Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 131
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 125 | ← | Archive 129 | Archive 130 | Archive 131 | Archive 132 | Archive 133 | → | Archive 135 |
Talk:Canadian dollar
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | General close due to currently filed Admin Noticeboard: Edit warring report, currently found at User:Peter K Burian reported by User:NorthernFactoid (Result: 3-day block for both). DRN cases may not be accepted if the dispute is currently being discussed in either another venue, in this case the AN: Edit warring. If the report on the Admin noticeboard is withdrawn or inconclusive, then a refiling may occur without prejudice or bias at the DRN. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The Canadian Dollar article was frozen in time, at a point before mid 2014, when the value of this currency was still high. Since that time, it has dropped in value significantly vs. the US dollar. In mid 2013 it was at par, but now it is at 70 cents U.S. However, the Wikipedia article failed to even mention devaluation since mid 2014. Instead, it contained only discussions of the strength of this currency. As I had said on the Talk page, I find it incredible that such a major change - occurring over 18 months to date - and so significant to the topic, has been ignored by an encyclopedia article. (Because of NortherFactoid's content) I had added the relevant information: a sentence in the lede, fully citated (major news organization) and a new section with 2015-2016 content, again fully cited (major news media). NorthernFactoid has Reverted all of the content that I have added on several occasions. since early January 2016, as the History will confirm (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Canadian_dollar&action=history). Most recently today, he has deleted fully cited content that I had added, on two occasions as of 4:20pm, Eastern Standard Time. I have discussed this with NorthernFactoid in detail on the Talk page under three headings: "This article desperately needs a MAJOR update" "The value of the loonie has been crashing ... how can the lede ignore that???" "Edit War has been started by another user" He has responded to my comments, so he has been reading them, but has continued to Revert (delete fully cited content that I have added.) To be honest, I have eventually begun to UNDO his reverts starting today. (Yesterday, I had simply added new content, with citations, worded in a manner that might be more acceptable to him; but since he has chosen the Revert that content, I have decided to Undo such changes.) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have advised NorthernFactoid that the content I am adding is essential to the topic. The change in the value is not a sudden, one time, factor but has been ongoing for 18 months, though ignored by the content in [{Canadian Dollar]]. I have advised him on several occasions in the Talk sections that I will file for Dispute Resolution. I have served the relevant notice on his Talk page today: == Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==  This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!. How do you think we can help? Remove NorthernFactoid's right to Revert (delete) content added by other editors. Insist that the content of Canadian Dollar rightly includes a discussion of an essential aspect of the topic: the devaluation of this currency over the past 18 months, and still continuing.
Summary of dispute by NorthernFactoidPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Canadian dollar discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I believe we need to have Adminstrators inbolved to solve this Canadian Dollar dispute as to content. NortherFactoid filee a complaint about me (after he found out that I had requested Dispute Resolution) re: edit warring, after he had Reverted (deleted) every bit of content I had ever added and I began to Revert his deletions of my content starting today. No problem. Let the chips fly as they will. Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion ... Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. NorthernFactoid (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Peter K Burian (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Peter K Burian (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
|
Talk:Gog and Magog and Talk:Koka and Vikoka
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | No response from filing editor about whether the August RFC was applicable. The filing editor is free to offer another RFC, but is advised that this is likely to be viewed as tendentious. The editors can request formal mediation, but that will require that they work with the mediator in a way that they haven't worked with the mediator here. Disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview This dispute covers to two articles, Gog and Magog and Koka and Vikoka. The issue is essentially one: User:Xinheart wishes to include material to the effect that there are "similarities" between the names Gog and Magog and Koka and Vikoka, and that scholars have made "comparisons" between two legendary walls, one in Christian/Muslim legend, the other in Hindu cosmology. My position is that these two ideas are NOT held by current scholarship in the relevant areas of biblical studies, Islamic studies, Sanskrit studies, or mythological/folkloric studies. They are, in short, non-notable. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive Talk-page discussion; previous RfC (on Gog and Magog talk page). How do you think we can help? Is this idea - that there is a connection between the names Gog/Magog and Koka/Vikoka, and also between the "wall of Dhul Qarnayn" and the Hindu world-wall - one that should be in the article? Summary of dispute by XinheartPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Hi, This is the second dispute resolution raised by PiCo (talk · contribs) on the same subject. The last one goes back to July 2015 and involved other respectable and learned wp contributors @Snow_Rise (talk · contribs), @Ian.thomson (talk · contribs), @TwoHorned (talk · contribs) and may be an anonymous IP. It can be consulted here, in the TP (the title of the section was set up by PiCo (talk · contribs) in a ironical manner on purpose, that was noted by the others participants). The conclusion written in August 2015 was that no formal consensus reached, but "involved editors seem to have reached consensus on alternative wording". Basically, it was admitted that the introduction I proposed, written differently, is acceptable and involves notable authors in the field of metaphysics and symbolic studies. Despite this, PiCo (talk · contribs) never admitted the arguments of other contributors, and reverted one more time, and here again in December 2015. The basic argument has been said by Ian.thomson (talk · contribs) here where it is found that the introduction of René Guénon's text is justified and that author notable. Other related sources are mentioned in that section of the TP. I have nothing to add to what has been said before. PiCo (talk · contribs) should accept once the arguments given by the other non-partisan contributors and the conclusion reached previously. Xinheart (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC) Talk:Gog and Magog and Talk:Koka and Vikoka discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I've pinged them in case they would like to join but I have not placed a notification on their respective talk pages. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC); I would also like to state that I am neither accepting nor declining the case, 04:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC) My observations of the dispute and of Xinheart and PiCoHi folks. Very pressed for time at present, and much of what I have found for the project is divided still further by some involved projects and discussions, so I will try to comment here once at length to provide my opinion of the dispute and the parties, but I will probably not comment further unless anyone has any really pressing questions. Apologies at the outset for the probable length here. I'll begin this noting that I don't think the content question is too complex, and those who want to understand it are best served by reviewing the thread. I came to the thread via RfC notice just after the article had been protected by KrakatoaKatie, following a brief edit war between PiCo and Xinheart. Aside from the two of them, about half dozen other editors took part in the RfC discussion (which PiCo opened), most of them summoned by bot like myself, having had no prior exposure to the dispute, but also a pair of IPs (one of which may have been Xinheart, who registered during the discussion). None of those of us who arrived felt that either disputant was particularly in the right concerning how they regarded the sources and the disputed piece of content. Nevertheless, over the course of a couple of days, we were able to hammer out a reasonable compromise solution, the gist of which was that the sources in question were WP:RS, but that the statements they were being used to support needed to be better written, attributed, and contextualized.
Snow let's rap 09:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC) First statement by moderatorI am opening this case for moderated discussion. I will remind the editors to be civil and concise, and comment on content, not contributors. Civility is mandatory in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Overly lengthy statements do not clarify the issues. Comments on contributors rather than on content may be hatted. I expect every participant to check this page at least every 48 hours, and to answer all questions within 48 hours after they are asked. I will visit this page at least every 24 hours. Do not edit the article pages while this moderated discussion is in progress. All discussion should be held here rather than on other talk pages, just so that it is centralized. Will each editor please state concisely what the issues are? In particular, it appears that there was an RFC a few months ago about whether to state that these two myths are versions of the same myth, and the conclusion was that this should not be stated. Is there a reason why the RFC either does not apply or should be ignored? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC) First statements by editorsstatement by PiCo (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC) The dispute is over the following paragraph, which appears in both articles:
(I think this is meant to read "A few early ...." rather than "Few early...") The statement is not factually untrue, but it gives the misleading impression that these two ideas have currency in contemporary scholarship. That they don't is apparent from the sources being used - source 9 is a book review in French from 1929, source 10 is a translation of a French book published in 1945. Not that there's anything wrong with being French, but if these ideas had currency they'd be available in English, and from contemporary sources. There's also a problem with the subject area. Gog and Magog are biblical figures and the appropriate area of scholarship is biblical studies. I've carried out extensive searches of the literature and there's absolutely no mention at all of the idea that they are somehow related to the Hindu myth. Gog and Magog are also figures in the Quran and in medieval European and Middle Eastern folklore, but again there's no mention of this idea in the scholarly literature. If we run the search the other way, looking through sources on Hindu myth, we do find mentions - but from New Age-style sources, not from scholarly ones. My impression, in fact, is that this idea of a link between the Hindu myth and the Gog/Magog group of stories is pretty much confined to circles that believe in Atlantis and suchlike ideas. I withdrew from the RfC to avoid a personality conflict with one user, whom I find arrogant and overbearing. I would have been prepared to accept the outcome despite this, but I do believe that the overarching aim of Wikipedia is to produce articles with reliable information, and this paragraph is not based on contemporary reliable sources. statement by Xinheart (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Lastly, I would like to add that the discussion in the TP must be referred to, as many arguments in favor of this citation have been provided by contributors. Second statement by moderatorFirst, are we in agreement that no late-twentieth-century or twenty-first-century mainstream scholar sees a connection between the two myths? If not, is the real question whether the older identifications of connections may be mentioned? Were there earlier mentions by mainstream scholars of a connection? I would also like to ask for comments about René Guénon, who was not a mainstream scholar but who was a very influential and notable early-twentieth-century author (and who always saw connections between all things). Is there a reason why he should or should not be mentioned? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC) I think that I see two ways forward. The first, that I would prefer, would be for the two editors (and possibly other editors) to agree to some minimal mention that some authors have identified a connection, without giving undue weight. The second would be an RFC, but the exact wording would have to be agreed on and neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Second statements by editorsStatement by PiCo (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Focusing on your questions: First, are we in agreement that no late-twentieth-century or twenty-first-century mainstream scholar sees a connection between the two myths? My own searches in the literature lead me to believe that Gog/Magog and Koka/Vikoka are never mentioned together by modern scholars. Xinheart mentions a D.C. Naba writing in "Academic Research International" in 2014, but D.C Naba is from the University of Burundi and Academic Research International seems to be a new online start-up without much behind it - not very mainstream. The point isn't so much that nobody sees a connection as that nobody even looks for one.
I think, without being certain, that this may have been a topic in the late 19th/early 20th century under the rubric of what was called "pan-Babylonianism". This was the idea that all myths came from a single original, which could be traced to ancient Babylonia - hence Gog-Magog/Koka-Vikoka had a common origin. This idea has no acceptance in modern academia. But as I said, I'm not certain that this is the background to Guenon's ideas. I would also like to ask for comments about René Guénon, who was not a mainstream scholar but who was a very influential and notable early-twentieth-century author (and who always saw connections between all things). I don't think he was ever influential at all, and he certainly isn't now. "While Guénon’s influence remains minimal in the Western academic community at large..." That quote, from a website called World Wisdom, goes on: "...he is the seminal influence in the development of traditionalism." Traditionalism is the idea that all religions have a common origin - which needless to say is not mainstream. So he's important in Traditionalism, but Traditionalism itself is not important. Or so I read that passage. I think that I see two ways forward. The first, that I would prefer, would be for the two editors (and possibly other editors) to agree to some minimal mention that some authors have identified a connection, without giving undue weight. The second would be an RFC, but the exact wording would have to be agreed on and neutral. My own view is that Guenon is a figure in an insignificant movement which today lies well outside the mainstream. The ideas he champions have no following in mainstream academic discussion, and any mention at all would be undue weight. Which is not, of course, to say that he should not have his own article and be mentioned in the article on Traditionalism.PiCo (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by Xinheart (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Robert McClenon writes: "are we in agreement that no late-twentieth-century or twenty-first-century mainstream scholar sees a connection between the two myths?" The question is larger and becomes this one: Gog/Magog and Koka/Vikoka, being mythological figures (and they are necessarily such, because they refer either to ancient or sacred texts), what are the known interpretations of these symbols ? Being mythological figures, their interpretations are manyfold: from Biblical studies, studies in symbolism and metaphysics, and even down to the most stupid "evangelist" interpretations like the one mentioned in article ("modern apocalyptism" section of the present article, which BTW contains interpretations far away from Biblical Studies and which are not mainstream at all). From that perspective, the excerpt from René Guénon's book is one of the most known. But the connection is also supported by academic references, and the 2014 reference given by me above is perfectly academic (the journal was set up in 2011, and it is a regular on-line publication with reported impact factor of 0.6), on top of the older ones going back to beginning XXth century. I don't accept the refutation by PiCo because the author is from University of Burundi, this is looking like defamation. PiCo who seems to be keen on asking for academic references, does not hesitate here to mention an obscure blog called "www.worldwisdom.com" to sideline Guénon's influence, but I can easily cite real academics and references who are working on Guénon:
Needless to say that we are far away from PiCo's depiction, whose mention of "pan-Babylonianism" is pure invention. BTW, I would be happy that PiCo provides me academic references that the Gog/Magog-Koka/Vikoka connection belong to something called pan-Babylonianism, as he writes it. I would be happy to see such references, it's the first time I read such an assertion. Guénon did not "always [see] connections between all things" but his studies in symbolism are very authoritative. Lastly I would also favor that we keep the actual wording, which has been written out of discussions in the TP, which is minimal and without any UNDUE. Third statement by moderatorI am not, at this time, collapsing or deleting any of the above, but some of the comments are more on contributors than on content. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC) It seems that there isn't any possibility of compromise, since one editor will not agree to having a one-sentence mention of the comments of René Guénon, and the other editor does want a brief mention of the comments of Guénon. In that case, I will ask again whether the parties are agreeable to having the dispute resolved by a Request for Comments? If so, the remaining question is how to word the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Third statements by editors
Fourth statement by moderatorWhen the RFC was closed in August 2015, the closer stated that the editors had agreed on a wording. Would they please explain why the current wording needs to be changed? Is the current wording consistent with what was agreed in August? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Since one editor doesn't want another RFC, there is no further forum or mechanism that I would advise. You could try formal mediation, but it isn't clear what that would gain over informal mediation here. The alternative is to go back to the talk page. I don't see evidence of a conduct dispute, and it is good that there is no conduct dispute. (Edit-warring or editing against consensus are conduct issues. Please avoid them, as you have so far.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors
Fifth statement by moderatorI am confused. There was an RFC in August. What is the issue anyway? It appears that the RFC concluded that a mention of Guenon, or of other early-twentieth-century authors who thought that the two mythologies were the same, was permitted in a short form. Is that correct? If so, what is the issue? That wording doesn't appear to be in the current text. This discussion appears to be going around and around. Is there a specific question, or should I fail this thread and send it back to the talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Fifth statement by editorsRobert McClenon: to answer your last question, yes, the mention of Guénon was permitted in short form and the present wording in the article is the one that resulted from contributors of the last RfC. The wording was not to say that the two mythologies are the same (they are not, since they come from different traditions), but that they display analogies in their meaning. So basically we can keep on like this. Also, I don't think that the question I raised in the fourth statement by editors section, and which you collapsed, is a comment on a contributor. It was a genuine question about a point raised by PiCo and which is unrelated to the debate, I think. The answer given by PiCo about "pan Babylionalism" is not related to our subject, and the wikipedia article he mentions does in no way mention Gog/Magog, Koka/Vikoka. I am legimate in asking that question, and he has clearly not answered it, instead of me who always answered his asking for references. So I am asking to end this debate and to keep the formulation as it is in both articles. Xinheart (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Sixth statement by moderatorI am still confused. Will User:PiCo please explain what they want? What is the question? There was an RFC in August, and it resulted in the current language. What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors
|
User talk:RyanTQuinn
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Close due to lack of sufficient discussion. Before a DRN case can be accepted, the issue must have been discussed extensively on a talk page. There is no discussion on the Adele talk page, and while there are three posts on one party's talk page, there has been no back-and-forth discussion. The case could theoretically be refiled in the future, pending extensive discussion. If a party does not reply to a request for discussion on a talk page, the Responding to a failure to discuss essay might be an instructive read. /wiae ★ /tlk 20:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany#up to now
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Futile. No participation from most of the responding editors. If the dispute has continued, consider a request for comments if one has not already been tried. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Laksa
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Pending in another dispute resolution process (RFC)/conduct dispute. DRN does not accept cases which are pending in another DR process, nor does it handle conduct disputes. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Daniel Holtzclaw#Recent_changes_.282.29
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | General close. It is unfortunate that one of the editors declines to participate in moderated discussion as premature, but moderated discussion is voluntary. Since the issue appears to be about the inclusion or exclusion of text, I suggest that the editors formulate a neutrally worded Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | |
|---|---|
|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview My contributions are being rapidly reverted with only vague justifications. No attempt to work toward a compromise. Have you tried to resolve this previously? 1. Talk, 2. modifying my contribution, 3. requesting suggestions How do you think we can help? offer suggestions instead of just quickly deleting, find some compromise consistent with WP policy and goals Summary of dispute by JessI'm not sure DRN is necessary at this point. Oiudfgogsdf has replied only twice on the talk page, and he has yet to even respond to the most recent comments. Jumping to DRN is likely premature. That being said, the content in question is here. To summarize the article subject, Hortzclaw was recently convicted of several counts of abuse, and a great many sources indicate he targeted his victims because their credibility would be undermined in court. Oiudfgogsdf's edit attempts to do just that: selectively quote a source to say that the victims are not credible, and imply Hortzclaw was wrongly convicted. We don't have a RS which says Hortzclaw was wrongly convicted, and so must be careful not to engage in original research to imply it. Between the two paragraphs, the first inserts disparaging remarks about the victims worded with a clear POV in mind. The second paragraph boils down to " So basically: WP:BLP and WP:DUE. — Jess· Δ♥ 01:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by GrayfellThis is premature at best, as Jess says above. Counting myself, there are four editors who have removed the contested content from the article. The essay CRYBLP is not applicable, as the BLP policy connotations should be obvious here. ROWN is an essay which giving advice which may be useful in context, but is not a free pass to restore content. WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:NPOV, and WP:EW are all policies. Grayfell (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by OiudfgogsdfNever fear Jess, I am responding now, so that makes 3 times. For you to say that the 2nd paragraph in my edit (regarding the comments of Cortland Selman) just boils down to "
Those words are his, not mine. Sorry if they don't fit into your narrative. I would be happy to shorten it a bit if you and other contributors find it too detailed, but you have not even offered that as a compromise. This content was included almost verbatim from the reference I cited; for you to imply that I have "worded (it) in such a way as to imply his conviction doesn't make any sense and is totally out of character" is your personal interpretation of the passage and makes no sense because I did not write it. And Yes, I do offer it as a counter-balance to the flat narrative presented in the remaining 2497 words of the article which make only the slightest mention (1 sentence?) that Holtzclaw ever even had family or friends, or that anyone had anything good to say about him or was surprised by the trial, instead focusing on minute details of the victims' testimonies, exact dates during the trial, activists, media reaction or lack therof, the blogosphere - anything other than the subject of this supposedly-biographical article. Neutrality and balance of views on a subject is to be achieved as a whole with the article, not on an individual basis with each contribution. That is what I am trying to do here. This is not original research. Grayfell, I'm not sure what you mean by "premature." WP:DRN states that the only requirements are that 1) "the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page", and 2) a recommendation that more than 2 contributors be involved in lieu of requesting a 3rd opinion instead. Furthermore, your comment that "the BLP policy connotations should be obvious here" leads me to believe that you are staying within the bottom levels of the Graham's Hierarchy instead of the recommended top 3. It highlights what I have experienced throughout this dispute - your justifications for quick deletions are that my edit is "undue", "transparent", "too lengthy" with no real explanations or alternatives. "ROWN is an essay which giving advice which may be useful in context, but is not a free pass to restore content." ??? That article seems to focus more on editors who revert others contributions with no attempt at compromise for dubious reasons:
I reverted your reversions (thus restoring my contribution) once, and only after discussing on the talk page and revising my content in an attempt to address your concerns. You reverted in minutes (Jess twice) with nothing more than an edit note WP:BLPZEAL ? I am now reaching out to WP:DRN to avoid WP:EW . Is it fitting to the integrity of WP that an article remain so tightly controlled that not even the shortest counter-balancing contributions be allowed that do not strictly adhere to some obviously-slanted narrative? Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Talk:Daniel Holtzclaw#Recent_changes_.282.29 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I posted notices to the involved users' talk pages and added the 3rd user here. Hopefully I did it the right way? Let me know if I didn't. Thanks. Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC) First statement by volunteer moderatorIt isn't entirely clear from the above responses whether the other editors are agreeing to participate in moderated discussion, so I am opening this case with two questions. First, are you willing to participate in moderated discussion? If at least two editors agree to take part in discussion, this case will continue. If not, since moderated dispute resolution is voluntary, this case will be closed. ub, It doesn't appear to me that discussion here is premature. However, discussion here is voluntary. Second, what do each of you think should be changed in the article, or do you think that the article should be left as it is? Here are a few ground rules. Be civil and concise. Civility is mandatory in Wikipedia, especially in dispute resolution, and overly long statements do not clarify. I will check this case at least every 24 hours, and I expect every editor to check on it every 48 hours. Do not edit the article while dispute resolution is in progress. (If there is edit-warring, I will fail the case.) Discuss the article here rather than on the talk page, so that this is a centralized place for discussion. I do not claim to be an authority on the subject; it is up to the editors to explain the subject matter to me. So: Are the editors willing to engage in moderated dispute resolution? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC) First statements by editors
Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
|
Talk:Swami Maheshwarananda#Sexual_Harassment_Allegations
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive recent talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here, however I would note that at least one of the editor you've listed is permanently banned from Wikipedia and one other hasn't edited since 2013 and you've not made an attempt to discuss the matter on the article talk page. That comes first before attempting dispute resolution. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:List of state leaders in 2015
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Unfortunately, the editors here are very enthusiastic, which is mostly good, but won't be concise, and are addressing each other rather than the moderator. The editors are not concise. I am closing this discussion as failed because they won't be concise. However, I am still willing to help them in either of two ways. The first is to request formal mediation. The other is to follow the advice to file a Request for Comments. If they want help in formulating it neutrally and are concise and civil, I will help. Please take any further discussion to my talk page. Be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||
|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview We are currently in a dispute involving the Cook Islands and their Queen's Representative. There is currently an inconsistent gender-biased designation of Have you tried to resolve this previously? There have been some alternatives, all of which have been unsuitable and un-agreed upon thus far. The first leads to inconsistency involving designations of an office versus explanations; the second would result in disruptive, misleading changes of which will seriously impede an inevitable future discussion. How do you think we can help? The fact that "viceroy" is a gender-neutral term, as per the article must be confirmed. Also: the tone must be brought down, in part due to the bloodthirsty reactions I have received from the second user. Summary of dispute by Zoltan BukovszkyThe debate is about finding a suitable replacement for the description (but not the title) of ”Queen’s representative” in the ’’List of state leaders in XXXX” articles because it is not generic, in particular, not gender-neutral enough. After a number of suggestions and changes of opinion on the part of Neve-selbert, he has started advocating ”viceroy” which, after examining the arguments, all three of us came to reject. Miesianiacal, Happy Squirrel and myself are of the opinion that “viceroy” is still gender-biased. Since there is a proper word, "vicereine", to mean either the wife of a viceroy, or a female viceroy, this inevitably renders “viceroy” somewhat loaded in gender terms, even if some would use it in a gender-neutral way. The other argument against “viceroy” is that it used to be an official title (e.g. the leader of British India was titled viceroy, see Louis Mountbatten or Archibald Wavell), therefore it could give rise to misunderstandings if used as a generic description. Instead we have come to think that ”Monarch’s representative” would be an apt solution as it is completely gender-neutral, and is in line with the nomenclature used across the article (the generic description used for the head of state of the Cook Islands, as for all other sovereigns, is ”monarch”). A third disputed point in the debate (backed by Miesianiacal, Happy Squirrel and myself) is that if we make a change to the article, than we should improve its internal consistency by applying this new description (”Monarch’s representative”) to all other positions where a person is the official representative of a sovereign, rather then arbitrarily applying it only to the Cook Islands. It was also mentioned in the debate that for the time being both ”viceroy” and ”Queen’s representative” are factually correct descriptions, since the current representative in the Cook Islands is male, and current sovereign is female. Yet if our very aim is finding a gender-neutral alternative, neither of these descriptions will do. Neve-selbert misrepresented my position in the ”Summary of dispute” section below. I have not advocated "to change the designations of all representatives of heads of state", merely those of monarchs (in the interest of improving consistency). And the UN Special Representative he argued about below has not been mentioned in the debate a single time. The editor keeps clogging the debate with irrelevant distractions (e.g. the leader or Wallis and Futuna, the King of the Netherlands or the civilian administrator of occupied Iraq), dismissing others’ opinions without a reasoned explanation, has declared his unwillingness to compromise on his suggestion, defended his own suggestion with a gender-bias and failed to offer a reasoned explanation of why he opposes ”Monarch’s representative”. ZBukov (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by HappysquirrelI came upon this debate from the Teahouse. After some discussion, I understood that the debate was not about the formal title, but about the descriptor applied in the list. I agree with ZBukov's assessment on the talk page that there are 3 issues at play.
I believe an underlying issue here is differences in regional use of language. Viceroy seems to be used in different amounts and in different ways in different parts of the world. Another one is that we have three desirable things in opposition 1) consistency 2) clarity 3) use of precise terminology on an individual entry level. Finally, I am glad this discussion will be getting some active moderation. I hope we can come to an agreement. I remain open to having an RfC or contacting WikiProjects. Happy Squirrel (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by MiesianiacalThis dispute seems to have begun with finding a gender-neutral descriptor for the Queen's Representative in the Cook Islands, it has branched out to take in governors-general, governors, lieutenant-governors, and representatives of co-princes. 'Viceroy' has been floated as an option, but it seems the majority has deemed it to be not a gender-neutral term, since it properly applies only to male representatives of monarchs; 'vicereine' is the descriptor for a female representative. Additionally, its appropriateness for the representatives of the Co-Princes of Andorra and for representatives of a head of state in colonies and associated states is uncertain. 'Represented by' was another suggestion, though seemingly rejected because it describes what the individual does, rather than what he or she is. 'Monarch's representative' appears to have the most support as it is a) gender-neutral; b) a descriptor of what an individual is, rather than what they do; c) applicable to all representatives of monarchs, regardless of status or rank; and d) easily adaptable to any representative: 'president's representative', 'administrator's representative', 'government'r representative', whatever. Given that this is a decision that would affect many articles, I do agree that it should be settled by more than four editors. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Neve-selbertZoltan Bukovszky made a counterpoint charging that if any changes were made, we would have to change the designations of all representatives of heads of state—this would be disruptive and would involve strenuous, controversial proofreading numerous List of state leaders in XXXX articles rendering them all inconsistent. Would we replace
I am only in favour of changing the description per the Cook Islands. The only reason why the Cook Islands cannot have a G-G is due to the fact that they are not entirely separate and sovereign from New Zealand. This remains a special exception.
Evolution of my position
Neve-selbert 22:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC) My stances
There is in-fact already a precedent for this scenario. We already use the Talk:List of state leaders in 2015 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by volunteer moderatorI will be accepting this case for moderated discussion. I will state a few ground rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not on contributors. Uncivil discussion or comments on contributors may be collapsed. Civility is mandatory in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution, and overly long statements are not explanatory. I expect every editor to check on this page at least every 48 hours and to respond in that timeframe to any questions. I will check this page at least every 24 hours. The issue appears to be about gender-neutral language. Is the dispute limited to the Cook Islands? Is the dispute limited to the list of state leaders in 2015? If so, what was the style used in earlier lists of state leaders? Will the editors please each make civil and concise opening statements? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
First statements by editors
Neve-selbert 22:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Is the dispute limited to the list of state leaders in 2015?
If so, what was the style used in earlier lists of state leaders?
Is the dispute limited to the Cook Islands?
Is the dispute limited to the list of state leaders in 2015?
If so, what was the style used in earlier lists of state leaders?
Second statement by moderatorI think that there may be two distinct issues. The first is whether to use standard titles or official titles, knowing that standard titles won't always fit. The second has to do with gender-neutral language in titles. The first applies to a large number of countries. For instance, is the Prime Minister of Ireland called the Prime Minister or the Taoiseach? The most common standard titles of heads of state are President or Monarch. The most common standard title of heads of government in non-presidential countries is Prime Minister. The issue involving the Cook Islands has to do with Queen's Representative or Viceroy. However, viceroys in other Commonwealth nations are referred to as Governor-General, the official title, not as viceroy. The second seems to be more limited in scope, but has to do with whether Queen's Representative should be changed to Monarch's Representative (not the official title, which depends on the gender of monarch) or to Viceroy. I will comment that, in my opinion, Viceroy is gender-neutral. Do the editors agree? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC) If there are any other issues, please identify them, but if so, this may be getting beyond what we can do at DRN and it may be time for formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Second statements by editorsSecond statement by MiesianiacalI think matters here are becoming very confused. The dispute does not involve titles; it is focused on descriptors. Entries in the list are generally presented thusly:
"Monarch" is the descriptor; "Elizabeth II" is the name; and "Queen of Canada" is the title. For the Cook Islands, where this dispute began (in the list, anyway), the entry is presently this:
So, the descriptor used--"Queen's representative" (first mention)--is what's in dispute because of its gender bias. Additionally, there's the issues of consistency--using the same descriptor for all representatives--and redundancy--descriptors being repetitions of titles (as in the Cook Islands example; also seen in entries for governors-general). The idea is to replace all the different descriptors for representatives of monarchs with one term. 'Viceroy' is most certainly not gender neutral; again, it is specifically for a male representative of a monarch; 'vicereine' is for a female representative (or the wife of a viceroy). 'Monarch's representative', on the other hand, has no gender bias. Using it, entries in the list would look like this:
Though it isn't my favoured resolution, I am okay with it. However, I now wonder whether 'monarch's' is even necessary; if the representative's entry is indented in below the individual they represent, it should be clear enough who the representative is representing.
The above allows the added bonus of clarifying that Elizabeth II reigns in the Cook Islands as Queen of New Zealand (as in Niue). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Second statement by Happy SquirrelOn the topic of whether to use common descriptors or official titles, the common practice seems to be to use common descriptors (prime minister, monarch, president). The formal title is given after the name and linked. I think this is a good practice which should be extended since it makes things clearer. On the topic of gender neutrality, I do not think Viceroy is a good option for two reasons. First of all, I feel there is no major problem as such with the gender identification in Queen's Representative. The queen of England is a single identifiable person who is known to be female. Furthermore, many official matters in England do change with the gender of the monarch (ex: God Save the Queen/King, Her/His Majesty's Ship, On Her/His Majesty's Service etc.) This is not gender neutral but it seems to run deep in the system and is tied to old feudal origins where oaths are personal (ie you don't swear allegiance to the idea of a King, or to whoever happens to be King, but rather to the person who is King). Anyhow, I don't think it is Wikipedia's role to right great wrongs and try to make the British Monarchy and associated systems more gender neutral. Now look at Viceroy. I have been convinced that it can be used in a gender neutral way. I have also been convinced that it is often used this way, and this use is becoming more prevalent with time. However, there is a feminine form, Vicereine. Yes it is mostly used for wives of Viceroys, but it can also be used for female viceroys. Basically, from what I gather, Viceroy is fundamentally a masculine form, which can also be applied to women. Perhaps the situation will be different in a few decades, but right now there is a feminine form which is used also and so the term is not perfectly gender neutral. I find this more serious than the Queen/King issue because the descriptor is being applied to a role rather than a person. Thus, to me, Viceroy, as a descriptor of the role, gives the impression of being a role for a man representing a monarch of any gender while Queen's Representative carries the implication of being a role for someone of either gender where they represent the Queen. If the Queen dies and we get a King (or even if the Queen dies and we get another Queen, even though that is highly unlikely), the job of the representative changes in a subtle way because they are not representing the office of monarch, but rather the person of the monarch (at least traditionally). Thus I think that, while not gender neutral, Queen's Representative departs from gender neutrality in a way that describes the role better. Ideally though, for consistency, one should be vague about gender of both the monarch and the representative. Given the number of governor-generals, I think a fair argument could be made that they have enough consistency to not need to be changed. However, I am concerned that if we start moving away from abreviations of formal titles as descriptors for people representing monarchs, people will start wondering what is the huge difference between governor-generals and others. Then we get to issues of the British Commonwealth getting special treatment. I guess we could say that's fair given that they had a pretty massive empire, but it makes me worry about bias. Another issue is that if Queen's Representative is judged not gender neutral, Co-prince's Representative (in Andorra) is also not gender neutral. It doesn't matter that there are no female monarchs in the forseeable future, Co-prince is a seriously male title. Happy Squirrel (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Second statement by Neve-selbert
Here is specificially why I believe
Oh dear. This is where things get complicated.
Note #1: Although the two analogies are not entirely similar, they both prove a fundamental error in human logic.
Note #2: This is precisely the short term. What of the long-term? Ah, sugar.
Simply put, this is why I believe the "Monarch's Representative" solution simply would not work. We would have editors coming up and down from everywhere enquiring "Is this X person the representative of this X person?". "Representative" indented simply would not work either as it ruins the formatting of the article—resulting in inequality of the state leaders at the expense of one—and underestimates their de facto importance versus the de jure of those whom they are representing. And so on, and so on, and so forth. We would be unable to cope. This is a can of worms, there can be no doubt. Neve-selbert 22:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Third statement by volunteer moderatorIt appears that we are getting nowhere, with two editors insisting that on Monarch's Representative and one insisting that that is a slippery slope. The usual approach here to a stuck debate is a Request for Comments, but this issue appears to have too many aspects for an RFC. Can any of the editors propose one or two RFCs concisely? )The editors have followed the instructions to be civil but have not followed the instructions to be concise.) The alternative is to submit this issue to formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC) Third statements by editors
The fact that the word ”viceroy” has a female equivalent (vicereine) indicates that it is not entirely gender-neutral, even if some use it that way (this is why it is already somewhat better than the current phrase, but not entirely neutral). On the other hand there is no ambiguity about ”monarch’s representative” as neither of its component words has a feminine version. Therefore ”monarch’s representative” serves our original purpose better. According to Canadian editor Happy Squirrel the word “viceroy” is not commonly used in the Commonwealth realm she resides in, therefore its understanding and usage is a matter of the regional use of the English language. Consequently a neutral and simple description ("monarch's representative") would be more useful for the general public reading this encyclopedia. Using ”monarch’s representative” consistently poses no threat of slippery slope, as the scope of its application can be defined clearly. Improving the articles’ internal consistency by standardising the descriptions of various monarch’s representatives does not necessitate that any change be made to the descriptions of leaders of colonies, protectorates or temporarily occupied countries (e.g. governors of British overseas territories are out of scope because they represent not only the monarch, but also the British government which is responsible for certain government functions pertaining to those territories). But applying the new description exclusively to the Cook Islands would maintain the unreasonable inconsistency of using a generic term for only one member of a group, and not to the others (since along with the Cook Islands officer, every current Governor-General too is a "Queen's representative", so that description could be applied to them as well). ZBukov (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Third statement by Happy SquirrelI agree with Dr Crazy that we need to identify several components in our RfC. Here are my three proposed questions, roughly.
I think that as well as the RfC bot invitations, we should politely inform the WikiProjects whose banners are on the talk page. Yes, the RfC is quite broad, but I believe there is no present consensus to limit it. Lastly, I would like to mention that I believe an RfC should be the next step, rather than more formal mediation. I think more eyes and minds, as well as fresh arguments could really inform this debate. I will absolutely abide by the results of an RfC. Finally, I would like to point out that I am not aware of any edit warring or any other major conduct issues. Yes, the discussion has become unnecessarily heated (on all sides), but I think bringing more people in will help with this. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
----
|
Talk:Jewish Defense_League#Organizations_designated_as_terrorist_in_North_America
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Lack of participation from users with Talkpage discussion seeming to have been renewed. If the dispute needs moderation at a future date, feel free to refile. Otherwise, possibly consider taking this to the Neutrality Noticeboard or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. An RfC would gain community consensus but the two noticeboards can potentially garner more constructive discussion considering the topic area. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:36, 19 January 2016 (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 JDL has never been designated as terrorist organization. It fails the inclusion criteria for Category:Organizations designated as terrorist in North America and it isn't a "right-wing terrorist group". As explained on the linked talk page, this quote is taken from a footnote under a chart on the FBI terror report, and clearly means that the JDL is not a "right-wing terrorist group", but rather has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group for the purposes of the chart, where related statistics was combined. Indeed, in the section of the same report dedicated to the JDL, it is described as "a violent extremist Jewish organization" and not as a "terrorist group". Have you tried to resolve this previously? Not me, but one of my opponents first improperly warned me, then still failed to use the article talk page, and proceeded to file an AE request against me here, which was subsequently closed with no action. How do you think we can help? A quick look at the RS in question should be sufficient for an unbiased person to arrive to the same conclusion as I did.
Summary of dispute by NomoskedasticityPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I'm not unwilling to discuss things here, a bit anyway. But I think Wiking has misconstrued the purpose of DRN. "A quick look at the RS in question should be sufficient for an unbiased person to arrive to the same conclusion as I did" -- that sounds very much like Wiking is merely hoping to find allies among the DRN volunteers here. It also implies that I am biased, and of course I reject this. I think it's rather straightforward: "The JDL has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group" means that the JDL has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by TracyMcClarkPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Jewish Defense_League#Organizations_designated_as_terrorist_in_North_America discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Moderator's expectations (Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum)While I am moderating I will expect several things of all editors involved in this dispute.
|
Talk:Immigration and_crime#Neutrality_and_Censorship
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Futile. Responding editor has not chosen to participate here (which he has the right to do; participation in moderated content dispute resolution is never mandatory). Consider a request for comments if further dispute resolution is needed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:tvOS
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | The editors did not respond within 48 hours. They may refile, if they really want to discuss here, which they maybe don't. Alternatively, since this is an odd but not off-by-one case, they may discuss at an MOS talk page and submit an RFC about trademarks that begin with more than one lower-case letter. The RFC approach seems more promising than a refile, but that is only my opinion. If any editor wants to submit an RFC, and wants assistance in making it neutral, please make such a request to me on my talk page, and I will try to help. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Blitzkrieg
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | There has not been extensive discussion of the issue on the article's talk page or elsewhere. Disputes require significant discussion before they can be successfully filed at DRN; in the instant case, however, there is only one exchange on the Blitzkrieg talk page, and no discussion elsewhere. If a party does not reply to a request for discussion in the future, the essay about "responding to a failure to discuss" may be an instructive read. /wiae /tlk 13:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Bangladesh#Latest removals
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | General close. One of the editors was asked whether they were willing to participate, and was then asked to reply within 24 hours. After 24 hours, the editor has not replied. Since discussion here is voluntary, this case is being closed. At this point, the filing party is advised that a Request for Comments would be appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach,, many non-archived sections
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Futile and pending in other dispute resolution process. Someone has suggested that the new RFC be put on hold to let this DRN case play out, but we here at DRN have no way of requiring that. Since Fountains-of-Paris has indicated that he prefers the RFC and since he has not made an opening statement here, I'm going to close this. It may be refiled if the new RFC is closed or fails to resolve the issues. Marlindale, regarding your "new question" in general the best practice is to stop editing the article in regard to the issues involved in an RFC (or any other talk page discussion) while it is pending, but there is no policy — other than the prohibition on edit warring in general — which prohibits it. Issues not involved in a talk page discussion or RFC are, of course, fair game for editing, bearing in mind that bold, revert, discuss is always the high road. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview
On the page Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach, there was an RfC proposed 6 December. I thought it ended by about Jan. 6 without consensus. The proposer of it, User:Fountains-of-Paris, says it is still open and based on that, has reverted many edits made by me and by User:Francis Schonken Have you tried to resolve this previously? Much discussion on the Talk page.. Patience until now. How do you think we can help? If possible resolve the question, has the RfC ended by the rules, or not. In some closure notices, "Edit warring" has been mentioned. Can you discern who is doing that? Fountains-of-Paris has made a claim about it. Summary of dispute by Fountains-of-ParisPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Francis SchonkenFountains-of-Paris has edited and removed my talk page comments at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach (diff1, diff2). Based on this I think it best Fountains-of-Paris would leave the Johann Sebastian Bach article and its talk page alone for the time being. I'd prefer Fountains-of-Paris to do this voluntarily. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC) Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach,, many non-archived sections discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I have now notified both other participants on their Talk pages. Marlindale (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Marllndale here: The new RfC was opened by User:Fountains-of-Paris. In the Talk page I objected to opening it, because I thought the RfC would block other things I'd like done (rescuing my and Francis Schonken's about 20 edits from their reversion by Fountains-of-Paris). You see we have a sharp division of us 3 editors into 1+2. Perhaps we (2) and you might agree that the new RfC was opened too soon after the old one was closed. More crucially it seems to me that Fountains-of-Paris has abused the RfC process and he should not be allowed to open any new one (on the Bach article, until some distant future?). Also, the Bach article can now only be edited by administrators until the 24th. I would like to have at the very least a week after that before any new RfC. About the possibilities for moderated discussion here, i'm doubtful but would prefer that to an RfC on the Bach Talk page. Marlindale (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello from Marlindale: At three points in the above Francis typed "1900" where he seems to have meant "1800"? I think Francis has extensive knowledge of Bach and his legacy and have no other quibbles. About procedure, I think it would be most unfortunate if this issue of where to set signpost years in Bach's legacy, being discussed here, were to prevent other work on the article. Marlindale (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
New Question'New question, on RfC rules: While an RfC is active on an article's Talk page, not yet having consensus, is it permitted to edit the article? Under some restrictions, and if so what restrictions? Presumably the edit should neither assume nor contradict the posed RfC issue. Marlindale (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
|
Talk:Communism
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Futile. Pending for four days without a response from several editors active on the article talk page, any one of whom could contest any consensus reached here. While no editor is required to participate in moderated content dispute resolution, I feel obliged to note that a well-crafted request for comments puts editors to the choice of either defending their position or being unheard. However, I note that there are calls at the article talk page, where discussion has continued during the pendency of this request, for the discussion to be closed and hatted and that could well be the best choice. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview A quick chronology: Viriditas added a short paragraph to the lead section which several other users considered to be non-neutral. It has since been removed by a few editors, and restored by a few editors. A brief discussion occurred at the talk page, resulting in very little happening. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Attempting to engage on the talk page has not yielded any results. Viriditas has escalated the crisis to the point where negotiations are better fit to take place with the intervention of more experienced and uninvolved editors. How do you think we can help? Perhaps more experienced and uninvolved editors could more tactfully negotiate in this discussion. Summary of dispute by Viriditas
Summary of dispute by RajulbatPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Jack UplandPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by EmijrpPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Volunteer MarekPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Communism discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:NCIS (franchise)
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | General close. No response from the original two editors after 72 hours. Closing. Opening a request for dispute resolution and then failing to submit additional statements wastes the resources of the DRN volunteers and is not collaborative. At this point, the most appropriate step for the editors would be to open a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
