Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
 |
Skip to open disputes • skip to newest thread • |
|
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, mediation, 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. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button The DRN noticeboard has a rotating co-ordinator, whose is to help keep the noticeboard organised, ensuring disputes are attended to in a timely manner, are escalated to alternative forums as required, and that new volunteers get any assistance that they need. The coordinator also collects monthly metrics for the noticeboard. The current co-ordinator is TransporterMan (talk · contribs · email). |
|||||
| Do you need assistance? | Would you like to help? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing. 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 (~~~~). If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
|
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over this page 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:
|
||||
 Archived DRN Cases |
|---|
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 |
|
|
| This page is archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Contents
- 1 Current disputes
- 1.1 Talk:Gog and Magog and Talk:Koka and Vikoka
- 1.1.1 Summary of dispute by Xinheart
- 1.1.2 Talk:Gog and Magog and Talk:Koka and Vikoka discussion
- 1.1.2.1 My observations of the dispute and of Xinheart and PiCo
- 1.1.2.2 First statement by moderator
- 1.1.2.3 First statements by editors
- 1.1.2.4 Second statement by moderator
- 1.1.2.5 Second statements by editors
- 1.1.2.6 Third statement by moderator
- 1.1.2.7 Third statements by editors
- 1.1.2.8 Fourth statement by moderator
- 1.1.2.9 Fourth statements by editors
- 1.1.2.10 Fifth statement by moderator
- 1.1.2.11 Fifth statement by editors
- 1.1.2.12 Sixth statement by moderator
- 1.1.2.13 Sixth statements by editors
- 1.2 Talk:New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany#up to now
- 1.3 Talk:Daniel Holtzclaw#Recent_changes_.282.29
- 1.4 Talk:Canadian dollar
- 1.5 Kapu (caste)
- 1.6 User talk:RyanTQuinn
- 1.7 Laksa
- 1.8 Talk:List of state leaders in 2015
- 1.9 Talk:Jewish Defense_League#Organizations_designated_as_terrorist_in_North_America
- 1.10 Talk:tvOS
- 1.1 Talk:Gog and Magog and Talk:Koka and Vikoka
Current disputes[edit]
Talk:Gog and Magog and Talk:Koka and Vikoka[edit]
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. |
No response from filing editor about whether the August RFC was applicable. The filing editor is free to offer another RFC, but is advised that this is likely to be viewed as tendentious. The editors can request formal mediation, but that will require that they work with the mediator in a way that they haven't worked with the mediator here. Disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview This dispute covers to two articles, Gog and Magog and Koka and Vikoka. The issue is essentially one: User:Xinheart wishes to include material to the effect that there are "similarities" between the names Gog and Magog and Koka and Vikoka, and that scholars have made "comparisons" between two legendary walls, one in Christian/Muslim legend, the other in Hindu cosmology. My position is that these two ideas are NOT held by current scholarship in the relevant areas of biblical studies, Islamic studies, Sanskrit studies, or mythological/folkloric studies. They are, in short, non-notable. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive Talk-page discussion; previous RfC (on Gog and Magog talk page). How do you think we can help? Is this idea - that there is a connection between the names Gog/Magog and Koka/Vikoka, and also between the "wall of Dhul Qarnayn" and the Hindu world-wall - one that should be in the article? Summary of dispute by Xinheart[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Hi, This is the second dispute resolution raised by PiCo (talk · contribs) on the same subject. The last one goes back to July 2015 and involved other respectable and learned wp contributors @Snow_Rise (talk · contribs), @Ian.thomson (talk · contribs), @TwoHorned (talk · contribs) and may be an anonymous IP. It can be consulted here, in the TP (the title of the section was set up by PiCo (talk · contribs) in a ironical manner on purpose, that was noted by the others participants). The conclusion written in August 2015 was that no formal consensus reached, but "involved editors seem to have reached consensus on alternative wording". Basically, it was admitted that the introduction I proposed, written differently, is acceptable and involves notable authors in the field of metaphysics and symbolic studies. Despite this, PiCo (talk · contribs) never admitted the arguments of other contributors, and reverted one more time, and here again in December 2015. The basic argument has been said by Ian.thomson (talk · contribs) here where it is found that the introduction of René Guénon's text is justified and that author notable. Other related sources are mentioned in that section of the TP. I have nothing to add to what has been said before. PiCo (talk · contribs) should accept once the arguments given by the other non-partisan contributors and the conclusion reached previously. Xinheart (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC) Talk:Gog and Magog and Talk:Koka and Vikoka discussion[edit]Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I've pinged them in case they would like to join but I have not placed a notification on their respective talk pages. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC); I would also like to state that I am neither accepting nor declining the case, 04:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC) My observations of the dispute and of Xinheart and PiCo[edit]Hi folks. Very pressed for time at present, and much of what I have found for the project is divided still further by some involved projects and discussions, so I will try to comment here once at length to provide my opinion of the dispute and the parties, but I will probably not comment further unless anyone has any really pressing questions. Apologies at the outset for the probable length here. I'll begin this noting that I don't think the content question is too complex, and those who want to understand it are best served by reviewing the thread. I came to the thread via RfC notice just after the article had been protected by KrakatoaKatie, following a brief edit war between PiCo and Xinheart. Aside from the two of them, about half dozen other editors took part in the RfC discussion (which PiCo opened), most of them summoned by bot like myself, having had no prior exposure to the dispute, but also a pair of IPs (one of which may have been Xinheart, who registered during the discussion). None of those of us who arrived felt that either disputant was particularly in the right concerning how they regarded the sources and the disputed piece of content. Nevertheless, over the course of a couple of days, we were able to hammer out a reasonable compromise solution, the gist of which was that the sources in question were WP:RS, but that the statements they were being used to support needed to be better written, attributed, and contextualized.
Snow let's rap 09:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC) First statement by moderator[edit]I am opening this case for moderated discussion. I will remind the editors to be civil and concise, and comment on content, not contributors. Civility is mandatory in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Overly lengthy statements do not clarify the issues. Comments on contributors rather than on content may be hatted. I expect every participant to check this page at least every 48 hours, and to answer all questions within 48 hours after they are asked. I will visit this page at least every 24 hours. Do not edit the article pages while this moderated discussion is in progress. All discussion should be held here rather than on other talk pages, just so that it is centralized. Will each editor please state concisely what the issues are? In particular, it appears that there was an RFC a few months ago about whether to state that these two myths are versions of the same myth, and the conclusion was that this should not be stated. Is there a reason why the RFC either does not apply or should be ignored? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC) First statements by editors[edit]statement by PiCo (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC) The dispute is over the following paragraph, which appears in both articles:
(I think this is meant to read "A few early ...." rather than "Few early...") The statement is not factually untrue, but it gives the misleading impression that these two ideas have currency in contemporary scholarship. That they don't is apparent from the sources being used - source 9 is a book review in French from 1929, source 10 is a translation of a French book published in 1945. Not that there's anything wrong with being French, but if these ideas had currency they'd be available in English, and from contemporary sources. There's also a problem with the subject area. Gog and Magog are biblical figures and the appropriate area of scholarship is biblical studies. I've carried out extensive searches of the literature and there's absolutely no mention at all of the idea that they are somehow related to the Hindu myth. Gog and Magog are also figures in the Quran and in medieval European and Middle Eastern folklore, but again there's no mention of this idea in the scholarly literature. If we run the search the other way, looking through sources on Hindu myth, we do find mentions - but from New Age-style sources, not from scholarly ones. My impression, in fact, is that this idea of a link between the Hindu myth and the Gog/Magog group of stories is pretty much confined to circles that believe in Atlantis and suchlike ideas. I withdrew from the RfC to avoid a personality conflict with one user, whom I find arrogant and overbearing. I would have been prepared to accept the outcome despite this, but I do believe that the overarching aim of Wikipedia is to produce articles with reliable information, and this paragraph is not based on contemporary reliable sources. statement by Xinheart (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Lastly, I would like to add that the discussion in the TP must be referred to, as many arguments in favor of this citation have been provided by contributors. Second statement by moderator[edit]First, are we in agreement that no late-twentieth-century or twenty-first-century mainstream scholar sees a connection between the two myths? If not, is the real question whether the older identifications of connections may be mentioned? Were there earlier mentions by mainstream scholars of a connection? I would also like to ask for comments about René Guénon, who was not a mainstream scholar but who was a very influential and notable early-twentieth-century author (and who always saw connections between all things). Is there a reason why he should or should not be mentioned? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC) I think that I see two ways forward. The first, that I would prefer, would be for the two editors (and possibly other editors) to agree to some minimal mention that some authors have identified a connection, without giving undue weight. The second would be an RFC, but the exact wording would have to be agreed on and neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Second statements by editors[edit]Statement by PiCo (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Focusing on your questions: First, are we in agreement that no late-twentieth-century or twenty-first-century mainstream scholar sees a connection between the two myths? My own searches in the literature lead me to believe that Gog/Magog and Koka/Vikoka are never mentioned together by modern scholars. Xinheart mentions a D.C. Naba writing in "Academic Research International" in 2014, but D.C Naba is from the University of Burundi and Academic Research International seems to be a new online start-up without much behind it - not very mainstream. The point isn't so much that nobody sees a connection as that nobody even looks for one.
I think, without being certain, that this may have been a topic in the late 19th/early 20th century under the rubric of what was called "pan-Babylonianism". This was the idea that all myths came from a single original, which could be traced to ancient Babylonia - hence Gog-Magog/Koka-Vikoka had a common origin. This idea has no acceptance in modern academia. But as I said, I'm not certain that this is the background to Guenon's ideas. I would also like to ask for comments about René Guénon, who was not a mainstream scholar but who was a very influential and notable early-twentieth-century author (and who always saw connections between all things). I don't think he was ever influential at all, and he certainly isn't now. "While Guénon’s influence remains minimal in the Western academic community at large..." That quote, from a website called World Wisdom, goes on: "...he is the seminal influence in the development of traditionalism." Traditionalism is the idea that all religions have a common origin - which needless to say is not mainstream. So he's important in Traditionalism, but Traditionalism itself is not important. Or so I read that passage. I think that I see two ways forward. The first, that I would prefer, would be for the two editors (and possibly other editors) to agree to some minimal mention that some authors have identified a connection, without giving undue weight. The second would be an RFC, but the exact wording would have to be agreed on and neutral. My own view is that Guenon is a figure in an insignificant movement which today lies well outside the mainstream. The ideas he champions have no following in mainstream academic discussion, and any mention at all would be undue weight. Which is not, of course, to say that he should not have his own article and be mentioned in the article on Traditionalism.PiCo (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by Xinheart (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Robert McClenon writes: "are we in agreement that no late-twentieth-century or twenty-first-century mainstream scholar sees a connection between the two myths?" The question is larger and becomes this one: Gog/Magog and Koka/Vikoka, being mythological figures (and they are necessarily such, because they refer either to ancient or sacred texts), what are the known interpretations of these symbols ? Being mythological figures, their interpretations are manyfold: from Biblical studies, studies in symbolism and metaphysics, and even down to the most stupid "evangelist" interpretations like the one mentioned in article ("modern apocalyptism" section of the present article, which BTW contains interpretations far away from Biblical Studies and which are not mainstream at all). From that perspective, the excerpt from René Guénon's book is one of the most known. But the connection is also supported by academic references, and the 2014 reference given by me above is perfectly academic (the journal was set up in 2011, and it is a regular on-line publication with reported impact factor of 0.6), on top of the older ones going back to beginning XXth century. I don't accept the refutation by PiCo because the author is from University of Burundi, this is looking like defamation. PiCo who seems to be keen on asking for academic references, does not hesitate here to mention an obscure blog called "www.worldwisdom.com" to sideline Guénon's influence, but I can easily cite real academics and references who are working on Guénon:
Needless to say that we are far away from PiCo's depiction, whose mention of "pan-Babylonianism" is pure invention. BTW, I would be happy that PiCo provides me academic references that the Gog/Magog-Koka/Vikoka connection belong to something called pan-Babylonianism, as he writes it. I would be happy to see such references, it's the first time I read such an assertion. Guénon did not "always [see] connections between all things" but his studies in symbolism are very authoritative. Lastly I would also favor that we keep the actual wording, which has been written out of discussions in the TP, which is minimal and without any UNDUE. Third statement by moderator[edit]I am not, at this time, collapsing or deleting any of the above, but some of the comments are more on contributors than on content. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC) It seems that there isn't any possibility of compromise, since one editor will not agree to having a one-sentence mention of the comments of René Guénon, and the other editor does want a brief mention of the comments of Guénon. In that case, I will ask again whether the parties are agreeable to having the dispute resolved by a Request for Comments? If so, the remaining question is how to word the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Third statements by editors[edit]
Fourth statement by moderator[edit]When the RFC was closed in August 2015, the closer stated that the editors had agreed on a wording. Would they please explain why the current wording needs to be changed? Is the current wording consistent with what was agreed in August? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Since one editor doesn't want another RFC, there is no further forum or mechanism that I would advise. You could try formal mediation, but it isn't clear what that would gain over informal mediation here. The alternative is to go back to the talk page. I don't see evidence of a conduct dispute, and it is good that there is no conduct dispute. (Edit-warring or editing against consensus are conduct issues. Please avoid them, as you have so far.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors[edit]
Fifth statement by moderator[edit]I am confused. There was an RFC in August. What is the issue anyway? It appears that the RFC concluded that a mention of Guenon, or of other early-twentieth-century authors who thought that the two mythologies were the same, was permitted in a short form. Is that correct? If so, what is the issue? That wording doesn't appear to be in the current text. This discussion appears to be going around and around. Is there a specific question, or should I fail this thread and send it back to the talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Fifth statement by editors[edit]Robert McClenon: to answer your last question, yes, the mention of Guénon was permitted in short form and the present wording in the article is the one that resulted from contributors of the last RfC. The wording was not to say that the two mythologies are the same (they are not, since they come from different traditions), but that they display analogies in their meaning. So basically we can keep on like this. Also, I don't think that the question I raised in the fourth statement by editors section, and which you collapsed, is a comment on a contributor. It was a genuine question about a point raised by PiCo and which is unrelated to the debate, I think. The answer given by PiCo about "pan Babylionalism" is not related to our subject, and the wikipedia article he mentions does in no way mention Gog/Magog, Koka/Vikoka. I am legimate in asking that question, and he has clearly not answered it, instead of me who always answered his asking for references. So I am asking to end this debate and to keep the formulation as it is in both articles. Xinheart (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Sixth statement by moderator[edit]I am still confused. Will User:PiCo please explain what they want? What is the question? There was an RFC in August, and it resulted in the current language. What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors[edit]
|
Volunteer note: While the two original editors have responded, there does seem to have been a bit of a growth of involved and interested editors. These editors may include (from talkpage discussions):Talk:New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany#up to now[edit]
– General close. See comments for reasoning. |
Futile. No participation from most of the responding editors. If the dispute has continued, consider a request for comments if one has not already been tried. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Daniel Holtzclaw#Recent_changes_.282.29[edit]
– Discussion in progress.
Have you discussed this on a talk page? | Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
My contributions are being rapidly reverted with only vague justifications. No attempt to work toward a compromise.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
1. Talk, 2. modifying my contribution, 3. requesting suggestions
How do you think we can help?
offer suggestions instead of just quickly deleting, find some compromise consistent with WP policy and goals
Summary of dispute by Jess[edit]
I'm not sure DRN is necessary at this point. Oiudfgogsdf has replied only twice on the talk page, and he has yet to even respond to the most recent comments. Jumping to DRN is likely premature.
That being said, the content in question is here. To summarize the article subject, Hortzclaw was recently convicted of several counts of abuse, and a great many sources indicate he targeted his victims because their credibility would be undermined in court. Oiudfgogsdf's edit attempts to do just that: selectively quote a source to say that the victims are not credible, and imply Hortzclaw was wrongly convicted. We don't have a RS which says Hortzclaw was wrongly convicted, and so must be careful not to engage in original research to imply it.
Between the two paragraphs, the first inserts disparaging remarks about the victims worded with a clear POV in mind. The second paragraph boils down to "Hortzclaw's teammate was surprised by the allegations," but is again worded in such a way as to imply his conviction doesn't make any sense and is totally out of character. The substance of that paragraph seems insignificant, and I don't see substantial coverage of it in other reliable sources.
So basically: WP:BLP and WP:DUE. — Jess· Δ♥ 01:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Grayfell[edit]
This is premature at best, as Jess says above. Counting myself, there are four editors who have removed the contested content from the article. The essay CRYBLP is not applicable, as the BLP policy connotations should be obvious here. ROWN is an essay which giving advice which may be useful in context, but is not a free pass to restore content. WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:NPOV, and WP:EW are all policies. Grayfell (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Oiudfgogsdf[edit]
Never fear Jess, I am responding now, so that makes 3 times. For you to say that the 2nd paragraph in my edit (regarding the comments of Cortland Selman) just boils down to "Hortzclaw's teammate was surprised by the allegations," is a perfect example of how this page is over-simplifying the subject to fit it into a neat little box. Nevertheless, you continue to argue that not even that major over-simplification would be acceptable to you as a contribution. If you read the content carefully, it is obvious that Selman said a whole lot more, sorry, i.e.;
- he knew Holtzclaw on a personal level
- he came 100s of miles to speak out
- he knows him as a caring, sincere, passionate individual
- in "all" the time he knew him (sounds like a while) racism never surfaced
- he sees Holtzclaw as a "brother"
Those words are his, not mine. Sorry if they don't fit into your narrative. I would be happy to shorten it a bit if you and other contributors find it too detailed, but you have not even offered that as a compromise. This content was included almost verbatim from the reference I cited; for you to imply that I have "worded (it) in such a way as to imply his conviction doesn't make any sense and is totally out of character" is your personal interpretation of the passage and makes no sense because I did not write it. And Yes, I do offer it as a counter-balance to the flat narrative presented in the remaining 2497 words of the article which make only the slightest mention (1 sentence?) that Holtzclaw ever even had family or friends, or that anyone had anything good to say about him or was surprised by the trial, instead focusing on minute details of the victims' testimonies, exact dates during the trial, activists, media reaction or lack therof, the blogosphere - anything other than the subject of this supposedly-biographical article. Neutrality and balance of views on a subject is to be achieved as a whole with the article, not on an individual basis with each contribution. That is what I am trying to do here. This is not original research.
Grayfell, I'm not sure what you mean by "premature." WP:DRN states that the only requirements are that 1) "the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page", and 2) a recommendation that more than 2 contributors be involved in lieu of requesting a 3rd opinion instead. Furthermore, your comment that "the BLP policy connotations should be obvious here" leads me to believe that you are staying within the bottom levels of the Graham's Hierarchy instead of the recommended top 3. It highlights what I have experienced throughout this dispute - your justifications for quick deletions are that my edit is "undue", "transparent", "too lengthy" with no real explanations or alternatives. "ROWN is an essay which giving advice which may be useful in context, but is not a free pass to restore content." ??? That article seems to focus more on editors who revert others contributions with no attempt at compromise for dubious reasons:
- Revert vandalism upon sight but revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration. It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Furthermore, your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit WP:ROWN
I reverted your reversions (thus restoring my contribution) once, and only after discussing on the talk page and revising my content in an attempt to address your concerns. You reverted in minutes (Jess twice) with nothing more than an edit note WP:BLPZEAL ? I am now reaching out to WP:DRN to avoid WP:EW . Is it fitting to the integrity of WP that an article remain so tightly controlled that not even the shortest counter-balancing contributions be allowed that do not strictly adhere to some obviously-slanted narrative? Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Daniel Holtzclaw#Recent_changes_.282.29 discussion[edit]
- Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the talk page. However, there have been three editors in the dispute, and only two are named. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the third editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note - Also, it is the responsibility of the filing party to notify both of the other two editors of this request. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I posted notices to the involved users' talk pages and added the 3rd user here. Hopefully I did it the right way? Let me know if I didn't. Thanks. Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
First statement by volunteer moderator[edit]
It isn't entirely clear from the above responses whether the other editors are agreeing to participate in moderated discussion, so I am opening this case with two questions. First, are you willing to participate in moderated discussion? If at least two editors agree to take part in discussion, this case will continue. If not, since moderated dispute resolution is voluntary, this case will be closed. ub, It doesn't appear to me that discussion here is premature. However, discussion here is voluntary. Second, what do each of you think should be changed in the article, or do you think that the article should be left as it is? Here are a few ground rules. Be civil and concise. Civility is mandatory in Wikipedia, especially in dispute resolution, and overly long statements do not clarify. I will check this case at least every 24 hours, and I expect every editor to check on it every 48 hours. Do not edit the article while dispute resolution is in progress. (If there is edit-warring, I will fail the case.) Discuss the article here rather than on the talk page, so that this is a centralized place for discussion. I do not claim to be an authority on the subject; it is up to the editors to explain the subject matter to me. So: Are the editors willing to engage in moderated dispute resolution? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
First statements by editors[edit]
Talk:Canadian dollar[edit]
– General close. See comments for reasoning. |
General close due to currently filed Admin Noticeboard: Edit warring report, currently found at User:Peter K Burian reported by User:NorthernFactoid (Result: 3-day block for both). DRN cases may not be accepted if the dispute is currently being discussed in either another venue, in this case the AN: Edit warring. If the report on the Admin noticeboard is withdrawn or inconclusive, then a refiling may occur without prejudice or bias at the DRN. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The Canadian Dollar article was frozen in time, at a point before mid 2014, when the value of this currency was still high. Since that time, it has dropped in value significantly vs. the US dollar. In mid 2013 it was at par, but now it is at 70 cents U.S. However, the Wikipedia article failed to even mention devaluation since mid 2014. Instead, it contained only discussions of the strength of this currency. As I had said on the Talk page, I find it incredible that such a major change - occurring over 18 months to date - and so significant to the topic, has been ignored by an encyclopedia article. (Because of NortherFactoid's content) I had added the relevant information: a sentence in the lede, fully citated (major news organization) and a new section with 2015-2016 content, again fully cited (major news media). NorthernFactoid has Reverted all of the content that I have added on several occasions. since early January 2016, as the History will confirm (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadian_dollar&action=history). Most recently today, he has deleted fully cited content that I had added, on two occasions as of 4:20pm, Eastern Standard Time. I have discussed this with NorthernFactoid in detail on the Talk page under three headings: "This article desperately needs a MAJOR update" "The value of the loonie has been crashing ... how can the lede ignore that???" "Edit War has been started by another user" He has responded to my comments, so he has been reading them, but has continued to Revert (delete fully cited content that I have added.) To be honest, I have eventually begun to UNDO his reverts starting today. (Yesterday, I had simply added new content, with citations, worded in a manner that might be more acceptable to him; but since he has chosen the Revert that content, I have decided to Undo such changes.) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have advised NorthernFactoid that the content I am adding is essential to the topic. The change in the value is not a sudden, one time, factor but has been ongoing for 18 months, though ignored by the content in [{Canadian Dollar]]. I have advised him on several occasions in the Talk sections that I will file for Dispute Resolution. I have served the relevant notice on his Talk page today: == Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==  This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!. How do you think we can help? Remove NorthernFactoid's right to Revert (delete) content added by other editors. Insist that the content of Canadian Dollar rightly includes a discussion of an essential aspect of the topic: the devaluation of this currency over the past 18 months, and still continuing.
Summary of dispute by NorthernFactoid[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Canadian dollar discussion[edit]Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I believe we need to have Adminstrators inbolved to solve this Canadian Dollar dispute as to content. NortherFactoid filee a complaint about me (after he found out that I had requested Dispute Resolution) re: edit warring, after he had Reverted (deleted) every bit of content I had ever added and I began to Revert his deletions of my content starting today. No problem. Let the chips fly as they will. Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion ... Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. NorthernFactoid (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Peter K Burian (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Peter K Burian (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
|
Kapu (caste)[edit]
– General close. See comments for reasoning. |
General close. This is the wrong venue for such a request. If you would like to request a change to Kapu (caste), you should make a semi-protected edit request on the Kapu talk page, citing reliable sources for your request and clearly laying out the changes you would like made. DRN is for content disputes between at least two editors that have seen extensive discussion. Thanks, /wiae ★ /tlk 03:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
User talk:RyanTQuinn[edit]
– General close. See comments for reasoning. |
Close due to lack of sufficient discussion. Before a DRN case can be accepted, the issue must have been discussed extensively on a talk page. There is no discussion on the Adele talk page, and while there are three posts on one party's talk page, there has been no back-and-forth discussion. The case could theoretically be refiled in the future, pending extensive discussion. If a party does not reply to a request for discussion on a talk page, the Responding to a failure to discuss essay might be an instructive read. /wiae ★ /tlk 20:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Laksa[edit]
– General close. See comments for reasoning. |
Pending in another dispute resolution process (RFC)/conduct dispute. DRN does not accept cases which are pending in another DR process, nor does it handle conduct disputes. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:List of state leaders in 2015[edit]
– New discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Neve-selbert (talk · contribs)
- Zoltan Bukovszky (talk · contribs)
- Happysquirrel (talk · contribs)
- Miesianiacal (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
We are currently in a dispute involving the Cook Islands and their Queen's Representative. There is currently an inconsistent gender-biased designation of Queen's Representative – manifesting versus the more gender-nuanced Viceroy –—of which is more commonly used to refer to a wife of a vice-regal representative. This debate has become pretty heated and personal as of late—it has been going on for more than two weeks. My determination is for the least change to be made. The user I am in dispute with claims that if this change occurs then it will thus result in inconsistency and whatnot. I have successfully debunked these claims, and he has since resorted to callous personal attacks.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
There have been some alternatives, all of which have been unsuitable and un-agreed upon thus far. The first leads to inconsistency involving designations of an office versus explanations; the second would result in disruptive, misleading changes of which will seriously impede an inevitable future discussion.
How do you think we can help?
The fact that "viceroy" is a gender-neutral term, as per the article must be confirmed. Also: the tone must be brought down, in part due to the bloodthirsty reactions I have received from the second user.
Summary of dispute by Zoltan Bukovszky[edit]
Summary of dispute by Happysquirrel[edit]
I came upon this debate from the Teahouse. After some discussion, I understood that the debate was not about the formal title, but about the descriptor applied in the list. I agree with ZBukov's assessment on the talk page that there are 3 issues at play.
- Whether the descriptor of "Queen's Representative" lacks gender neutrality. I think we have all been convinced of this by this point.
- What should it be changed to? Right now, the descriptors being considered seem to be "Viceroy" (supported by Neve as the accurate term and gender neutral in current usage), "Monarch's representative" (supported by ZBukov and myself and possibly Miesianical as descriptive, clear and in line with the descriptors used for monarchs) and a "Represented by ..." phrasing which seems to be losing support. I haven't heard the other options seriously mentionned in a while.
- Should any changes be extended to anyone representing a monarch? I believe ZBukov, Miesianical and myself support this for reasons of consistency and clarity. Neve objects to this. He also points out that a concensus of 4 people is not sufficient to make sweeping changes to multiple articles. I agree with this assesment and suggested we contact the WikiProjects or conduct an RfC.
I believe an underlying issue here is differences in regional use of language. Viceroy seems to be used in different amounts and in different ways in different parts of the world. Another one is that we have three desirable things in opposition 1) consistency 2) clarity 3) use of precise terminology on an individual entry level.
Finally, I am glad this discussion will be getting some active moderation. I hope we can come to an agreement. I remain open to having an RfC or contacting WikiProjects. Happy Squirrel (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Miesianiacal[edit]
Talk:List of state leaders in 2015 discussion[edit]
- Volunteer note - There has been extensive discussion at the talk page. The filing party has not notified the other parties of the filing. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editors. This request will neither be declined nor accepted until proper notice is provided. All parties are reminded to be civil. Keep discussion here to a minimum until this case is accepted by a volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Jewish Defense_League#Organizations_designated_as_terrorist_in_North_America[edit]
– New discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Wiking (talk · contribs)
- Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs)
- TracyMcClark (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
JDL has never been designated as terrorist organization. It fails the inclusion criteria for Category:Organizations designated as terrorist in North America and it isn't a "right-wing terrorist group". As explained on the linked talk page, this quote is taken from a footnote under a chart on the FBI terror report, and clearly means that the JDL is not a "right-wing terrorist group", but rather has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group for the purposes of the chart, where related statistics was combined. Indeed, in the section of the same report dedicated to the JDL, it is described as "a violent extremist Jewish organization" and not as a "terrorist group".
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Not me, but one of my opponents first improperly warned me, then still failed to use the article talk page, and proceeded to file an AE request against me here, which was subsequently closed with no action.
How do you think we can help?
A quick look at the RS in question should be sufficient for an unbiased person to arrive to the same conclusion as I did.
Summary of dispute by Nomoskedasticity[edit]
Summary of dispute by TracyMcClark[edit]
Talk:Jewish Defense_League#Organizations_designated_as_terrorist_in_North_America discussion[edit]
- Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other parties of this request. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other parties of this request. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, which will wait until notice is given and the other editors agree voluntarily to participate. Participation here is voluntary but encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:tvOS[edit]
– New discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:TvOS (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
Dispute overview
The articles 'tvOS' and 'watchOS' are both part of a content dispute over whether they should be capiterlized 'tvOS' and 'watchOS' or 'TvOS' and 'WatchOS' or 'TVOS'. The Manual of Style does not seem to have an explanation of what to do in this situation and no consensus has been reached.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Opened discussion on 'Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters' about extending Manual of Style to multiple letter prefixes.
How do you think we can help?
Provide another opinion on what to do, and to find relevant parts of the Manual of Style to solve the dispute.
Summary of dispute by Jimthing[edit]
Summary of dispute by Guy Harris[edit]
Talk:tvOS discussion[edit]
- Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editors. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but it is ready to be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
