 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Draco Safarius on 22:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC).
 | Closed. An RFC is being used to choose which ledes are acceptable. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The listed page originally had an issue with classing one character, Nagi/Alice Arisuin, as a woman. The character in question largely prefers this in the series, but in the original Japanese release the author exclusively uses differing kanji for them. As the talk page argument I used explained, given that there is a purposeful intent by the author to use different language than the entire rest of the female cast, and by and large most translator groups I've come across do the same when putting it into another language, then I retain the argument that the character language should be male. The other user maintains that the English release is enough evidence to say otherwise, despite that being a secondary source to the original, and oftentimes translated releases of anime, manga, and light novels are not actually checked by either the author or parent publishing company. They also argue that despite language, the mannerisms of the character are enough to combine with the English release to class the character as female. We've gone at length arguing this on the talk page, and have previously had a third party user agree with my side and was asking for sources to disprove my argument. We then recently had another user come edit the page at their, Cyberweasel89, seeming request after they mentioned it, placing it back to the original version that I first changed, and only using a non official source's episode review and the previously mentioned English release of volume 1. I reversed their edit asking for sources that are specifically Japanese, as that would be the original release, or a direct statement from the author. An author's word would be unquestionable, and multiple JP citations would be fantastic evidence when checked by a few translators. They did neither, and then Cyberweasel89 reverted the page to try to declare I was edit warring, despite having put the request in the talk page as well and mentioning I'd bring it here if they reverted. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chivalry_of_a_Failed_Knight#Nagi/Alice's_gender How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I do not believe there will be any resolution. I'm not willing to budge as I maintain my original argument, and I highly doubt either of them will either. Knowledgekid87 is just a third party, so I doubt they'll take part in the ensuing discussion, but they were part of the chain so I added them. My only suggestion would be to make express note of the character mentioning preferring a different name and gender, but keeping with the male language and adding an end of paragraph note about it. Summary of dispute by Cyberweasel89Summary of dispute by ThunderPXThe original work has Alice self-identify as "a maiden born in the body of a man". This is reiterated on the anime adaptation's website in Alice's character bio. I see no reasonable interpretation of this other than the character being transgender. This line exists in the Japanese work as well as the English translation. The other characters in the scene then discuss this, with ultimately the conclusion being "Alice wants to be seen as a woman, so we should respect it." External sources also refer to the character as a trans woman and refer to her with she/her pronouns. I see no reason to dispute what is said in the original work, and I do not understand why an explicit statement from the author would be necessary to clarify what is in the literal text of the work, any more than one would need such a statement to clarify a character's hair color or favourite food. Summary of dispute by Knowledgekid87My stance is to look at the sources involved when it comes to gender naming. As pointed out here and [1] the kanji used for said character refers to them as male. There is no doubt though that western media such as Anime UK News, and Anime News Network refer to her as a "she". This leaves the issue of respecting the author's original work, versus citing this fictional character as translated into English. My option would be to include both with something like "Nagi (also known as Alice) is a first year student and Shizuku's roommate who is described as transgender." or something along those lines if possible. If this has blossomed into a larger controversy then it might warrant its own sub-section on the Chivalry of a Failed Knight article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Chivalry of a Failed Knight discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (CFK)I am possibly opening this case for moderated discussion. Please read the ground rules for this moderated discussion. You are expected to have read and understood the rules, and will be expected to follow them. It appears that either the only dispute or a part of the dispute has to do with the gender of a character. I see that some of the editors say that the character is a trans woman, a person who was born male and has transitioned into being female. What is the alternate viewpoint as to the gender of the character? Are there any other content issues? Editors are expected to reply to my questions at least every 48 hours. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator (me) as the representative of the community. I would like each editor, first, to state whether they are willing to discuss in accordance with the rules, and, second, to answer my questions about the scope of the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editorsChecking back in and saw this section that is probably supposed to be for the initial replies discussion, so just copying my above reply: All content issues are indeed related to that. The other viewpoint that I was talking about is that the original source text does not ascribe to their argument as the author uses male or gender neutral language, and they use a secondary source or nigh unrelated outside viewpoints not in the series to try and justify their claim. As for discussion, I believe both Knowledgekid87 as well as Lullabying, who got into the talk page after this dispute was opened, put forth good explanations for ideas. Going off of what they've proposed, I would say a compromise of leaving the page with male language and including either a footnote or end of section text line proclaiming the character has possibly identified themselves that way would be as far as I would go as to not disregard the original. Draco Safarius (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC) First statement by moderator (CFK)Please read the rules for moderated discussion again. It appears that the only question is the gender identity of the character known as Alice or Nagi. The article currently states that Alice/Nagi is a transgender woman. One editor has proposed to say, "Nagi (also known as Alice) is a first year student and Shizuku's roommate who is described as transgender". Is that wording acceptable to other editors? Does any other editor have any other proposed wording? Does their statement that they are a maiden in a man's body appear both in the Japanese and in the English? If so, is that sufficient to establish that they are, in universe, a transgender woman? If not, why not? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (CFK)This is the section referred to in rule 9, correct? I've never done this sort of thing before and it's somewhat confusing and stressful, so my apologies if I put anything in the wrong place. ThunderPX (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (CFK)This question is for User:Draco Safarius. Please provide the exact language that you think is in order to describe Nagi/Alice. Other editors may make a one-paragraph statement explaining why the current language, which describes them as transgender, should be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (CFK)Like ThunderPX above I do find the rules a bit confusing on layout here, as they don't cover much for each individual section, just giving brief overviews so I apologize in advance if using the back/forth comments section isn't supposed to be used this way. If that's the case just mention it and I'll refrain from it further. Regarding the above point(s) that ThunderPX lists, I would argue that even if the scene can be read that way the fact the author then purposely goes on for every volume of the series to not address the character with language that would affirm that defeats the arguing point. To put it another way, when the reader is being told something as directly as possible, barring direct statements outside of the series, by the author, through the impartial narrator, it would not logically make sense to set aside the information they are presenting as it can be considered the most accurate unless the narrator is a character recounting the series. And, for the second point, the series does indeed use the name Nagi. The narrator uses either Nagi or Arisuin. The English release version might not, but that was one of the major points in that one should not ignore the source in favor of a less accurate version just because it supports their view/argument. Draco Safarius (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (CFK)We have a "black-and-white situation". Two editors think that the article should describe the character as transgender female, and one editor thinks that the article should describe the character as male. I see three ways to deal with this:
Each editor is asked to state which of the options are acceptable to them, and we will decide how to proceed. An editor who supports option 3 should write draft language that explains the gender ambiguity of the character. Statements by editors go in the space for statements by editors. I have been ignoring misplacement of statements because it is more important to get the statements in an orderly manner than to insist on where they go. It is also important that the discussion be civil and concise, which it has been, and that back-and-forth discussion be avoided, which it has been. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Third statements by editors (CFK)I would say it's actually two editors one way, one the other, and two in the middle (referring to Knowledgekid87 and Lullabying, though the latter only came in after this was opened and is not taking part in this discussion but warrants mentioning for considering both sides). With regards to the three things laid out, I don't think any of those three options provided are sufficient unless on option three the thing I initially mentioned as a potential resolution of having that be a separate section on the page itself would qualify while retaining the male language in the character section. Should that be the case then I am all in favor of three and would place it either above or below the "Works cited" section of the page, and would phrase it as:
The character of Nagi, or Alice, as has been mentioned as a preferred name, Arisuin has generated debate with regards to gender, and whether or not they should be considered a transgender person. Upon their introduction in the series they mention that they largely prefer to go by the name of Alice and consider themself to be more of a "maiden in a man's body," but this contrasts with how the author uses male and gender neutral language through the narrator when mentioning them in the novels. The conflict between character dialogue and narrator descriptions has sparked debate over what the author was intending them to be and how the character should be classified.
Obviously option 1 would be most preferable to me, given that it is the shortest route to getting what I see as the correct result. I would absolutely be willing to make use of option 2 to get more opinions on the subject, as right now our sample size is very small. Option 3 is the least preferable to me, but I will nonetheless offer up my take on what such a character description would look like to offer an alternative to Draco Safarius' suggestion: Alice is a first year student as well as Shizuku's roommate and close friend. Nicknamed Black Sonia, they have the ability to control shadows with their device, the Darkness Hermit, allowing them to travel through shadows and bind others by pinning their shadows. Alice is a very nice person, though they does sometimes tease others. They are a good friend of Shizuku, who opens up to them. Alice is born male, but describes themself as "a maiden born in a man's body", and their friends agree to treat them as a woman. However, the narration in the Japanese version often uses male pronouns regardless, making it ambiguous how the character is meant to be viewed. Alice is later revealed to be an assassin of the terrorist organization Rebellion as well as a member of Akatsuki, sent to infiltrate Hagun Academy. They had a dark past, being an orphan living on the streets before being taken into Rebellion by Wallenstein. In advance of Akatsuki's attack on Hagun Academy, Alice assaulted Kagami to keep the existence of Akatsuki under wraps, but their friendship with Shizuku prompted them to turn against the group just prior to the attack. ThunderPX (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Fourth Statement by Moderator (CFK)There are four proposed versions of the language about Nagi/Alice:
At this point, I am asking each of the editors which of these versions are acceptable to them. That is, say Yes or say No to each version. You may also write another version. After all of the editors say Yes or No to each of the four versions, we will have a better idea of whether we need to proceed to an RFC. If there is an RFC, it will involve choosing between some of these versions of text. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Fourth Statements by Editors (CFK)I would say A - no, B - No, C - yes, D - no. There is still also the option for the main body of C excluding the sentence separated from the main description, and moving said separation to create its own topic further down the page like was mentioned in my third parent statement. That is probably the most fair as it follows the idea raised in the talk page comment I mentioned with adhering to a set precedent for a different article with a similar situation, and it does not do away with the original language that is the crux of the issue. The goal should not be replacing and rewording that since that's tantamount to just ignoring the author either in favor of personal bias and/or following a purposely changed secondary source, which is the issue in the first place. The goal should, at most, be creating a part in the page somewhere to mention it that does not detract from, or overwrite, the original, be it at the foot of the character section or its own area further down. Draco Safarius (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC) A - yes, B - yes, C - no, D - yes. With a preference for A or B, as D is already a compromise. I do not find using male pronouns to be acceptable, nor using the name "Nagi" as this never happens in the actual body of work and my request for proof to the contrary fell on deaf ears. I would compare doing so to writing the article for Scrubs and incessantly referring to J.D. and Turk as John and Christopher. ThunderPX (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Fifth Statement by Moderator (CFK)In statement 4 I listed four draft versions of paragraphs about the character Nagi or Alice, and asked for comments. Any editors who have not commented should comment Yes or No. Any editors who have not composed a draft should do so. If no one will accept another version so that we have approval by all editors, then we will have to publish an RFC. The RFC, rather than asking editors to choose one out of A, B, C, and D, will ask editors to Vote Yes, this version is acceptable, or No, this version is not acceptable, so that the closer can find the version that has the most general support. I will be composing the RFC within the next 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC) If anyone has any objections to the upcoming RFC, please state the objection and offer an alternate plan. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Fifth Statements by Editors (CFK)No objections to an RFC being opened, I highly doubt we'll ever reach an agreement here and arguing in the back/forth section doesn't really help anyone or this as a whole. However, we can attempt seeing if creating a large section detailing the disagreeing points on the page itself works, a more expanded version of what I suggested before. Break it into three parts, a loose overview, one side, and then the other side. The only caveat I'd be asking for that is that the character section be what I suggested, or near to it by doing ThunderPX's but using Nagi or Nagi/Alice as the name, to leave the actual character overview the base level of what's being plainly written, not what someone reads into, and the end of the character entry mention the disagreement so whoever is reading the page knows to look for it further down instead of going to rage edit the page. Could also protect the page itself, but a decision on that should probably wait. I won't compose the whole entire section being proposed, as both ThunderPX and Cyberweasel89 would probably want input into that for what they feel are any additional relevant mentions, but for the intro and the point I'd be arguing for:
The previously mentioned character of Nagi/Alice Arisuin has drummed controversial disagreements with regard to their gender, the arguments being as to whether the character should be classed and addressed as a transgender woman or a man. The conflict stems from language used in the original Japanese releases of the light novels clashing with a statement given by the character early in the series. (ThunderPX and Cyberweasel's point below, I'll do a rough formatting for it, but they should get input and raise whatever additional points they feel are relevant. I would, however, say to limit argument points to the JP light novels, anime, and their associated websites like the publisher or anime info releases. Attempting to use any outside sourcing just turns it back into using someone else's opinion as fact, and then we're right back to square one.) The argument for why Nagi/Alice should be addressed as a transgender woman, complete with female pronouns and language, deals with a conversation early in the series in which they mention to the main character, Ikki, that they prefer going by Alice instead of Nagi and also feel like "a maiden in a man's body," and then Ikki's younger sister, Shizuku, proclaiming that everyone should use Alice and treat them as a girl. The series goes on with Ikki and other main characters calling them Alice. The anime's associated website also features the same tagline quote of "a maiden in a man's body." The argument for why Nagi/Alice should be addressed as a man, using male pronouns and language, comes from the author opting to instead use male and gender neutral language when writing as the narrator throughout the whole series. Being the narrator, they are assumed to be all knowing, omniscient, unless shown to be an unreliable narrator, an example of an unreliable narrator being a character giving their memory or opinion as narration or even a narrator for a mystery novel that would be giving what the characters are currently aware of. Because they are being presented as an omniscient narrator it can be said that the narration is the author's opinion and intent, and that what is written is the most correct or truthful information for the series unless otherwise contradicted or clarified from a statement given by the author directly. This is further compounded with official character listings for the series using "Nagi Arisuin" for the character entry, instead of Alice, for both the voice actor announcement(s) for the anime and its official character entry on the associated website. Draco Safarius (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC) An RFC is the only option, as only Draco Safarius and myself are responding anymore and it's clear we will not see eye to eye on this. I trust others will make the right decision in the RFC. ThunderPX (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Sixth Statement by Moderator (CFK)I have created a draft RFC for viewing at Talk:Chivalry of a Failed Knight/Draft RFC. This is a draft RFC, not a live RFC; please do not !vote in the draft RFC. I will move it to the talk page after review. It is my opinion that the draft section containing a long discussion of the gender of the character is too long for due weight for a character who is not listed first or second in the list of characters, and who does not have a stand-alone article. Does anyone have any questions or comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Sixth Statements by Editors (CFK)Bit of confusion on what you're meaning with the draft containing a discussion. If you mean the actual RFC draft, then yes I'd agree, direct people to read the talk page and this dispute resolution rather than having it all one huge wall of text. As for the four statements, slight correction. B was the reverted version that prompted this being opened after one user ignored two different editors telling them to stop as their sources used didn't actually defeat the argument being made, that one only features an additional citation that, like the previous version, didn't defeat the argument. It should probably get a note making mention of that in the talk page if it's going to be left in as a vote consideration, though I'd imagine anyone being allowed to vote should have read that entire thing to begin with so it's probably fine. The only other thing I could think of asking is what would be the requisites for editor voting? Like it goes out randomly, yes, but what's the oversight on making sure people are actually considering both sides and not just doing a quick personal bias vote? Draco Safarius (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC) I agree that there should not be a long section discussing the character's gender, as not only is the proposed section overly long but it has no sources and therefore just reads like a tedious summary of the opinions of Wikipedia editors--in other words, OR. If the history of version B is at all relevant, t should be noted that it is essentially the same version that was in the article for years until Draco Safarius began making his edits, which I restored after providing an additional source, which he then not considered good enough. The rest is history. ThunderPX (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Seventh Statement by Moderator (CFK)I have changed the wording of B. If one of the editors has questions about the RFC process, they can ask them at the RFC talk pageorVillage Pump (policy). The closer will consider strength of arguments as well as a numerical vote count. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Seventh Statements by Editors (CFK)Both good spots to look at, thank you. Draco Safarius (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC) Back-and-forth discussion by editors (CFK)For the sake of clarity, can User:Draco Safarius provide some examples of Alice being referred to as "Nagi" in the text? This obviously discounts use of the full name "Nagi Arisuin". I do not recall in either the official translation or the fan translations that were quite prominent before the series' official availability--which often skewed very literal to a fault--that this ever occurred. Her friends obviously call her Alice, while characters who aren't close to her and the narration seem to use "Arisuin" to my knowledge, so I would like to see examples to the contrary. ThunderPX (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
As noted above in the reply, the text does use the character's name of Nagi, but ThunderPX finds that using a full name somehow defeats the point, which is sidestepping the argument's point. And as for Scrubs, which is a good example, I'll give you that, it has the problem of official name being different from actual name. Both J.D. and Turk are called almost exclusively by their nicknames, and the official names for them in related media or outside references from creators/actors are the nicknames. I would also hazard a guess every script uses those as well. That contrasts with how the text for this does not use Alice save character dialogue, and no using the English version as an example does not get around the issue. The author wasn't writing that as the narrator, and associated official media on the Japanese side, that ThunderPX attempted to use as reference to prove their point, uses Nagi as well. So, like the above reply, if the argument is being considered that the author's intent was what they were choosing to write as the narrator for 10+ volumes, then there should be no consideration given to pick and choose or dance around that to supplement names. Move it as an entire thing to a separate section of the article to cover it in detail and not try to sweep it under the rug with changing the character section. Draco Safarius (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Since I have to keep clarifying, using a source different from the original doesn’t do anything. It ignores the argument as a whole since it is, in the most literal sense per their own words, one person’s opinion on the text. Should never have been used, and trying to use it as a defense for the prior page version that was already incorrect just makes the position look worse. Draco Safarius (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
References
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Romomusicfan on 09:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC).
| Closed. Two of the editors have made edits to the article that the third editor, who edits intermittently, has not disagreed with because they have not been editing. There was a rough consensus for their edits. If any editor disagrees, they should discuss their disagreement first, before reverting, because there has been rough consensus. If there is a resumption of disagreement, an RFC may be used. Report disruptive editing to WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay, but do not edit disruptively. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Circa 2019 Woovee deleted sections relating to T.Rex reuinion projects Mickey Finn's T-Rex and X-T. Rex (formerly Bill Legend's T. Rex) and input a statement in the article that "As Bolan had been the only constant member of T. Rex and also the only composer and writer, his death ultimately ended the band." It was Woovee's stated view that the possible validity of such reunion bands was a fringe/minority viewpoint underserving of coverage. I tagged Woovee's statement for CN and recently added a neutrality disputed tag and input an IMHO even-handedly worded reason in both tags relating to the controversies relating to such projects. Woovee deleted the tags, stating that the reasoning given amounted to "introducing opinions" into the article in contravention of WP:NOT and insinuating that I must be motivated by somehow being related to the musicians involved (I am not!)
Talk:T. Rex (band)#RfC on Disputed Reformations section Talk:T. Rex (band)#A note/reference about T. Rex after Bolan's death: was it still a band How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Immediate resolution is required about the validity of my tags of Woovee's statement including the Reason given. In the long term, resolution is required about whether the subject of these reunion bands should be covered in the T.Rex article or not. Summary of dispute by WooveePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by NetherzonePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The timing of this is not great for me as I am travelling and in the middle of a vacation, and it is difficult (and unpleasant) for me to concentrate on a dispute at this time. I thought we cleared up this matter some time ago, and was surprised it has resurfaced. Briefly, my position is that the band did not "ultimately end" when Marc Bolan died. That the opinion of the writer Mark Paytress, who alegedly made that statement, does not make it "true" as various other band members went on to develop at least two tribute/spinoff bands, X-T.Rex and Mickey Finn's T-Rex. I believe that
I added the word "alegedly" to my statement above because it is not verifiable that Paytress actually made that claim at all; an extensive search of the book does not verify it. Even if it were found that Paytress made that statement, that is only one point of view. Would that not give undue weight to a single source? NPOV states that "neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Billboard magazine clearly states: "But in 1997, after band members received a rapturous reception at a public performance to commemorate Bolan’s 1977 death, the group reformed with Finn, original band member Paul Fenton, and several new musicians. They performed all over Europe and were particularly popular in Germany. The group recorded an album, “Renaissance,” in 2000."[2] If we are to achieve balance, then both viewpoints should be included in the article, per "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." Netherzone (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC) T.Rex (band) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Statement one-half by moderator (T. Rex)The editors should read the usual rules, and should each make a statement saying that they agree to moderated discussion subject to the usual rules. If there is agreement for moderated discussion, we will proceed with moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Statement one-half by editors (T. Rex)I agree to moderated discussion subject to the usual rules.Romomusicfan (talk) 08:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (T Rex)I am opening this case for moderated discussion. Please read the rules again. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss the article here rather than on the article talk page, and do not edit the article. I am asking each editor to state, in one paragraph, what they want changed in the article, or what they want left the same that someone else wants changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC) First statements by editors (T Rex)Ideally I would like the "ultimately ended the band" sentence either taken out or replaced with something less definite along the lines of the band "deactivating" at the point of Bolan's death. Also a brief section (no more than a quick paragraph) on the subject of the two "revival" bands such as existed on the article prior to Woovee's 2018/2019 edits - probably in more concise form than the old version - should be input. As a compromise I would accept the existing wording with the CN and Neutrality tags with the Reason notes re. the "revival" bands - such as it was when I added the Reason notes - to be left up long term.Romomusicfan (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I would like to see the following three changes made: Second statement by moderator (T. Rex)Two editors have made statements as to what should be changed, and there seem to be two or so matters of agreement. Is there agreement to remove the sentence that ends in "ultimately ended the band"? Is there agreement to reinsert the section on revival bands? Does each editor have any other comments on the other suggestions? Does either editor have any specific other ideas for improvements to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Second statements by editors (T. Rex)I would say that there is broad agreement between we two editors who have so far participated. (I am striving to make this point in a manner compliant with number 3 of the Rules.) However, we do both come from the same side of the discussion, so perhaps that is unsurprising. I would advocate turning the "ultimately ended" statement into a line saying the band disbanded rather than simply deleting the sentence The remainder of that paragraph is a very good section about the post band careers of T.Rex sidemen 1967-1973 and should be kept unchanged and unaffected by this edit. I would suggest that a second paragraph then be added to this section condensing the old Attempts At Reforming section down to bare bones. Romomusicfan (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC) I agree 100% with Romomusicfan's statement and suggestions above. Netherzone (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (T. Rex)Three editors are listed as participating in this discussion. Two of the editors are mostly in agreement, and one has not edited in ten days. I am putting moderated discussion on hold for maybe a week, during which time the two editors may edit the article and may discuss their edits either here or on the article talk page. If the other editor returns and disagrees with their edits, moderated discussion can be reopened. Otherwise moderated discussion can be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (T. Rex)Have made the edits as requested above by the moderator.Romomusicfan (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator (T. Rex)If the other editor who has not edited in two weeks, with whom there were disagreements, returns and reverts the edits, or disagrees with them, a Request for Comments is probably the best approach. An RFC is often the best way of dealing with an editor who appears to be in a minority or editing against consensus, because it establishes a binding consensus. At this point, there has been normal editing of the article for four days. I will close the moderated discussion in between one and three more days. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (T. Rex)Back-and-forth discussion (T Rex)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Whatsup236 on 02:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC).
| Closed. There has been discussion about the deletion and reinsertion of the photo montage, but the filing party has not taken part in the discussion. The filing party appears to have popped up in order start this DRN thread, and pop-up accounts are part of the problem, not a way to solve the problem. The long-standing accounts are reminded to stop edit-warring. The filing account is told to take part in discussion prior to using noticeboards. An RFC may be the best way to resolve this conflict. Report edit-warring at the edit-warring noticeboardorWP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Jakarta is the capital city of Indonesia, but why are the flags and photo montages removed while all capital cities in the world in the Wikipedia article show the photo montage and regarding flags in every province in Indonesia there must be a flag symbol How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Jakarta#Why_photo_montage_and_the_flag_is_removed_? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? In order to be able to restore the photo montage and the flag symbol Summary of dispute by MerbabuPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by JuxlosPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by CkfasdfPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by AustronesierPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by BluesatellitePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by JarrahTreePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Baqotun0023Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by HyperGarudaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by HddtyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Jakarta discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by SharadSHRD7 on 13:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC).
| Closed for now. Both editors have been blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring. When they come off block, they are advised to resume discussion on the article talk page for 24 hours, and then file a new request for mediation, one of the rules of which will be no editing of the article while discussion is in progress. They are both reminded that In Wikipedia, there is no deadline, and the election is not expected for a year. DRN is recommended as a good way to try to resolve this dispute, but only if the editors recognize that edit-warring is not a good way to resolve the dispute. Resume discussion when the blocks expire. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Dispute over adding alliances of political parties in the Next Indian general election. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Next Indian general election How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? The other user keeps engaging in edit war over this content dispute. I've explained about this many times but the user is not willing to understand and keeps imposing speculative edits without reliable source. Summary of dispute by XYZ 250706Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User:SharadSHRD7 is creating dispute in many pages and is reverting explained edits saying that they are unexplained. He is imposing his edits on others. I have told him not to do so. Many editors are fed up with his edits and arguements with baseless logic.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lok_Sabha#Rfc_on_Infobox) Not me, at first User:AS Sayyad reverted his edits. Next Indian general election discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. NOTE I have blocked both the above users for 24 hours due to their continued edit warring behaviour. I've also protected the article for 3 days as there is a lot of other edit warring going on and put a notice on the talk page that further edit warring will result in a block from that page. Canterbury Tail talk 16:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by VoidseekerNZ on 23:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC).
| Closed as wrong forum. This is a request to delete a file from Commons. Wikimedia Commons and the English Wikipedia are two separate projects of the WMF and have separate governance structures and deletion procedures. The filer has already been given advice both at Commons and at the English Wikipedia Teahouse. The filing party is advised that this inquiry, which ignored the advice at the Teahouse that this is not an English Wikipedia issue, is disruptive. Please address your concerns at Commons, not in the English Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview i am sick of the multiple insinuations and allegations i am a liar without evidence and am requesting mediation in this thread as i feel massively attacked on all sides, simply because i am the victim of an unusual crime. i am currently losing all respect for wiki with the way half this server is dogpiling me :( How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? i have messaged multiple people on their talk pages and requested multiple times in the thread requesting them to calm down or provide evidence. none has been provided. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? i tried to resolve the dispute through words but some users are determined to believe i am a liar with zero evidence and it is a massive detriment on the entire thread. i hope someone can talk to these users, or even just limit their access to said thread so they can stop hassling me. this debate is spread around a few articles Commons:Deletion requests/File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Gyalu22 on 15:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC).
| Closed due to no response from other editors. Four days have elapsed since the filing party notified the other editors of this dispute, and the moderator has also notified them. Participation at this web site is voluntary, and apparently the other editors are not interested in moderated discussion. Resume normal editing and normal discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Voivodeship of Maramureș. If the other editors edit the document, or revert your edits to the document, and do not discuss their edits, read the discussion failure essay. Otherwise, edit boldly, but not recklessly. Report disruptive education at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay, but do not be disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Dispute over the inclusion of some data about the ethnicities in the region the article is about. Tangibly, the disagreement is over that should the modern speculation that the establishing Romanians could speak the Aromanian language and could be from the vicinity of the Lake Ohrid be mentioned or not; and that should another ethnicity — the Rusyns — be written down as immigrants as the cited source does or just simply residents. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Voivodeship_of_Maramureș#Neutrality How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think another opinion from anyone would decide the debate. He/she doesn't have to be active in the topic as the discussion is mostly on how to treat the used references. Summary of dispute by Super DromaeosaurusPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by OrionNimrodPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Voivodeship of Maramureș discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (Maramures)I am ready to begin moderated discussion if the editors agree to it. Please read the usual rules for moderated discussion. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Do you agree to these rules? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Maramures)Statement one-half by moderator (Maramures)Super Dromaeosaurus, User:OrionNimrod, User:Gyalu22 - I am still ready to begin moderated discussion if the editors agree to it. Please read the usual rules for moderated discussion. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Do you agree to these rules? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Statements by editors (Maramures)
|
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Awshort on 07:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC).
| Closed as resolved. The filing party has posted an inquiry at the biographies of living persons noticeboard, which has been answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Several users have tried to add the name of a suspect arrested in October of last year to the article, and all edits have been removed almost immediately and told to discuss it on the talk page since it involves a living person. Several arguments have been made as to why the suspect name should be included, but it keeps being removed, without counter arguments other than it is about a living person and consensus needs to be met before it can be included. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murders_of_Abigail_Williams_and_Liberty_German How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I am hopeful that an outside person can look at the arguments and see if consensus has been found, or if there is a suitable alternative to the suggested actions from the talk page that could be found. Summary of dispute by Lard AlmightyThe reason we need to be cautious here is because it involves paedophilia. There have been countless examples of innocent people with the same name as a suspect being attacked and even murdered when they are misidentified as paedophiles because they share the same name as a suspect in a case. This suspect has a relatively common name (there are almost 100 listed in the white pages in Indiana alone). Exercising caution here means not putting these people at potential risk. Wikipedia is the most read website in the world, so people are far more likely to read the name here than anywhere else if we include it. I would also point out that the last few reverts of the name prior to today were by other editors, which indicates that there is no consensus to include. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by SharadSHRD7 on 05:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC).
| Closed as declined. The other party resumed editing the article when the article came off full protection, after having been notified of this discussion and after having been advised that a condition of mediation would be not to edit the article while mediation was in progress. This is a clear indication of a choice not to participate in mediation, which is voluntary. Attempting to resolve this dispute as a content dispute by voluntary means has failed. There has already been administrative action, including blocks, which have expired, and full protection, which has expired. Unfortunately, it appears that administrative action may be needed again. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Dispute over adding alliances of political parties. The other user wants to add Left Democratic Front, which is a regional alliance based in Kerala. The user assuming it as national-level alliance and adding parties which are not part of it. Me and few other users adviced him in the article's talk page, not to add the alliance until official confirmation because it tends to be WP:SPECULATIVE and original reaseach. But the user is not ready to understand and constantly repeats his opinion. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Next Indian general election How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I hope a moderated discussion can resolve this content dispute and prevent further edit wars. Summary of dispute by XYZ 250706Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Next Indian general election discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Statement Zero by Moderator (Indian election)Please read the usual rules. In particular, you are reminded not to edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress, and to be civil and concise. Do the editors all agree that they will comply with the rules during moderated discussion? Also, will each editor please make a one-paragraph statement saying what they want to change in the article, or what they want left the same in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Indian election)Next Indian general election is almost a year away from now. I think it's better not to add alliances until the official announcement. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
|
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Olympian on 09:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC).
| Closed as failed. I am closing this DRN case as failed because it may be impossible to resolve by voluntary mediation. The editors had source reliability questions about thirteen sources, and these sources were listed at the reliable source noticeboard. A neutral RSN volunteer, User:Itsmejudith, provided opinions that some of the sources were considered reliable as the work of mainstream academic historians. Another RSN volunteer, User:Levivich, provided opinions on all of the sources, stating that some of them were too old. Editors who are parties to this dispute disagreed with the editors at RSN. I don't know how to resolve a dispute where an editor disagrees with RSN about a book source. Issues about the reliability of periodical sources at RSN are resolved by RFC and are listed in the list of frequently asked questions (FAQ), and an RFC runs for 30 days. There is no apparent way to resolve this dispute without a 30-day hold for the community to provide consensus, and then there might be further disagreements. Successful resolution of a content dispute is difficult or impossible if different editors have irreconcilable ideas as to what is neutral point of view due to differing nationalistic viewpoints.
There is a new Request for Arbitration concerning Azerbaijan and Armenia, and the ArbCom is waiting to see if this DRN will resolve this dispute. It seems less undesirable (all outcomes are undesirable when neutral point of view is clouded by nationalistic conflicts) to let the ArbCom conduct a full inquiry, and then reopen discussion on this article. This case is closed. Discuss any content issues at the article talk page, and wait for the ArbCom to conduct a new case on Armenia and Azerbaijan. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I created this article on 1 December 2022 [7]; user Dallavid initiated an AfD immediately after the article's creation [8], resulting in a consensus for keeping the article [9]. Not getting the outcome Dallavid had hoped for, they proceed to delete a third of the article's content (10K bytes) [10], vaguely citing Wikipedia policies, without gaining consensus in the talk page, or at least explaining their massive content removal in the talk page (until directly asked). Dallavid's reasoning for deleting content that cited 14 different authors referenced non-existent consensuses and unfounded genocide-denialism claims. I advised Dallavid to seek a consensus in WP:RSN before removing the sources and their content, but they have been unwilling to do so. The dispute is summarised in the numbered points in the replies between Dallavid and myself, they relate to whether Soviet historiography, alleged genocide deniers, and others, can be cited to support the content removed by Dallavid. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921)#Issues How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Providing an objective and uninvolved analysis of the questions involved in the content dispute, and helping to resolve the dispute in deciding which content is appropriate and consistent with Wikipedia to remain in the article. Summary of dispute by AbrvaglPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Dallavid initiated AfD, resulting in the keepig the article. Then they reopened AfD, which led in another Keep. Ultimately, Dallavid began eliminating large amounts of sourced content from the article. As someone who briefly engaged in the conversations, it appears to me that it is attempt to erase article one way or another, rather than concerns about the sources. With regards to the sources:
Summary of dispute by ZaniGiovanniPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by DallavidPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Olympian, could you please not make WP:ASPERSIONS personal attacks. The WP:ONUS is on you for creating the article, which you thought to be Good Article quality but were told by an AfC reviewer that it is not even B quality.[13] The amount of bytes in an edit has nothing to do with its quality or if it even deserves to be included, as Alalch explained.[14] And by "they have been unwilling to do so" I'm sure you meant to say that I pointed out you are the one that needs to go to RSN because you are trying to include the disputed content, right? Anyways, I am in favor of merging this article with the Deportations article, although a redirect shouldn't be left behind because the article subject is largely original research, with the only source supporting it being written by a genocide denier. --Dallavid (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Alalch E.Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. My initial vews on the dispute are located here Talk:Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921)#Cont.Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderator (Azerbaijani-Armenia)I will try to moderate this content dispute. Please read the usual rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion here. Address your comments to the moderator as the representative of the community. I am reminding the editors that this is a contentious topic, which has been subject to battleground editing because the border regions of Azerbaijan and Armenia have been real battlegrounds for more than a hundred years. Because this is a contentious topic, ArbCom discretionary sanctions have been authorized for disruptive editing based on WP:ARBAA2. I am asking each editor to provide a statement that they agree to moderated discussion subject to the usual ground rules and subject to discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC) I am also asking each editor to provide either a one-paragraph summary of what they want changed or left the same in the article, or a list of bullet-points that they want changed in the article, or left the same. First statements by editors (Azerbaijani-Armenia)Statement by OlympianI acknowledge and agree to the moderated discussion subject to the usual ground rules and subject to discretionary sanctions. In regards to the content that I want changed, I'm seeking a almost-complete reversion of Dallavid's massive content removal (excepting the Aharonian source which I agreed is considered WP:PRIMARY), basically, a restoration of content referencing the sources by the following authors (use CTRL+F to find the sources in the bibliography section of this version [15]):
And a partial removal of content by Taner Akçam (due to its content being proven to be outside of the scope of the article [16]), specifically along the lines of: Statement by Alalch E.I agree to a moderated discussion etc. (I will not edit the article, participate on the talk page etc.) I request that my advocacy here be seen as subsidiary in function: Whatever Dallavid and Olympian (edit: and Abrvagl) agree on and is different from what I suggest below, my position should be ignored. There's another thing that probably goes without saying but I'll say it: Whichever form of the content that is to be restored if any emerges from this process, it should be seen as an incremental change relative to the current state of the article; the restorations should be done manually without reverting to a previous revision. For example I think that my version of the lead is a good starting point for a better future lead, and should not be undone by simply reverting to the old lead. That being said:
Second statement by moderator (Azerbaijani-Armenia)It appears that there at least two areas of disagreement about article content. First, some editors want to rewrite the lede paragraph of the article. Second, it appears that some editors want to remove certain content because of questions about the reliability of the sources that the content is based on. Are there any third or fourth areas of disagreement about article content? If so, please describe them briefly. This should be a relatively straightforward question that should not take long to answer. If there are disputes about the reliability of sources, we will ask the reliable source noticeboard for the status of the sources, but that can wait until we determine what the areas of disagreement are. I will be asking each editor to rewrite the lede paragraph, but I am not asking that at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Azerbaijani-Armenia)Third statement by moderator (Azerbaijani-Armenia)Two editors have made preliminary statements, but have not answered my question of whether there are any other issues, so I am assuming that the answer is no. The other editors have not made preliminary statements. I am now asking each editor who has made a preliminary statement to submit a proposed rewrite of the lede paragraph. I am asking each editor who has not made a preliminary statement to make a statement as to what they want changed (or left the same) in the article. I am also asking all of the editors to provide a list of all of the sources that they want reviewed at the reliable source noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Azerbaijani-Armenia)Statement by OlympianApologies for the late reply. There are no other issues—in fact, I'm not entirely opposed to the lede paragraph written by Alalch E.; If the disputed content is added back, I would add to the lede's existing structure/wording as appropriate. In a nutshell, the lede isn't a subject of contention in this case. However, in the case of the sources, as listed in my last reply [18], whichever ones Dallavid opposes and questions the reliability of, I'm open to being discussed in RSN, which happens to be all of them (excepting the Hovannisian and Kaufman sources which had problems re wording/attribution, not reliability). Also, both Alalch E. and Abrvagl made statements supporting the restoration of most (6 and 12, of 12, respectively) of the sources that I listed: [19] [20]. Regards, – Olympian loquere 23:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by DallavidI agree to moderated discussion. I would like the article to remain essentially as it is now, with all of the unreliable sources and their content removed. However, in this current state, the sources that actually are reliable to not really discuss massacres, but rather Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia. I would support what content in the massacres article that is credible being eventually moved to the deportation article without leaving a redirect behind. Concerning some of the sources proposed being added back, I would like to point out that Baberowski is a genocide denier, Hovannisian mentioning extraordinary claims is not the same as endorsing them, and La Temps is an example of WP:AGE MATTERS. There is also the area of disagreement of whether the article should be merged into Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia. If the removed content remains removed, then there will be no sources justifying the existence of a massacres article, which is largely original research. For the lede, I would support removing "Azerbaijanis in Armenia were targeted as "Turkish fifth columnists" in connection to the Armenian genocide which had ended in 1917." and "Armenia's minister of war, Rouben Ter Minassian pursued a policy of ethnic homogenization in the affected areas" being removed from the lede, as both of these sources are referring to deportations, and their use in the header misleadingly implies they refer to massacres. --Dallavid (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
McCarthy's books have been published in university presses; that has done nothing to make him any less regarded as a dishonest fringe pseudo-historian.
Dallavid (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by ZaniGiovanniI would support the article being merged into the Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia article, of which this article is a clear POV fork of. There are no sources specifically dedicated to the Massacres subject, which is not a notable topic by itself. I also support the removal all of the sources that were removed, as these are largely fringe sources or sources cited out of context. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderator (Azerbaijani-Armenia)There is some discussion of McCarthy as an unreliable source. Is that Justin McCarthy (American historian)? He is not currently either listed in the Bibliography or the References or mentioned in the article. Should he be included in the inquiry at the reliable source noticeboard, or is it agreed that he is a biased source and is considered a genocide denier? Also, I am assuming that any references to genocide denial more specifically are about denial of the Armenian genocide. Some of the sources that are in dispute are not currently in the article, and may have been removed, so that the question is whether to restore them. Will each editor please provide enough information to identify the source for RSN, either the full name of the author, in brackets if they have an article, or the title of the work by the author? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (Azerbaijani-Armenia)Statement by OlympianRobert McClenon, Mark Levene in his book Devastation references Justin McCarthy for the following passage in the book on page 217:
When Dallavid complained about the reliability of the claim due to it referencing McCarthy [21], I removed it [22]. After this, Abrvagl left a comment disagreeing with my decision to remove the source given that it's published by Oxford University Press [23]. On the issue of genocide-denialism, they have been conflated in the replies in this thread and on the original talk page discussion: Dallavid alleges that of two of the authors of the removed sources, Jorg Baberowski is a Holocaust denier and Jamil Hasanli is an Armenian genocide denier. In regards to McCarthy, I don't question the fact that he's an Armenian genocide-denier after having researched him, however, I believe Abrvagl is suggesting that it'd be appropriate for RSN to decide whether Levene's claim is suitable, nonetheless, for Wikipedia-usage. In regards to your second point, you can view the citation/details of Levene's book Devastation in the bibliography section of the article by searching "Levene"; incase someone removes it—as it's currently unused in the article—the ISBN is 9780191505546. Regards, – Olympian loquere 05:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by DallavidRobert McClenon Yes, it's that McCarthy, originally added to the article by Olympian. Although Olympian removed the McCarthy citation after another user pointed out he is a genocide denier, I've since discovered that much of the article content that I removed had come from McCarthy's "The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims 1821-1922" source, specifically from pages 208 to 221. This unreliable source is the only source that has been provided so far that has a real focus on『Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921)』(even the date range comes from McCarthy), rather than a combination of being about deportations and original research instead. Baberovski is a defender of Ernst Nolte,[24] who has his own section on Holocaust denial. And here is a quote from Hasanli that shows he is a genocide denier. --Dallavid (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC) Jörg Baberowski is undeniably a very controversial figure, as one look at the "Academic criticism", "Political views and disputes" and "Conflict with Trotskyists" sections that take up half of his article prove. He is clearly a fringe source, and also somewhat of a clown known for attacking students and failed defamation lawsuits against his critics. "Baberowski is a central figure within the far-right milieu. He spreads xenophobic hate speech, downplays violence against refugees and relativizes the crimes of the Nazis. In February 2014, he claimed in Der Spiegel that Hitler was not vicious and that the Holocaust was comparable to shootings during the Russian Civil War." --Dallavid (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by AbrvaglRobert McClenon, I do not have much issues to comment, and I covered must of what I wanted to say in the summary. None of the quotes of Hasanli here proves or implies that he denies Armenian genocide. The simplest approach to discredit any source in AA is to assert that the author is a genocide denier, but there should be consensus or credible sources proving this. It is not the prerogative of editors to label an author as a genocide denier based on their original research. For example: Jörg Baberowski is German historian and Professor of Eastern European History at the Humboldt University of Berlin. He also was appointed to a chair in Eastern European history at the University of Leipzig in 2001 and book he wrote won the Leipzig Book Prize in 2012. There are should be strong reasons to discredit Baberowski, and allegations that Baberowski is not reliable because he is "defender of Ernst Nolte" is not that kind of reason. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 20:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator (Azerbaijani-Armenia)I have posted a list of the sources that we want an opinion on at the reliable source noticeboard. We don't have an article on a newspaper named La Temps, so that a query will require more information. Are there any other authors or works for which inquiries at RSN are in order? Are there any content issues that do not depend on reliability of sources? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (Azerbaijani-Armenia)Statement by OlympianRobert McClenon Thanks for posting that to RSN. I hope you don't mind, I've just updated the RSN request with full details of the sources in question to avoid ambiguity/confusion [25] I've added the Le Temps newspaper and Levene source to the request too. The content issues which don't depend on the reliability of sources are in regards to two removed sections of the article that reference the volumes by Hovannisian, whose reliability as an author is unquestioned:
Whilst point 2 has proper atribution already, I'm amenable to changing the wording of point 1 to something along the lines of:
– Olympian loquere 07:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by Alalch E.Statement by DallavidHovannisian is not supporting Topchubashov's claims. If "Armenian warriors" being in scare quotes wasn't evidence enough, here is the counter argument that Hovannisian writes on the next page:
Also, the "Armenian militiamen and irregulars exacted retribution from the most vulnerable Muslim settlements" line is from another paragraph and unrelated to the Paris Peace Conference. This is yet another example of sources being selectively quoted to create a whole new narrative, as I pointed out in the AFD discussion that there were many instances of in the article. --Dallavid (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Sixth statement by moderator (Azerbaijani-Armenia)I am asking each editor to comment on the two points that Olympian has identified that are attributed to an unchallenged source, Hovannisian. Please state whether you think that the content which has been removed should be restored. Are there any other content issues that do not depend on whether sources are reliable? Are there any other sources that should be questioned at RSN?Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors (Azerbaijani-Armenia)Statement by DallavidI elaborated in my statement under "Fifth statements by editors" why the Hovannisian content is not an accurate representation of the source. --Dallavid (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Seventh statement by moderator (Azerbaijani-Armenia)The sources that have been listed at RSN and the responses are:
Is there any material that was removed from the article that is attributed to one of the reliable sources? If so, it should be restored unless there is some other reason not to restore it. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC) Is there any material that is currently in the article that is attributed to a source that has not had an opinion? User:Dallavid – Are you stating that Hovannisian is misrepresenting their sources, or that another editor is misrepresenting what Hovannisian has written? Is there agreement to leave out any material that is attributed to sources for which RSN did not provide an opinion? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC) Seventh statements by editors (Azerbaijani-Armenia)Statement by DallavidAnother editor is misrepresenting what Hovannisian has written, I pointed out several instances of this with other sources in the AFD discussion and the article talk page. --Dallavid (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC) Back-and-forth discussion (Azerbaijani-Armenia)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| The parties have not had extensive discussion of the issue on a talk page, and the filing is overly focused on conduct over content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by ChrisKatBSC on 20:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I am the Director of Institutional Research for the College. I have announced affiliation after being informed that I needed to. I am simply trying to update the page with FACTUAL information that I certainly can cite. I am ultimately responsible for data about the College, and this page is woefully out of date. As I've learned policy, I've adapted. I posted on the talk page the edits that needed to be made, and instead of considering the edits I have received snarky responses and personal accusations. This is unacceptable behavior by the individual that is white-knighting on behalf of out of date information. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Previous steps to resolve the dispute: Explained on talk page, requested username update, declared affiliation, explained on other users talk.
Remove blocks, allow me to update the page to reflect accurate and timely data with citations, and consider if MrOllie is representing the site in a manner that it should. Rather than helping and guiding this individual is combative and accusatory. Not good. I can make the page accurate with factual citations. A mistake in the approach has led to a fire fight that was not the aim of the update. Summary of dispute by MrOlliePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Bryant and Stratton College discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closing as premature. It's clear that the opening user and relevant parties have not had extensive discussion on the article talk page. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Added comment: Discussion on a user talk page is not a substitute for discussion on an article talk page. An article talk page sometimes draws the attention of third-party editors who may help to resolve an issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Lila1994 on 04:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The rent regulation page is deeply biased and polemical, providing broad unsupported statements such as "there is a consensus" and "many economists believe." I have attempted to better those citations and to add additional context and other users have blocked me from doing so. I am concerned about the neutrality of this page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lila1994 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I believe this page needs a neutral assessment of the sources cited and language used. Summary of dispute by MrOlliePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by DrmiesPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There is no dispute. User kept blanking material. MrOllie and I reverted because their edit summaries were insufficient--four instance, they kept saying that a source was "unjustifiable" when the material they removed had FOUR references. Yes, brand-new editor sought the talk page but apparently can't wait for an answer. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Rent regulation discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Velcroman100 on 15:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC).
| Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance with a dispute. While you've taken a shot at fixing the problems raised in the AFD, the sources you've added just still are not adequate to support an independent article. Mentions in passing are not enough to establish notability (which has been the problem with having that as a separate article all along). — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview iMore is currently part of the "Apple Community" page -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_community -- a weird page that lumps a ton of different people, ideas, and websites into one place. I'm not sure what benefit this offers to the reader. It doesn't offer any real details on any of the brands connected, or insight into what connects them as a "community." Some websites listed on this page have separate pages for any readers looking for information. iMore should as well. However, my efforts to build one keep being overturned, in favor of this low-use community page. My efforts to discuss this have been shut down: The Talk page for iMore was recently deleted!! How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? relaunched the Talk page since it was deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IMore How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I'd like independent review of this. Someone has simply been reverting my efforts to build a useful page, citing changes from half a decade ago. Can someone please put eyeballs on the change list and look at what's been going on? I don't know why the page was deleted or why the talk page was deleted. Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Starlights99 on 10:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC).
| Not a dispute, no other parties listed. DRN is not a place to recruit help in editing an article. It's a place to seek aid in resolving discussion between parties with a view to coming to consensus, such as consensus. If the primary issue is sourcing of MEDRS claims, try the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for assistance of evaluation of sources. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview In the Diwali article, there is a section regarding air pollution that contains many biomedical claims. These claims do not have sources that meet the WP:MEDRS policy. Additionally, these sources do not actually contain the information or claims that have been put into the article. Examples of such biomedical claims are below:
2. “When these compounds pollute the air, they increase the risk of cancer in people” 3. “The air and noise pollution that is caused by firecrackers can affect people with disorders related to the heart, respiratory and nervous system.” 4. "The harmful fumes while firing crackers can lead to miscarriage." The other user also made claims of "whitewashing", yet the only other contributions I made to the article are some grammatical changes and some contextual info to the Jainism section. I believe the air pollution section should be removed, or at least content relating to biomedical claims. A discussion has taken place on the article's talk page. I have tried to suggest a compromise with a link to some alternative wording in a sandbox page but no outcome has been reached. It may be beneficial for another opinion / another set of eyes. In summary, many biomedical claims have been made with sources that not only do not meet WP:MEDRS, but do not contain any of the content put into the article. After discussions on the talk page and suggesting alternative wording, a solution has still not been reached. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Diwali How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Another opinion / another set of eyes would be beneficial in assessing the case to remove the improperly sourced biomedical claims from the article. Diwali discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Mitch199811 on 19:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC).
| Closed as no response from key editor. The issue in this case was edits made by an unregistered editor to the article. The unregistered editor has not made a statement, four days after the filing party notified them on their talk page, and two days after the moderator asked them whether they agreed to moderated discussion. Moderated discussion is voluntary, and it can be assumed that the unregistered editor is choosing not to participate. The filing editor and the other editor are advised to request semi-protection of the article page for a few weeks, and to discuss their edits with each other and with the unregistered editor. The unregistered editor is reminded that civilityisthe fourth pillar of Wikipedia, and that gatekeeping an article is not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview IP wants to change unknown to unspecified (it looks like he already did) for being unprofessional and immature. DCS002 said that the problem was nonexistent and the change was silly and he mostly dropped out afterwards. Me and the IP have been in a stalemate because I want to know why he thinks it is a necessary change. DCS002 was briefly in it but he was regarded as immature by the IP and the IP is being snarky to both of us. The IP also has deleted conversations I think he doesn't like. IP address sometimes changes but they all start with 2A02. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:2022–23 European windstorm season#Appalling Grammar Talk:2022–23 European windstorm season#Use the word “Unspecified” Talk:2022–23 European windstorm season#Maybe “undetermined”? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Telling us which word we should use. Watch over us to make sure we don't get too insult-y. Summary of dispute by 2A02:A44C:6682:1:2D2C:D0EA:3CA6:66E9Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Dcs002Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The argument that something should be described as unspecified, not specified,orunknown is a small part of an ongoing chaos on this talk page. I prefer unspecified because it is an adjective that describes the quantity under discussion. Not specified is a negated past tense verb that describes a lack of action on the part of those whose job it might be to specify something. I'm not sure if we can actually say that something is unknown and be literally correct. We can't know what is known but not reported. It's a small nuance that I don't think is really worth having a dispute, but there is a much larger issue here. One (or more) ip editor(s) has/have made numerous inappropriate posts on this talk page based on subjective preferences and harsh judgements of others rather than policy or consensus, many of which have been reverted as possible vandalism for their egregious nature. I don't know if this is one editor or more than one, so for convenience I will refer to the ip editors in the plural, though it appears to me likely to be one person. The reasons given by the ip editors for their desired changes are that the writing was "immature", and in one occurrence "grotesque". Nothing argued by the ip editors has been based on WP policy or practices, only their own judgements that WP readers should know that articles were written by "adults", and that the writing in the article didn't measure up, in the opinion of the ip editors. The ip editors have dominated the talk page, adding new sections to respond to individual comments in other sections, and in one case (since reverted) creating a sort of task list for people to complete when they have made edits that the ip users wanted, based solely on the ip users' own judgement. Resolution? As this involves possibly multiple unidentified users, the resolution is tricky, as no effective action can be taken concerning a single editor, but perhaps the article and talk page should be protected for a period of time to prevent ip users from editing either. The ip users might simply need education on how WP works and the policies and practices governing the types of edits they have made. Without speculating on motive, their posts demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of how to address the issues they have expressed concerns about. Dcs002 (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
2022-23 European Windstorm Season discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. I moved the following from my summary section above. I think this is where such things belong: IP user 2a02:a44c:6682:1:2d2c:d0ea:3ca6:66e9 just deleted the entire discussion section titled Use the word “Unspecified”, saying the issue had been resolved, which clearly it hasn't. I reverted the deletion. I suggest that page be watched closely for such activity, and I'd also like to request that the talk page and article be temporarily protected from ip edits pending this dispute resolution. Dcs002 (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by moderator (European windstorms)If this is only about what wording to use when information in a table or an infobox is not present, then this seems to be a European windstorm in a glass of water. However, if the editors want moderated discussion, I will act as the moderator. Read the usual rules. Do the editors agree to comply with the rules, and do they editors want moderated discussion? The unregistered editor is reminded that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Statement 0.1 by moderator (European windstorms)User:Dcs002 - I wanted you to answer the questions of whether you agree to comply with the rules and whether you are willing to take part in moderated discussion. You have answered that you agree to comply with the rules, and so have made the requested statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (European windstorms)The IP already replaced every unknown with unspecified. I do not think that this is right, especially for the damages section. If the agencies truly did not care enough to measure wind speeds and other statistics, then to keep consistency with the other weather season articles, I would use not specified over unspecified. If we are just too lazy to find the information, we shouldn't even mention that statistic. The IP's reason for this is because unknown is immature, which he never backed up with policies or guidelines. I tried to back mine up with articles, which those reasons were either ignored or complained that they were prices (which he proceeded to fill in prices with unspecified). I have already filled in the prices from the Atlantic Hurricanes using their articles. ✶Mitch199811✶ 13:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC) I am afraid I don't know what a zeroth statement is meant to be. I might have made the expected statement above, as a reply to a comment in my summary statement. I agree to act according to the rules of civility, and I will just refer to comments under my summary statement, if I may, because I have written the extent of my arguments there in full. I think we should use the terms unknown and undetermined (and other similar terms, such as unreported and unknowable) according to their definitions. I don't think the disputed uses of either term in this article materially affects the quality of the article, but when there is doubt, go for the literal definition, as I've described above. My primary concern is the ip editor's owning the article and their terrible lack of respect to other editors, and the superiority with which they assert their authority to change things as they please. Dcs002 (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed. Another RFC is being used. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by LaundryPizza03 on 03:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview This is an ISIL-owned pirate radio station with known operations in Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Panam2014 and I disagree on whether the list of known frequencies used by Al-Bayan in Libya is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. In 2017, Panam2014 had successfully proposed blacklisting all sites under a family of ISIL domains at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2017#Terrorist propaganda, having described them as terrorist propaganda sites with short lifespan (though not on grounds of legality). Panam2014 removed the list of radio frequencies in Libya on November 7, initially because it was deemed "terrorist propaganda". Following my rough judgment of consensus of a subsequent AN, I restored the content per WP:NOTCENSORED on November 9, but was reverted again as "dangerous and illegal content". Following a lengthy rebuttal by several users at Al-Bayan's talk page and Panam2014's user talk, plus parallel discussions at the French Wikipedia, Panam2014 no longer believes that the disputed content is illegal or terrorist propaganda. I restored the content on December 9, but was reverted about 3 hours later because Panam2014 nonetheless deemed the information to be impertinent. I then opened an RfC, as they had asked, but it received only one comment from a third party during the standard 30-day frame, despite notification of the relevant WikiProjects, and the result is probably insufficient for consensus. Therefore, I have brought the issue to DRN as a last resort. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? To decide whether to restore the content to the article (possibly with a new source — the previously-used one looks rather iffy). It may be worthwhile to look more closely at Panam2014's history in the topic area of ISIL, but that would need to proceed at WP:ANI. Summary of dispute by Panam2014Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. A new RfC is better. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Al-Bayan (radio station) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Not a DRN case. Forwarded users towards Wikipedia: Third opinion. Chefs-kiss (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Peter Gulutzan on 15:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview One editor cited Breitbart News at the end of a sentence quoting Breitbart News. Another editor reverted. The issue is whether to reinstate the cite. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [[26]] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Say "reinstate the cite". Or say "don't reinstate the cite". Or say "I've been involved with this topic before therefore cannot help".
Summary of dispute by Isi96Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Peter Gulutzan added a citation to the website on its own article without adding the link to the spam whitelist first, so I created a request on the spam whitelist talk page. The request went unanswered, so I removed the citation, as the consensus for the site notes that links must first be added to the spam whitelist before they can be used. Peter Gulutzan seems to be arguing that it's fine to add the citation without adding the link to the spam whitelist first. Breitbart News discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Arkenstrone on 21:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
| Closed as primarily a conduct dispute. There almost certainly is a content dispute here, but it is concealed in the conduct dispute, including filibustering, claims of personal attacks, allegations of sockpuppetry, allegations of hoaxes, and a request for an interaction ban. The allegation of sockpuppetry is a serious matter, and should be either made at sockpuppet investigations or not made at all. The allegation of a hoax is a serious matter, and should be either made at WP:ANIorWP:AN or not made at all. DRN is not the forum to request an interaction ban, which can be done at WP:ANI. The editors in this request should read the boomerang essay, and then either file conduct reports, or don't file conduct reports. An interaction ban might be a good idea because it might be less restrictive than other sanctions. Any article content issues can probably be addressed by other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The dispute is about 1) linking to Canada-specific content that pertains to the Statute Law Revision Act 1893, and 2) the sentence in the 'Amendments to Schedule' sub-section which attempts to explain the effects of the Statute Law Revision Act 1908 in regards to the Statute Law Revision Act 1893, particularly as it relates to certain dominions out of the United Kingdom, including Canada, New Zealand, India, South Africa, etc. The first issue was previously agreed by consensus. The second issue was still being discussed on the talk page when after some time, the editor James500 refused to discuss the second issue any further, and engaged in "revenge editing" by deleting previously agreed content and pages for the first issue. I've restored the pages deleted/redirected and the original content and placed a notice on the article page, until these disputes can be resolved. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Statute Law Revision Act 1893 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
1. Involve neutral 3rd-party to evaluate the dispute. Summary of dispute by James500I believe that the two accounts Arkenstrone and Mjp1976 are WP:DUCK sockpuppets being operated by one person who is spamming the talk page in question (and other pages) with massive quantities of sealioning, badgering (WP:BADGER) and endless hoaxes and factually inaccurate misinformation. At one point the two accounts tried to claim that the Statute Law Revision Act 1893 has legally abolished Canada by repealing the enacting clause of the British North America Act 1867: [27] [28] (this is what they mean when they refer to "the legitimacy of Canada after 1893"; no reliable source has ever questioned "the legitimacy of Canada" or suggested that repealing an enacting clause can affect "the legitimacy" of a country or affect the continuing force of an Act; and neither editor has produced any reliable source in support of that claim). When I detected this hoax (and the amount of spam on the talk page meant that I did not detect it for a week), it was so extreme that it was the final straw that convinced me that these two accounts are manifestly being used for the purpose of bad faith trolling, there being now overwhelming evidence. Previous hoaxes included, in particular: inventing a completely imaginary Act of Parliament that does not exist (there is no "Statute Law Revision (No 3) Act 1893"); falsely pretending that the 1893 Act only extends to Canada and that its entire text consists of the entry relating to the British North America Act 1867; falsely pretending that the 1893 Act is massively controversial in Canada and of great interest to many Canadians (a claim for which I could find no verifiable evidence); falsely pretending that the 1893 Act is of massive constitutional significance and interest in Canada (the few passing mentions I found in sources said that the Act had no constitutional effect and that the repeal of section 2 (not the enacting clause, which no source that I could find seems to care about) was evidence that these kind of repeals have no constitutional effect, see eg [29]); trying to delete all reference to the repeal of Schedule of the 1893 Act from the article; trying to alter the article text relating to the 1908 repeal of the 1893 Schedule in ways that would make it factually inaccurate in relation to the entries that were repealed and the territorial extent of the repeal; trying to replace that article text with something that looked almost like gibberish; falsely pretending that "Her Majesty's dominions" are the same thing as the Dominions created by the Statute of Westminster 1931; apparently all in an attempt to push the freeman on the land style pseudolaw hoax that Canada was legally abolished by the Act of 1893. Then there are the violations of NOTPROMO. Arkenstrone has done everyting possible to attract attention to his hoaxes. He said, in express words, that he wanted to make his ideas "highly visible" (clear violation of NOTPROMO and SPAM). He has created a separate (and less than entirely factually accurate) UNDUE article for the Canadian provisions of the 1893 Act. As far as I can see, the article he created fails GNG easily and would have no chance of withstanding an AfD, in its present form with the minimal sources it has. He added the 1893 Act to Template:Constitutional history of Canada, where it does not belong, and with no regard for due weight (POV and UNDUE). He linked the 1893 Act at Amendments to the Constitution of Canada, but did not link any of the many other minor amendments, most of which have articles or redirects, and could be linked. (I think UNDUE would require us to link either all of them or none of them). Within the main article, he has tried to make the Canadian aspects of the 1893 Act as prominent as possible with no regard for due weight. As for spamming: The two accounts (and Arkenstrone in particular) have expanded the article talk page to an enormous length of 36kB, in a very short space of time, in an attempt to make it unintelligible so that no third party will be able to make sense of it, let alone intervene. The talk page is nearly three times the size of the article, and most of the content is unconstructive sealioning, badgering, bludeoning, COTD, TLW, and pestering (and with hoaxes, misinformation and POV etc). Arkenstrone has previous warnings for this: [30] [31]. In fact, before he blanked it, his talk page was full of complaints and warnings from editors who believed he was trolling them: [32]. When I repeatedly tried to leave the discussion, Arkenstrone repeatedly tried to drag me back with more pestering and sealioning. As for the sockpuppetry, the two accounts have both expressed support for the hoax that Canada was legally abolished in 1893, and for each other's comments. The writing style of the two accounts is almost identical in terms that it displays the same kind of grammatical incorrectness, not writing in proper sentences, and unusual phraseology. Both accounts recently blanked their talk pages. Both accounts have a history of annoying people (see Arkenstrone's talk page and [33].) Both accounts make personal attacks in which they (wrongly) profess to know what is going on inside my head (such as accusing me of not liking "the idea of having your edits . . . improved upon", or accusing me of having "delusions of grandeur"). Both edit in similar areas (Canadian topics). Both accounts are WP:SLEEPERs. They display implausible editing patterns. In particular, the response of Mjp1976 to an echo notification within 17 hours would require me to believe that someone with less than a hundred edits over nearly a decade has logged into his account every day for more than a year while making no edits. (Why would anyone do that?) Arkenstrone is, from his behaviour and his knowledge of Wikipedia, obviously a highly experienced editor who must have made tens of thousands of edits, and obviously not someone who made two brief bursts of a few hundred edits fourteen years apart (which is not particularly plausible either). The most recent false accusation of "revenge editing" is further evidence of trolling. I believed that the blanking of the talk page was a legitimate use of WP:DENY, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:SPAM, WP:HOAX etc. I made it perfectly clear that my purpose was to prevent the misuse of talk pages etc for bad faith spamming and hoaxing. The claim that I deleted previously agreed content is also false and further evidence of trolling: The content in question was either not deleted or not agreed. In addition to that, Arkenstrone said that he wants to overturn WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD, and replace them with a "bold, discuss, revert" cycle, in order to make it harder to revert the inaccurate changes he made to the article. That is what he means by "the Wikipedia requirement to discuss on article talk pages before making disputed edits". This is the status quo. And Arkenstrone has today edit warred to reinsert links that were not in the status quo and are disputed: [34] [35]; and I did not at any time agree to the insertion of either link. This is not a genuine content dispute. This is a conduct dispute. The account called Arkenstrone is clearly deliberately trying to harass me personally, judging by the massive sealioning, badgering, bludeoning, COTD, TLW, and pestering which is still continuing. It is an obvious sleeper sockpuppet that has been reactivated for the purpose of harassing me and spreading hoaxes. I am not certain which of those purposes is the main one. It could be someone who is trying to push a hoax about the Canadian constitution for a political motivation, or it could be someone who I had an altercation with years ago and who is trying to get at me with a sock. I am begging you block his account. I cannot take any more of this. James500 (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Mjp1976Everything said about me by James500 are in fact ad hominem attacks. This is an attempt to label me as a kook or a nut to therefore sway your opinion in your arbitration. He has pulled nonsense out of thin air to throw it into a wild series of ad hominem attacks against me in violation of WP:PA. This is a clear attempt to defame and label me in an attempt to label, defame, harass, and publicly humiliate and destroy my account on Wikipedia. James500's wild claims of sock puppetry are bogus, I had an edit history for a page at the request of the subject of the page, that Wikipedia deleted in the past where the page was fought with abusive editing by others and unfactual BS. My post on the talk page was 2 years ago: 19:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC), then all of a sudden I am being accused of being fake all of a sudden. This is I never made any arbitrary edits to the main page, I followed Wikipedia policy to discuss ALL Changes to a main page. Follow the consensus protocol before making an edit. I had completely forgotten about it until I started getting notices about a conversation on the talk page. I'm not a professional Wikipedia Editor like James500, This is not my job. This is not all I do, but it seems from the years invested by James500 he does spend a ton of time editing pages on Wikipedia. I brought this to the attention 2 years ago because I saw a legitimate error in the article and pointed it out on the talk page. Where was James500 for the past two years?? Nothing on the talk page even eluded to anything related to his wild claims in his dispute paragraph. James500 has concocted that out of his own mind to disparage me in order to keep himself in esteem in the community. He further goes into a claim of psudolaw without proof again with another attempt to disparage myself as he makes claims without proof. James500 drew his own wild conspiracy conclusions in his dispute and his claim has nothing to do with what is being discussed. Furthermore, his claims about me as stated previously are in fact ad hominem attacks and have no basis in fact, logic or reason. Furthermore the personal attack about me "annoying people" is in fact a violation of Wikipedia policy. I had one issue and it was cleared up as can be seen. Secondly, I've not done any editing to my page or talk page until today, which can be verified by admins. Also For the record, I enabled WATCH on the talk page when I made my edit to keep track. I have no idea where his wild claims are coming from as I pull all of my information from legitimate verifiable sources such as from the websites of the Governments of the UK and Canada or other reputable websites of governments in the commonwealth or secondary websites I can verify as being Legitimate and accurate. I'm not pulling any information out of any crackpot websites, I am following the legitimate interpretation of the laws in hand by pulling proper corresponding laws into the question on the matter of interpretation, therefore the wild claims are without proof, legitimacy or merit. I'm requesting an IBAN on James500 for his personal attacks in this dispute. They are unprovoked and unmitigated attacks without cause, reason, or proof. These are concocted delusions of grandeur to try to get the admins to side with him because he has been a long-time active Wikipedia editor and I am a casual editor. In order to settle this dispute and further eliminate this issue from rising again I formally request an IBAN between myself and James500 at the conclusion of this dispute as I have no wish to deal with this hostile person. Furthermore, there are no conspiracies being pushed as I have done extensive research into the history and amendments of the BNA Act 1867. The enacting Clause has been in fact repealed and can be proven as such therefore not a conspiracy. As such standards and practices of all laws of the UK Government for over 200 years previously have used enacting clauses it's not a conspiracy to question why it was arbitrarily removed and how that legitimately affects the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjp1976 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC) Mjp1976 (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC) Statute Law Revision Act 1893 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by SteadyJames on 09:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC).
| Closed as premature. As a secondary point, the filing party has not notified the other parties on their user talk pages. As a primary matter, the discussion of the nomenclature has been on the filing party's user talk page, and not on the article talk page. Discussion should be on the article talk page. There has been discussion of two other matters on the article talk page, but it has also not been extensive. Discuss on the article talk page, Talk:Association football, for at least 24 hours with at least two posts by each editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I made edits for clarity that defined the use of the word soccer as a nickname for Association football in the English-speaking world. These changes were first supported with reasoning recorded in edit notes and then on my talk page in response to posts that disagreed. Soon after, similar comments were made to the Association football wiki talk page section "soccer". Opposition to these changes stated that the matter was closed to discussion and that soccer was not a nickname for association football. Because I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia pages I was at first unaware of the protocol and did not add to the existing discussion on the talk page before editing with the same changes again. I corrected this as soon as I discover my error and added reasoning for the edit along with a supporting dictionary definition for 'nickname' to the talk page. With the use of the definition added to the talk page, soccer can be accurately described as a nickname. This post met with the approval of one other editor, and because I didn't know how to reach a quorum, I proceeded to make the edits. Again the same editors in opposition to the initial changes responded in the same way by reverting the edited, but this time promising to just revert each time such future changes are made--which I believe is a declaration of an edit war! At no point in the discussion on the Talk page have editors in opposition to the proposed edits engaged with the thrust of my argument for changes, nor have they tried to use reason or evidence or counterargument in the discussion. It now seems that we have reached an impasse. I remain willing to discuss the issue with the use of reason, further evidence and further supporting argument as demanded, and I am happy to compromise or even admit that I am wrong. However, I get the impression that those opposed to my suggested edits do not wish to approach the issue in the same open-minded way. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_football How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Arbitration. Maybe a third party can help those opposed to the changes understand that an opinion held by one or many individuals doesn't necessarily constitute fact. Similarly, two opposing things may be true at the same time-especially so when different populations have similar descriptive terms but different nomenclature. Accurate writing is able to accommodate differing opinions without having to resort to false dichotomies while also reflecting the 'truth' most applicable to the majority Summary of dispute by HiLo48Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by SounderBrucePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Association football discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Xuxo on 02:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC).
| Closed as declined. The other editor in this two-person dispute has declined to take part in moderated discussion, which is voluntary. The content dispute should be resolved by normal editing, with discussion at the article talk page, Talk:Azores. A concern about original research may be posted at the original research noticeboard, but the purpose of such a posting should only be to request third-party comments, because that noticeboard is also not a tribunal. Do not edit-war, and do not engage in wikilawyering about what is and is not edit-warring. An RFC may be used, but should only be used after discussion, and is not a substitute for discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Hello. I noticed that the "Demographics" section of article Azores was based on original research, since the written text had information that did not exist in the sources and distorted them. I rewrote the section with information based on the sources; however another user (Technopat) is now edit-warring, claiming that I am removing "perfectly valid reference". I did not remove any source; in fact the link for "Annals of Human Genetics" is exactly the same for "BMC Research Notes". I just removed the duplication, but the user is using this argument to edit-war. I explained all the issues in the talk page, however Technopat keeps edit-warring. So I need a third party to help me with this issue. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azores#Africans_and_Moors_-_distortion_of_the_sources How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? The text of "Demographics" section in Azores must be based on the information of the sources, but the text obviously has original research and distorts the sources. Summary of dispute by TechnopatPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
On the talk page:
Conclusion 1: In my edit summaries, I twice asked the user to seek consensus before removing the valid reference. I also tried to engage on the talk page. However, the user clearly had no intention of seeking consensus as the reference was repeatedly removed. Azores discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. First statement by moderator (Azores)I am ready to try to moderate the discussion of this content dispute. Please read the rules and acknowledge that you will abide by the rules. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Comment on content, not contributors. If you have any questions about the rules, please ask them now. It appears that the disagreement is about the Population subsection, about changes to the first and second paragraphs. Is the Population subsection the only part of the article about which there is disagreement? If not, please state what other issues there are. It appears that one editor wants to expand the first and second paragraphs. Please state, in one or two paragraphs, why the proposed expansion either is supported by the sources or is not supported by the sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC) First statements by editors (Azores)
|
