Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 196
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Rhea Chakraborty
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. It is not entirely clear to me where if anywhere this dispute should be resolved, but it is not a matter for DRN. When the filing editor returns to editing, they would be well advised to read the policy on biographies of living persons again before editing the article in question, and to recognize that it is always better to be cautious than reckless. Either the biographies of living persons noticeboard or WP:ANI might be 'less bad' places to resolve this dispute IF it reopens. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2020 (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 Hi, This is regarding the edit that I made on section 3 of the article with an intent to re-write few lines in accordance to WP:NPOV and while I was in the process of adding appropriate citations backing my edit, my fellow User:NedFausa reverted my edits with this summary: " Undid revision 976665033 by Special:Contributions/ÆCE Encyclopedic content must be verifiable – cited source does not identify her as "prime suspect" – this is a serious WP:BLP violation" without discussing whether or not I'm done editing the article or his concern with me beforehand. Within a minute or two,(not knowing of the revert then) I added reliable sources(these sources were already used for other citations on the same page.) verifying exactly what I wrote. But just after adding the needed citations, when I explained myself to User:NedFausa he completely disregarded everything I said and started posting edit warring and WP:BLP violation templates on my as well as on the article's talk page even after I added all the needed citations. I reverted the article once and he started claiming that I was indulged in an edit war which in actuality did not happen. Then came another User:Cyphoidbomb who again reverted my edit with the summary: (No.) and in response to that when I reverted his change with a summary: (Undid revision 976719161 by Cyphoidbomb (talk) Reverting unexplained content removal) he then proceeded to revert the article again with a summary: (everted 1 edit by ÆCE (talk): BLP violation and poor grammar. (TW)). Please have a look on my revisions on the page and all the conversations I had with both the mentioned users, and kindly decide whether or not my edits violated any of those policies. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Rhea_Chakraborty#Edit_warring_and_BLP_violation_by_User:ÆCE User_talk:NedFausa#How_exactly_? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would like to know If am at fault here, as they're saying? Please let all of us know your decision and if I didn't do anything wrong, please suggest them to allow me to restore my edit and further improve it if needed. Summary of dispute by NedFausaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have made four edits involving User:ÆCE, all on 4 September 2020.
In each instance, I adhered to Wikipedia policies and guidelines to the best of my understanding. NedFausa (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Reply to summary of dispute by NedFausa14:15: I undid his revision that included "Rhea being the prime suspect in the case." My edit summary explained, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable – cited source does not identify her as 'prime suspect' – this is a serious WP:BLP violation." That's because I didn't use it to cite the "accuse" part and was in the process of adding another citation but things were judged and reverted a bit too quickly. I have mentioned all of this in the discussions made on talk pages. I wish I was given like 10-20 more seconds from the time it was reverted to add another source. 15:07: I created a new section at his user talk page warning him of his edit warring to restore disputed content at Rhea Chakraborty. It was not edit warring, after you reverted my first revision saying the source I cited didn't mention her of being accused anywhere, I changed it only to add the needed citation which you demanded and I was also going to add anyway. I noted in particular thatContentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. You did the right thing there because it would have definitely looked like what you're saying, at that instance of time, But I did not intend to leave it that way and was in the process of adding another source, which I also explained to you later. I replied to his attempt at his user talk page to conflate the source I had disputed by substituting a different source. I didn't use it as a substitute, in fact if you see my very last edit on the page, you could see that I've left both the citations, as I originally intended. I just told you about this another citation which I was about to use that would have had also relieved your concern which it did. If anything, it was you who blamed me for "playing games". I still can't understand how these people can call it a "game", while discussing such a serious topic! ♠ ÆCE | Talk | 04:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by CyphoidbombPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Totally bogus dispute resolution issue. Note that every conversation that ÆCE points to relates to other editors telling them how problematic their edits are. Note that in the How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? section, ÆCE didn't initiate any of those discussions. Three editors, none of whom agree with one another 100% told this editor that their content was inappropriate for inclusion. Which content? this "minor" edit, this "minor" edit, and this third reversion, along with other comments on other talk pages. ÆCE's poorly-conceived content suggests VERY strongly through lack of context that Chakraborty killed Rajput. That's INDEFENSIBLE. This is a sanctionable behaviour covered under ArbCom Wikipedia:General sanctions as they pertain to Indian subjects broadly construed. Or by WP:BLP in general and WP:BDP in specific as the topic in "dispute" has to do with the recent (2 months ago) death of Sushant Singh Rajput. For context, check Twitter and other social media outlets for #justiceforSSR, so you can see the attempts to coerce Wikipedians to change the suicide "determination" at Sushant Singh Rajput, and at other Wikipedia articles (Sushant Singh Rajput, Death of Sushant Singh Rajput, Rhea Chakraborty, even Sadak 2...etc.) are continuously assailed by these new accounts who have an agenda to push. ÆCE's greatest defence thus far is that Hindustan Times called Chakraborty a "prime suspect", but HT didn't even identify what she was a suspect of. So newbie just copied the content and is hiding behind that as justification, rather than identifying what Chakraborty is a suspect of, which is what they were challenged to do. This DR case should quickly result in editors explaining to ÆCE the basic rules of libel and defamation, and how we're not going to be party to vague suggestions that someone is a "prime suspect" in a person's death when that person has not been charged, and there has been no determination that a crime has been committed in that person's death. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC) Reply to summary of dispute by CyphoidbombÆCE's poorly-conceived content suggests VERY strongly through lack of context that Chakraborty killed Rajput. I didn't say she killed him, I only said that she is "a prime suspect" in the case and here is the citation :[1] coming from the exact same source which is currently being used in the article. ÆCE's greatest defence thus far is that Hindustan Times called Chakraborty a "prime suspect", but HT didn't even identify what she was a suspect of. This is written on very top of the article[2], clearly explaining what she's being a suspect of. "The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has questioned a number of people in connection with the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput. The CBI took over the case after a recommendation from the Bihar government on request from Rajput’s family. In the 78 days since he passed away (since June 14), the CBI has narrowed down its probe and is now focussing on 14 people." This DR case should quickly result in editors explaining to ÆCE the basic rules of libel and defamation, and how we're not going to be party to vague suggestions that someone is a "prime suspect" in a person's death when that person has not been charged, and there has been no determination that a crime has been committed in that person's death. I believe you should let them decide what "should" be done, which is why we have this board in the first place. So newbie just copied the content and is hiding behind that as justification This is kind of upsetting how some of the users on wikipedia treat new users. It's even more upsetting when something like above comes from one of the administrators of the website. ♠ ÆCE | Talk | 09:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
ÆCE didn't initiate any of those discussions. Three editors, none of whom agree with one another 100% told this editor that their content was inappropriate for inclusion. I don't see any of these revisions [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] been discussed before they were published, anywhere on the article's talk page, for consensual agreement. So, why now it's suddenly a problem in my case? I just followed what NedFausa, you, and others did. I also explained everything later with all the proofs for every single questions you and others had, but they were all denied without any consideration. ♠ ÆCE | Talk | 11:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC) Rhea Chakraborty discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
To anyone looking to mediate this dispute, I would also have a look at Talk:Death of Sushant Singh Rajput#Biased Article! Suggestion. (Rhea Chakraborty is a person of interest in Rajput's death, and both the Death of... and biography articles have been slammed as of late with users unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies making unreasonable requests.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 19:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Note: With due respect, I'd like to answer the comments in segments as I have with others, I believe it makes thinks more clear and precise, especially in such conversations. I hope you don't mind. The key policy here is the policy on biographies of living persons, and Wikipedia practice is that we avoid repeating unproven or unsubstantiated statements about living persons. It isn't enough for a reliable source to have said that third parties say that Rhea is a prime suspect. We don't need to repeat unproven statements, which would be churnalism. Please watch this interview [10] and this tweet [11] of Subramanian Swamy who's an Indian politician, economist and statistician who serves as a nominated Member of Parliament in Rajya Sabha, the upper house of the Indian Parliament. The the information regarding Rhea starts from 16:00 in the video. For more context, you may start watching from 9:00 as it is all promotions/advertisements before that. He's a high positioned member of Indian Central Government, under the supervision of which CBI including all other involved investigative agencies in the case work.[12] Also, the filing party claims that there have been personal attacks. I didn't see personal attacks, but this noticeboard doesn't normally do well with allegations that involve personal attacks. I understand, which is why I didn't mention about it in my dispute overview until User:Jéské_Couriano made a comment here, whom I didn't even mention to be involved in this dispute. I'd like to bring your attention to this comment from Talk:Death_of_Sushant_Singh_Rajput#Biased_Article!_Suggestion: I was, and am, calm. And once again, we go by what the sources are saying, and the sources are saying it's suicide. We do not, and should not, make such determinations ourselves, which is why we cite sources. Honestly, your arguments would be a lot better if you calmed down from your paroxysm and actually read the contents of this talk page and Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput; most everything you're saying has been addressed in one way or another on one or both of them. And the only reason the autopsy is under scrutiny is because of pressure from the family and hardcore fans who side with the family refusing to believe it's suicide (or at the very least, that there should be someone to blame, given the outsized focus of the family on Chakraborty as shown by multiple reliable sources). "did you read what the CBI has said?" If you'd actually read the quoted section of the article instead of just reflexively being denialist you might realise that it makes clear the excerpt follows from the CBI's statement and isn't a non-sequitur to it, and again the article only ever mentions suicide in the headline (which is misleading as the excerpted portion directly contradicts it) and in a section regarding Chakraborty (in the form of discussing an abetment of suicide charge). I have already addressed the questioned section here and on Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput. Please start reading talk pages instead of just yelling louder. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 19:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Paroxysm: a sudden attack or outburst of a particular emotion or activity: Where exactly I outbursted throughout the conversation? Denlaist: a person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence: Where did I deny to accept anything that was said very initiallyabout the case? I only said that there has been new revelations which should also be mentioned in the article since they have so far nullified at least the "suicide" POV. None of the sources are calling it a straight up "suicide" showing the reports that were previously used as a proof. Yelling louder Where did I do that? As it's patently clear you're not reading what I'm actually writing (as I included the sources in my argument) it's also patently clear you're looking to win by attrition. We don't play that way. And again, no source has EXPLICITLY contradicted the suicide claim yet and several are reporting Chakraborty is being targeted for abetment of suicide, not murder. I suggest you start listening to what people are trying to say to you. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 19:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC) Here, I'm being accused of playing games. For the record : I take someone's death and wikipedia very seriously. So, NO I am not playing any games here as I've also replied to this comment Talk:Death_of_Sushant_Singh_Rajput#Biased_Article!_Suggestion This comment, made by User:Cyphoidbomb hereTalk:Rhea_Chakraborty#Edit_warring_and_BLP_violation_by_User:ÆCE : I don't have time to answer all of this. We do not include potentially defamatory content, which is what you did when you added poorly-written content that heavily implied Chakraborty killed Rajput. That is egregiously bad judgment. You called her a "prime suspect", but didn't indicate what she was a prime suspect of. That ambiguity is very problematic. Police have not charged her with any crime 'as far as I know. They are investigating complaints raised by the family. A journalist calling her a "prime suspect" without indicating what she was a prime suspect of, is bad journalism. Repeating that without providing sufficient context, is no better. While Wikipedia relies on what reputable secondary sources say, when they say things that are downright stupid or irresponsible, we are not obligated to include that. As for the rest of your response, feel free to read the entire Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput page, where some of your other questions have been asked and answered multiple times. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC) egregiously bad judgment: That was not my judgement or anyone else's for that matter. I only mentioned what the very sources currently cited for "commited suicide" has reported on their website. Police have not charged her with any crime 'as far as I know As far as you know?! You and others involved dispute discarded may sources including those that are currently in use in the articles itself but is it okay to go by what you know? Is there can't be a slight possibility that a person, might have missed something? Should we only consider something to be true only when you know about it, regardless of what's actually out there? Please have a look at these: [13] [14], not coming from any media this time but from a reputed member of the central government of India. This one is fromTalk:Rhea_Chakraborty#Edit_warring_and_BLP_violation_by_User:ÆCE : The only topic of discussion here is your sloppy implication that Chakraborty is a suspect in a crime that you failed to identify. This is potentially defamatory content that you didn't bother to treat with the seriousness that it warrants, and you submitted it multiple times, even though it was disputed, and even though you were told that it violates our BLP policy. That's what we're discussing here. Do you not see that it is a problem to say "her boyfriend Shushant was found dead at his residence in Bandra ... with Rhea being the prime suspect in the case"? Do you truly not see the problem here? Do you not see what you are potentially implying that could be gravely defamatory? You can't call someone a suspect in a crime when you don't identify the crime. It's also just sloppy writing. You know about the Five Ws, don't you? And even if I put back the "The cause of death is still being investigated by CBI with Rhea being the prime suspect in the case" this doesn't sound odd to you? The CBI (according to you) doesn't know how he died, but Rhea is a suspect? What? That's ridiculous. Believe it or not, we actually have to employ some common sense when writing articles, and if a bad journalist says something ignorant or poorly-conceived, we can opt not to publish that. That is an option, you know. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC) your sloppy implication that Chakraborty is a suspect in a crime that you failed to identify" : False, I have Identified it to be true several times. As far as sloppy writing is concerned, I was not done with the editing which was interrupted by that first revert. "It's also just sloppy writing.": I also said if you didn't find it up to the mark, please fix it or at least mark it for clean up like on other pages on wikipedia with writing or grammar issues, instead of reverting the entire revision. But, it was ignored. Believe it or not, we actually have to employ some common sense when writing articles, Here he is commenting on my common sense, even though It was not my opinion but what was being said by the sources that were currently used on the article for citations. I've also mentioned that since there is an entire team of experts working on the case and still have not released any statement thus far, calling it a suicide OR murder, how can we or any news source declare it to be a suicide or "murder"? in response to the "common sense" comment. "So newbie just copied the content and is hiding behind that as justification" I only stated what I felt and many others will feel as I don't have a unique psychological response system. Calling a new user a "newbie" in this age is another way of saying what they call "noob" which is a disparaging word used for a new member, on any social forum/games/platforms on the internet these days. Also, I have been answering and providing all the citations for everything they challenged so I don't think it's fair to say that I'm Hiding behind anything here.
I think I'll take my chances here, thanks for the heads up. It was you guys who started from "sloppy writing" and kept shifting your concerns from there up to BLP violation, I was only answering your questions, explaining myself and providing all the citations that were asked from you all. First off, please make it clear if it's about Rhea being a prime accuse or my edit changing "shushant committed suicide" to "shushant found dead" or "sloppy writing" or "lack of proper citation" or violation of BLP? because none of these were told about to me, at the same time, in fact they started coming up as I answered the previous ones from 3 different people who are basically "owning" the page because while they do warn other users from adding anything without seeking consent, they themselves have been adding a lot of things to the article without even discussing about the revisions they made before and in most cases even after they were published. Are administrators and their friends are exempted from seeking consensual agreement before adding anything to an article?
♠ ÆCE | Talk | 05:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC) For Robert McClenon and other Volunteers from User:ÆCEHi! I'd like to thank you once again for volunteering in my case. I believe I have said almost everything (well...apparently! haha!)I had to say regarding this and answered almost all the questions that were raised. Tomorrow, I'm having surgery so unfortunately I won't be available here as I will be in post-op care for about a week. I was placed in the waiting list pretty low so I wasn't expecting that they'd call me so early. So, I'm leaving this matter in your experienced hands. I'm willing to accept whatever you or other volunteers will decide. I'll try to come back as soon as I'll be allowed to. Hoping to see you all soon! Bye for now! :) -- ♠ ÆCE | Talk | 08:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
|
Jing Lee
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. There has been no discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Jing Lee. One comment on a user talk page is not a substitute for discussion on the article talk page. Discuss on the article talk page. That is what it is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2020 (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 have explained to the other user that including content on an organization in which the BLP has no demonstrable line of authority / leadership is a clear WP:COATRACK violation. I view the "important context" comment as facetious in light of a prior spurious and unsourced addition which I elaborated on here. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Discussion on user talk on that specific BLP How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? See above Summary of dispute by AmigaoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Jing Lee discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
INdia
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | As written, this is a conduct complaint and DRN does not handle conduct complaints. The filing IP editor should also note that due to their failure to sign their talk page posts with four tildes that I'd be inclined to reject this case anyway, even if it were a properly-formed content dispute, as it places too much of a burden on DRN editors to dig out and follow the discussion at the article talk page to determine whether adequate discussion has occurred. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The Page 2020 Delhi Riots is highly biased and the editors are not entertaining genuine requests to modify content. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Ask Moderators to be less biased and be open to suggestions/edits without blocking opinions they do not agree with. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Wikipedia Summary of dispute by SlaterStevenPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
INdia discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Extreme E
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. Extensive discussion requires back and forth, not just a single posting by each disputant or two. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview As it stands Formula E have no registered IP and marks and have pending court cases and there are commercial partners that are coming in, and putting in significant time and investment. These groups and individulas are not being informed or aware of these significant pending issues. In light of this, this information should be included and made public knowledge. Two editors disagree with one editor. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Extreme_E How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Another view and indipendant view on this that are not affilated with Formula E would be very helpful Summary of dispute by @Wild8oarPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Zappa⚡MaticPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Extreme E discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
P'ent'ay
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The other editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet. The filing editor can resume editing the article. When there has been a history of sockpuppetry, further disruption should usually be reported to WP:SPI. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2020 (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 article had unreferenced information removed which made it seem as if P'ent'ay Christians were the original churches in Ethiopia, when contrary to that perspective, cited information and general information would show the Orthodox Tewahedo are the original churches in Ethiopia, established in the era of the Apostolic Age and via schism from the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo after independence was granted via war. It is also subject to dispute resolution as the infobox, instead of summarizing information was cluttered with it and poorly edited. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:P'ent'ay, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_warring_allegation_advanced_against user:HistoryEtCulture How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A third perspective is in dire need pertaining to what appears to be continual stumbling blocks. Summary of dispute by HistoryEtCulturePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
P'ent'ay discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Knoxville Police Department
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as either fizzled out or resolved. There has been no discussion within the past week. Maybe the dispute has been solved. If not, resume discussion on the article talk page, or file another request here. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2020 (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 A new section documenting killings by the police department was added (by me) using NPOV as best as I could and citing sources. Other reverted edits based on NPOV, so I made edits to accommodate NPOV corrections. Now the other contributors are disputing the inclusion of the section for "Notability" and "Undue weight" reasons but are not citing any specific Policies or guidelines to back up their arguments. I have been accused of Wikilawyering for citing policies in my argument. I am happy to make any reasonable accommodations for POV or to include links to other Wikipedia pages with with the specific details of the killings rather then including them directly on the page in question, but other contributors keep simply reverting my changes and disputing the inclusion rather than offering a compromise to maintain NPOV and proper weight while including relevant data on police activities which are part of a well documented national trend. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Knoxville_Police_Department#Killings by KPD How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Determine whether or not a section on controversial killings by a police department belongs on the Police Department's wiki page. Determine the standard for notability of a killing by police before the killing should be included. Are protests in response sufficient? What about federal lawsuits in response? What about a report from a local Non-Profit alleging a pattern of misconduct? What about ignored recommendations of officer discipline by the civilian Police oversight committee? Summary of dispute by WikiDan61Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
EastTNPoliceStories appears to have an axe to grind with the KPD. He has editd at Knoxville Police Department and at Knox County, Tennessee trying to add this contentious material, and has been reverted in both cases. The problem with the material, no matter how neutrally presented, is that it gives undue weight to individual cases with no context. If EastTN could find a reliable source that reports that the KPD has a documented history of systemic abuse, that could be a fact that could be included in the article, with the individual cases cited (more briefly) as examples. But no such documented history has been presented, so the inclusion of these cases gives the impression of an abusive department without the reliable source to say so. I would further point out that three separate editors (including myself) have disagreed with the inclusion of this material at Talk:Knoxville Police Department, with one more editor disagreeing at Talk:Knox County, Tennessee. I think dispute resolution is not really the proper forum for this discussion, as this is not a simple case of one user disagreeing with another. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Viewmont VikingPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I also will keep it short. This seems more like an individual who is trying to right great wrongs and one who refuses to accept the communities decision. Unfortunately police sometimes have to use deadly force. Every incident of deadly force is not encylopedic. I agree with WikiDan. --VVikingTalkEdits 20:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Bneu2013Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I don't really have much to say, other than I pretty much agree with WikiDan. User has not provided any sources that suggest that the inclusion of this content doesn't violate WP:UNDUE. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC) Knoxville Police Department discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
@EastTNPoliceStories: @HeartGlow30797: I will say again that I do not believe the inclusion of these incidents to be an issue of notability, but rather an issue of neutrality and undue weight: the inclusion of these isolated incidents implies a history of abuse within the KPD, but without a reliably source narrative to verify that implication, I do not believe the material should be included. EastTN has provided a document produced by the Knoxville County Democratic Party Political Action Committe (KCDP PAC) in which they outline their complaints against the KPD, but given that this is a political document, it cannot be considered a reliable source. I would accept the inclusion of these incidents if a reliable unbiased source (a local or state newspaper) has reported on the record of abuse of the KPD. That source could then be cited to provide context for these isolated incidents. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm tapping out. I've been worn down and cannot waste any more breath on this topic. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Another Moderator's Statment
References
|
British Pakistanis
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as either fizzled out or resolved. There has been no discussion within the past week. Maybe the dispute has been solved. If not, resume discussion on the article talk page, or file another request here. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2020 (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 Brief: A monitored rewriting help too can help solve content dispute. Details: At article British Pakistanis I had added a referenced section on sectarianism, which was deleted by frequently monitoring user. I attempted engaging with the user at Talk:British Pakistanis#sectarianism by providing additional references and also offering to rewrite as he prefers but the said user did not turn up on talk page again. This month I attempted taking third opinion which I am not satisfied enough but third user too advised rewriting of content. Basically since I know references I am at loss of words to rewrite in some other way. Besides I am not sure any non-monitored rewriting will be retained in the article because article being low profile any criticism gets deleted. Besides edit history shows that mentions of Ahamadia community are looked down upon and meted with deletions or differential treatment.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:British_Pakistanis#Sectarianism attempted engaging with user and third opinion have been tried as said in overview itself. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By helping in rewriting if necessary and monitoring inclusion and retention of the content Summary of dispute by PincreteThe sources offered do not remotely support the content which the editor wishes to insert. Most do not even mention British Pakistanis - they speak of Muslims in general, or Urdu language publications sold in the UK. That there is antipathy between mainstream Muslims and Ahmadi seems to be indisputable, British Pakistanis may well share that antipathy (I am no expert on either Islam nor the Ahmadis), but no source highlights this as being prevalent or even noteworthy among British Pakistanis. I'm afraid the editor doesn't understand sourcing. There is nothing worth discussing until the editor can find sources that speak specifically about British Pakistanis and which establish general trends rather than individual anti-Ahmadi incidents (which have occurred it seems). There are several articles about relations between mainstream Muslims and Ahmadis, those are the proper places to deal with the issue IMO. Pincrete (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Disputed content here.Pincrete (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC) British Pakistanis discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
@HeartGlow30797: Thanks for your offer for proactive support in dispute resolution. The other user has been notified at the talk page. Do we need to notify user who gave third opinion too? Thanks Bookku (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC) @HeartGlow30797: User:Pincrete seems to have joined. I find it strange that on one hand he says he is neither British Pakistani nor understand Islamic nuances still too eager to own a Wikipedia article deleting sourced content which at the most can be written differently. User:Pincrete may be going too literal than understanding context that is why there may be difference of perception in between me and him. On 17th August 2020, @ Talk:British Pakistanis#Sectarianism I have submitted a scholarly youtube discourse of Researcher Mohammed Ali Haji & Researcher Anya Clarkson mention of sectarianism in UK not only against Ahemedia but against Shia community; @ 7 minutes 30 seconds they mention of bigger role of Pakistani Muslims in UK being majority among UK's Muslim minority, 11 minutes 58 seconds they complaint that usage of Urdu and Arabic language in UK to perpetuate hate speech and sectarianism and thats how sectarianism can't be seen by UK's English speaking majority. This is the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiwtRMV7wqc YouTube link. I do request User:HeartGlow30797 to cross check the youtube. As far as accepting that particular Youtube as Reliable source if not acceptable, then I shall prefer to begin separate Rfc. After discussing this I will put up my rest of the points here. I request and prefer to continue rest of the discussion too at this noticeboard itself Thanks Bookku (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@HeartGlow30797: One can't have issues with 'the' others, even if some one silently removes minutest mentions of Ahemedias in Muslim, Pakistan and British Pakistani Wikipedia articles and 'the' others remain silent and there after Talk:Mirror and claim they are neutral besides they can Talk:Mirror to claim they are neither British nor Pakistanis nor they understand Islam and hence self certify neutrality. Actually one can experience few better Pakistanis accepting and adding critical sentences in some of Wikipedia articles at just hint of it but all users need not be same :), said that. Let us come back to main issue at hand.
The Youtube mentioned earlier corroborates use of 'Urdu language' in hate speech, but we will reserve that ref for RfC. References
As such here is one more instance reported by Pakistani news paper report dated October 7, 2019 https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/537627-naz-shah-opposes-salma-yaqoob-over-despicable-campaign.
References
|
Isfahan
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. Also, apparently not a dispute but a help request since no other parties are listed and DRN is not a help page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:06, 27 September 2020 (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 Prostitution is a economy thing however taboo How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Isfahan#Whyd_you_delete_this How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Resolve the dispute Isfahan discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Economy of Iran
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. Also, apparently not a dispute but a help request since no other parties are listed and DRN is not a help page. Moreover, relief requested is not within scope of DRN. DRN does not have the authority to discipline editors. For that, consider filing at ANI, but carefully read and follow the instructions there if you do. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Removing picture of beggar in the page raises eyebrows How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_Iran&action=history How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Punish him for good Economy of Iran discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Fashion in Iran
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. Also, apparently not a dispute but a help request since no other parties are listed and DRN is not a help page. Moreover, relief requested is not within scope of DRN. DRN does not have the authority to discipline editors. For that, consider filing at ANI, but carefully read and follow the instructions there if you do. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Clearly the pic is related How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Restore it and saction the possible vandalism Fashion in Iran discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
2020 Atlantic hurricane season
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Futile. I'm going to take Destroyeraa's repeated assertion that this is settled, not as an indication that this is in fact settled (which assertion seems disingenuous in light of Hurricane21's clear assertion to the contrary, which Destroyeraa blanked from his user talk page), but instead as an indication that Destroyeraa does not wish to participate in this process. In light of that, there's nothing for us to do here since the purpose of this noticeboard is to negotiate consensus between the parties. If a party does not want to participate, they're not required to do so (though failure to do so can be taken as evidence of not editing in good faith at ANI if that becomes an issue), but it leaves us with nothing to do. While discussion is proceeding on the article talk page there seems to be an agreement, which is good, that the AON reports, due in a few hours, will be the solution, but it's been asserted that "we have to put something for now". That sentiment does not comport with customary usual Wikipedia practices where "there is no hurry" is a fixed and enduring principle. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:01, 29 September 2020 (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 There is a user who constantly reverts or changes my edits for incorrect reasons. This has happened more than 3 times now and each time I have to spend time redoing my edits from scratch. We have already had discussions (sometimes extensive) when these disputes occur. Today the user once again reverted my edits for a completely false reason. This time I simply politely asked him not to immediately revert my work and first resort to discussing the issue in the talk page. The user seems to have gotten angry at my polite request and now insists that we revert back to a clearly incorrect information just so he/she can teach me a lesson. This is beyond ridiculous and childish. How can I resolve this issue? I sense that the user has now developed a grudge against me and is now intended to change my edits every time regardless of the accuracy of the information. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [15], [16], We have also discussed these issues through the editing comments How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Give me advice on how to deal with this issue since this is my first time I have this type of dispute with another user. As of right now the other user insists on using clearly incorrect information in the article only because of a personal grudge against me since I suppose I had the nerve to politely ask him/her to discuss issues before constantly reverting. Summary of dispute by DestroyeraaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Hello there Hurricane21! So basically, Hurricane Sally's article has some dispute about how much damage it caused. Cyclonebiskit put a source a couple of days ago saying it caused between $1-3 billion in damage. A day later, Hurricane21 put up a new source saying that it caused more than $7 billion in damage. Cyclonebiskit reverted it to old sourced, saying that his source was more accurate/better. Hurricane21 reverted it back, saying that his/her source was newer and therefore better and more accurate. There was a slew or reverts/edit warring. Then I saw the edit warring and looked through the sources. A link in Hurricane21's source showed that the storm caused $5 billion in immediate damage, with a $7-8 billion estimate. Other sources said that the storm caused $1-3, $2, and $5 billion in damage. Then, Hurricane21 decided to speak with me on my talk page, saying this: After reading, I decided to reverted it back to Cyclonebiskit's edit, since Cyclonebiskit had a newer sourced than the 10-day source. I also added that Hurricane21 needed to gain consensus for the new source per WP:BRD, since multiple users were opposed to the new source provided by Hurricane21. I said:
To be honest, I do not know why Hurricane21 is accusing me of having a grudge, when I respectfully responded to his/her questions. I also do not know why this discussion is on the Dispute resolution board, not on Sally's talk page. In addition, I feel that Hurricane21 needs to read basic policies before accusing other users of things.~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
2020 Atlantic hurricane season discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
@TransporterMan: I think this content dispute is resolved between the two parties. There is currently a civil and respectful discussion on Talk:2020 Atlantic hurricane season. Hurricane21, what do you think? I believe that there is no point continuing the discussion here, and, therefore, it should be closed. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
|
WAP (song)
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as futile. Participation in DRN is voluntary, and the other editors have not responded. If continued discussion at the article talk page is unproductive, a Request for Comments should be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2020 (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 Warning Explicit Content: The issue I am bringing up is on 12, August 2020, there was an edit on the article that featured a screenshot of an explicit single. The screenshot is dual juxtaposed, with the bottom featuring 1 singer that maintains integrity and isn't deliberately provocative. However the top screenshot violates the principles of MOS:SHOCKVALUE because the mirrors reflect the nudity. The single has gotten controversy due to its explicit content. However, the article itself states the explicit content is stratified for viewers who wish to see the explicit content in a separate video or a fans only site. Therefore, the justification of a majority and minority distinction has been ascertained. The video has multiple avenues for representation if the user do wish to post the screenshot. It still isn't clear why that edit took that particular screenshot out of the 187 possible screenshots. That particular screenshot is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous. When multiple avenues are presented, the edit must choose the least offensive one, following the principles of least shock that caters to the majority audience who are those who want Wikipedia to be a repository for non-neutral content per WP:GRATUITOUS. By choosing that screenshot instead of the one like the bottom one, the explicit content minority audience is favored. Per WP:DISC, Wikipedia isn't censored which I completely agree. However, its image policy must be used to explain the article's information. Per the Wikiprojects in Songs or Albums a cursory look at the precedents such as A Day in the Life only features images that are relevant to the song such as geography, items used, and live recordings. It is ascertained the music video is already popular. Therefore, a majority of editors never post the actual screenshots of songs for their song articles. Why isn't this article in dispute following the precedents set by these Wikiprojects?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I believe the admins can review the policies of Wikipedia aren't violated with this inclusion of the screenshot. The admins can help steer toward a good consensus. The admins represent the majority of users in Wikipedia, so their words can ascertain whether Wikipedia is indeed a repository of non neutral content that uses the principle of least shock. If the admins see the citations used, not a single article posted a screenshot of such gratuitous material. Summary of dispute by CornerstonepickerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by OkIGetIt20Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
WAP (song) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
David Duke
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | The filing editor's point of contention is entirely based on original research. There is no need for further discussion along these lines beyond what has already been written at the article talk page. Arguments based on analyses of reliable sources should be raised and discussed at the talk page before coming here. signed, Rosguill talk 07:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The issue is whether David Duke should be labeled a "white supremacist" or a "white nationalist". Based on Wikipedia's own "white supremacy" and "white nationalism" pages (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/White_supremacy and https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/White_nationalism) and direct statements from the David Duke, I think it is clear he should be labeled a "white nationalist" not a "white supremacist". How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:David_Duke#white_supremacist_--%3E_white_nationalist How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? You should decide whether "white nationalist" or "white supremacist" is a more accurate term for David Duke. Summary of dispute by Ian.thomsonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
We have a user who previously asked us to tone down our coverage of InfoWars because he read their site and thought they weren't all that crazy, who has since started a discussion admitting that they listen to David Duke's podcasts. They didn't start off claiming that the Duke article doesn't line up with our article on white supremacism, they started with 'hey, I was listening to David Duke' and only backtracked when I pointed out how bad that sounds. And when it became apparent they weren't going to get consensus (gee, wonder why?), they started this attempt at forum shopping. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by GrayfellPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
David Duke discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Matt Fraser (psychic)
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as failed. This discussion has been derailed from the start, and there are too many comments about other editors. (I will note in passing that single-purpose accounts are people too, and there is no rule in Wikipedia against being a single-purpose account. There are rules against being or using a sockpuppet.) If there is an issue about the lede sentence of the article, or any other part of the article, it can be discussed on the article talk page, or a Request for Comments can be used. If discussion on the article talk page is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here (if there isn't an RFC). Any complaints about other editors should go either to WP:ANI or to sockpuppet investigations. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview On the article lede, users Roxy the dog and Rp2006 reverted in two sentences (one about the sting operation and second about critics study of Fraser's performances). I have discussed on the talk page with Rp2006 (without a conclusion) that the sentences are not WP:DUE and whether or not they are a part of the body, they should not be in the lede as we should be holding the lede to a stricter NPOV criteria given that it's a summary. As a summary, it should only contain important points of the person's life and here, a one time sting operation is not an important event neither WP:DUE. These two sentences are WP:BLP issues due to this unbalanced lede. It is my recommendation to remove these sentences from the lede without prejudice against their inclusion (or lack of it) in the body. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 10:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC) — MkNbTrD0086 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Matt Fraser (psychic)#Lede How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I request that mediators help us resolve this issue so that the editors can focus on content. The volunteers from the dispute resolution noticeboard will help us keep the discussion to the point and wikipedia policy based with an understanding that consensus cannot be built against the policy, this will help speed up our discussion. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 10:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MkNbTrD0086 (myself)Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
see dispute over view MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Rp2006Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
To summarize what I said on the article's talk page: the disputed lead (not "lede" per WP) sentence regarding the sting op and coverage by the NYT Magazine in a special report ("Inside the Secret Sting Operations to Expose Celebrity Psychics") is what initially gave the subject the notability to have a WP article in the first place at the time of writing. This is evidenced by it being included in the lead in the original version here. Prior to this, an earlier article was deleted as not notable. Also, the claim that WP:DUE and WP:NPOV limit what is acceptable for the lead is unsubstantiated. As a matter of fact, it may be reasonable to add mention to the lead of the follow-up articles by (WP notable) author Susan Gerbic regarding the sting as well as other analyses of the subject during his many media appearances (some of which have already included in the article) where he uses common, fraudulent methods to fool people into thinking he has unsubstantiated, supernatural abilities. RobP (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Roxy the dogI endorse comments by Rob. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by BilbyThere is an issue of balance - if the goal of the lede is to summarise the body, the focus on an unsucessful sting is a bit undue, while more mention could be made of other issues in the article to make it mroe balanced. Not sure if this is the best avenue to pursue this in, but so be it. - Bilby (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by GuyThe NYT piece seems to be the major non-trivial coverage of the subject other than churnalism. Articles on grief vampires have a horrible tendency to be basically PR pieces, and this is one of the rare cases where reality gets a look-in. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Matt Fraser (psychic) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|