - The preconditions for discussion here have been met, consisting of inconclusive discussion on the article talk page and notice to the other editors of this filing. Participation in this forum is voluntary, so we are waiting for responses from the other editors. Due to the large number of editors, if discussion here is also inconclusive, formal mediation may be considered. Editors are reminded that to be civil and concise, both on the article talk page and here. Editors are reminded that any discussion of firearms control legislation or gun politics is subject to discretionary sanctions (but that is a procedure for expedited sanctions against disruptive or tendentious editing, not for suppressing collaborative editing). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Volunteer note - Will the editors please keep their comments prior to the case being opened to a minimum, and confine them to content? I have one question for each editor before a moderator opens the case: Are each of you willing to engage in moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't really see the point; there's already a consensus here that Felsic's edits do not belong on the page, he seems to just be trying to go somewhere else to get someone to overrule that. Herr Gruber (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
ill-considered accusations of impropriety
Closed as conduct dispute. Report incivility, including allegations of sockpuppetry, to WP:ANI. Report actual use of sockpuppets to WP:SPI. This forum is for content disputes. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Arrow (season 1)#First name or last name?
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- HamedH94 (talk · contribs)
- AussieLegend (talk · contribs)
- TenTonParasol (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
my argument is that according to WP:FORMAL, it's better to use last names for characters, including fictional ones, as much as we can, though it's not mandatory since WP:FORMAL is an essay. the opposite party's main argument is that we should mention the characters the way they're called more often in the script of the work of fiction itself, while they fail to say why and according to what.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
we've discussed it extensively at the talk page as you can see. they have stated irrational arguments and then left the discussion. they refuse to talk while they want to enforce their position.
How do you think we can help?
maybe as more experienced wikipedians, you can find a compromise. because i'm tired of repeating the obvious.