Robert McClenon (talk | contribs) →Breitbart News: note |
70.164.212.36 (talk) →Burning of Smyrna: new section |
||
Line 221: | Line 221: | ||
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div> |
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div> |
||
*'''Volunteer Note''' - This filing appears to be a request for a [[WP:3O|Third Opinion]]. I suggest that the editors request a [[WP:3O|Third Opinion]] at that noticeboard. I will not provide a third opinion so that I will remain uninvolved in case I am asked to mediate anyway. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 05:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC) |
*'''Volunteer Note''' - This filing appears to be a request for a [[WP:3O|Third Opinion]]. I suggest that the editors request a [[WP:3O|Third Opinion]] at that noticeboard. I will not provide a third opinion so that I will remain uninvolved in case I am asked to mediate anyway. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 05:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
== Burning of Smyrna == |
|||
{{DR case status}} |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 08:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1676276605}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! --> |
|||
{{drn filing editor|70.164.212.36|08:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)}} |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> |
|||
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> |
|||
* {{pagelinks|Burning of Smyrna}} |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> |
|||
* {{User|TimothyBlue}} |
|||
* {{User|79.107.121.185}} |
|||
* {{User|Te og kaker}} |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> |
|||
Noticing propaganda on the caption of photo in article, I edited it out due to no reference (naively). Edit was reversed in 2 minutes with claim that content justified it. Found that Wikipedia does not allow interpretation and neither in a caption, I again deleted propaganda interpretation. My edit was reversed again within two hours with additional propaganda of genocide, with 2 weak references added. Editor said to Talk for Consensus. I wrote a long paragraph in Talk, pointing out my reasons for my edit in minute detail and disputing the validity of his references. Editor responded by writing they will add a new paragraph (never did, and now shows up as retired from Wikipedia!) I noted that Wikipedia was not for propaganda. Editor asked my reason for objecting to his references, and I explained in detail. No more replies from editor, although after 4 days I wrote further citing their various Wikipedia violations. Waited more days, then made a more involved edit with 2 additional references and accompanying text modifications. I also made a literal translation under an existing reference to remove a misrepresentation of what was said in reference. This edit was now reversed before a day passed by a brand new editor (replacing retired one?) with boilerplate edit summary with no proof. I undid this reversal citing my reasons (edit summary & Talk). Reversal was quick but no Talk. My undoing of reversal was again reversed the same evening, by yet another editor, again with boilerplate edit summary, but no proof. I decided that I am against a coordinated effort to lead me to an edit war which I cannot win, due to rotating non-responsive editors that do not participate in Talk. Therefore Talk was futile. I have already indicated in the Talk page my intent to escalate the issue. My edits and points are valid and the reversing editors have not brought any proofs, but have simply quickly reversed my edits citing vague incorrect reasons. Neither have they "Talk"ed. |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span> |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burning_of_Smyrna#Was_the_Smyrna_(%C4%B0zmir)_fire_part_of_a_genocide_(Greek,_Armenian,_or_Turkish)? |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span> |
|||
By considering the Wikipedia rules and violations, judging the content, trying to suppress propaganda, what to do when editors that are quick on the trigger when reverting (2 minutes response time?) will not Talk (how can consensus be reached then?), and by looking for ways to deal with the rotating editors issue. A single person like me cannot have an edit hold in such a case for obvious reasons. Most importantly, the value of the edit content goes to zero no matter how significant. |
|||
==== Summary of dispute by TimothyBlue ==== |
|||
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> |
|||
==== Summary of dispute by 79.107.121.185 ==== |
|||
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> |
|||
==== Summary of dispute by Te og kaker ==== |
|||
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> |
|||
=== Burning of Smyrna discussion === |
|||
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div> |
Revision as of 08:23, 30 January 2023
Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
|
Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
White Zimbabweans | Closed | Katangais (t) | 9 days, 13 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 5 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 5 hours |
Bernese Mountain Dog | Closed | Traumnovelle (t) | 9 days, 7 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 16 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 16 hours |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 13:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Current disputes
Rent regulation
Closed discussion |
---|
Al-Bayan (radio station)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Al-Bayan (radio station) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- LaundryPizza03 (talk · contribs)
- Panam2014 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
This is an ISIL-owned pirate radio station with known operations in Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Panam2014 and I disagree on whether the list of known frequencies used by Al-Bayan in Libya is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
In 2017, Panam2014 had successfully proposed blacklisting all sites under a family of ISIL domains at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2017#Terrorist propaganda, having described them as terrorist propaganda sites with short lifespan (though not on grounds of legality). Panam2014 removed the list of radio frequencies in Libya on November 7, initially because it was deemed "terrorist propaganda". Following my rough judgment of consensus of a subsequent AN, I restored the content per WP:NOTCENSORED on November 9, but was reverted again as "dangerous and illegal content". Following a lengthy rebuttal by several users at Al-Bayan's talk page and Panam2014's user talk, plus parallel discussions at the French Wikipedia, Panam2014 no longer believes that the disputed content is illegal or terrorist propaganda. I restored the content on December 9, but was reverted about 3 hours later because Panam2014 nonetheless deemed the information to be impertinent. I then opened an RfC, as they had asked, but it received only one comment from a third party during the standard 30-day frame, despite notification of the relevant WikiProjects, and the result is probably insufficient for consensus. Therefore, I have brought the issue to DRN as a last resort.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive347#Terrorist propaganda
- Talk:Al-Bayan (radio station)#Libya frequencies
- User talk:Panam2014#WP:NLT
- Talk:Al-Bayan (radio station)#RfC: Radio frequencies
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
To decide whether to restore the content to the article (possibly with a new source — the previously-used one looks rather iffy). It may be worthwhile to look more closely at Panam2014's history in the topic area of ISIL, but that would need to proceed at WP:ANI.
Summary of dispute by Panam2014
A new RfC is better. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Al-Bayan (radio station) discussion
- Volunteer Note - I have formally closed the December RFC as No Consensus. A better-publicized RFC is one way to resolve the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Which page would you recommend? My next go-to in a situation like this would be to choose a relevant WikiProject talk page, but I'm not sure which one. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- There is no need to choose between projects. Multiple WikiProjects, including those of the nations in which the radio station is active, can be used to publicize an RFC. Isn't there also a project on radio stations? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
2022–23 European windstorm season
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- 2022–23 European windstorm season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Mitch199811 (talk · contribs)
- 2A02:A44C:6682:1:2D2C:D0EA:3CA6:66E9 (talk · contribs)
- Dcs002 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
IP wants to change unknown to unspecified (it looks like he already did) for being unprofessional and immature. DCS002 said that the problem was nonexistent and the change was silly and he mostly dropped out afterwards. Me and the IP have been in a stalemate because I want to know why he thinks it is a necessary change. DCS002 was briefly in it but he was regarded as immature by the IP and the IP is being snarky to both of us. The IP also has deleted conversations I think he doesn't like. IP address sometimes changes but they all start with 2A02.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:2022–23 European windstorm season#Appalling Grammar Talk:2022–23 European windstorm season#Use the word “Unspecified” Talk:2022–23 European windstorm season#Maybe “undetermined”?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Telling us which word we should use. Watch over us to make sure we don't get too insult-y.
Summary of dispute by 2A02:A44C:6682:1:2D2C:D0EA:3CA6:66E9
Summary of dispute by Dcs002
The argument that something should be described as unspecified, not specified, or unknown is a small part of an ongoing chaos on this talk page. I prefer unspecified because it is an adjective that describes the quantity under discussion. Not specified is a negated past tense verb that describes a lack of action on the part of those whose job it might be to specify something. I'm not sure if we can actually say that something is unknown and be literally correct. We can't know what is known but not reported. It's a small nuance that I don't think is really worth having a dispute, but there is a much larger issue here.
One (or more) ip editor(s) has/have made numerous inappropriate posts on this talk page based on subjective preferences and harsh judgements of others rather than policy or consensus, many of which have been reverted as possible vandalism for their egregious nature. I don't know if this is one editor or more than one, so for convenience I will refer to the ip editors in the plural, though it appears to me likely to be one person.
The reasons given by the ip editors for their desired changes are that the writing was "immature", and in one occurrence "grotesque". Nothing argued by the ip editors has been based on WP policy or practices, only their own judgements that WP readers should know that articles were written by "adults", and that the writing in the article didn't measure up, in the opinion of the ip editors.
The ip editors have dominated the talk page, adding new sections to respond to individual comments in other sections, and in one case (since reverted) creating a sort of task list for people to complete when they have made edits that the ip users wanted, based solely on the ip users' own judgement.
Resolution? As this involves possibly multiple unidentified users, the resolution is tricky, as no effective action can be taken concerning a single editor, but perhaps the article and talk page should be protected for a period of time to prevent ip users from editing either. The ip users might simply need education on how WP works and the policies and practices governing the types of edits they have made. Without speculating on motive, their posts demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of how to address the issues they have expressed concerns about. Dcs002 (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I do think that it is all one editor as they have very similar contributions, mostly involving European weather, however, I cannot be 100% certain. ✶Mitch199811✶ 22:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- In reviewing the talk page, I found this (among other posts), which feels like an attack on me, or at least a gross misrepresentation of my opinions and comments on this issue:
- @Egghead2000 I mean that the editors who edit this article, for instance: Dcs002 (talk · contribs) & Greyzxq (talk · contribs). Can’t write an article without typo’s & immature grammar. They prefer “unknown” over “unspecified”, and prefer “notifications” over “cases”. And then they have the audacity to call me an idiot. Basically. And I’m just giving criticism and being direct, yet they all act like I told them to cut their arm off. And I find it disgustingly annoying. It once again shows how pathetic and immature people are nowadays… what a sad world… 2A02:A44C:6682:1:6068:A2F8:2224:118 (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have not made edits to the article at all, let alone edits with "immature grammar". I prefer unspecified over unknown (which is actually in agreement with the ip editors' position), I have expressed no opinion concerning notifications or cases, and I have not called anyone an idiot. Yet I have no way of knowing who wrote this particular comment because it is an ip edit, and I don't know how such issues can be addressed. Dcs002 (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- If you both agree then I am Ok with the change, but I think that for stuff that is uncountable, e.g. Tip's damages, should be unknown. Unspecified to me makes sense in the Australian Region because I don't think they measure low wind speeds. ✶Mitch199811✶ 04:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- My opinion on this issue isn't strong one way or the other. I just reasoned it out and posted my thoughts. What you say also makes sense. If something is uncountable or unknowable, then we should probably label it as unknown (or describe it in some way as unknowable, maybe explaining why it's unknowable). My only problem, and it's a small one, splitting fine hairs, possibly even pedantic, is when we don't know whether something is knowable. If it's knowable, someone might know it, therefore it might not be unknown.
- I think by far the most important issue here is the potentially damaging effect of an unaccountable ip editor owning (or attempting to own) an article and posting shaming comments about other editors as justification. That clearly needs to stop. The ip editor has demonstrated no understanding of how WP works or the role of editors, and frankly their command of the English language is rather tenuous for someone who claims superiority in language skills. I don't mind when people with marginal language skills edit our encyclopedia. I actually like it because it affirms our basis as a community project, and it demonstrates a willingness of new editors to put an effort into improving our content. Anyone with better language skills can follow behind, proofread, and fix mistakes as needed. The idea that an editor needs near perfect language skills is absolutely contrary to our goal as a community-built encyclopedia, our traditions, our policies, our diversity, and eventually our effectiveness at continuing to build and maintain the standard encyclopedia of Planet Earth. Last time I checked (and it was a while ago), kids were allowed to edit articles, and we need to treat them with respect and dignity rather than shaming them and scaring them off. There used to be support available for kids who wanted to learn to be excellent editors. If our ip editor is actually a child (which I believe is a possibility, and it would explain a great deal), I hope they will see that we have standards, but we are welcoming, and we want people to participate constructively, to build this thing together, according to a common set of standards, not any person's opinions. It's a great project, and I hope they can participate with us, not as a self-appointed arbiter of maturity of grammar, but as one who works toward our common goal and within our common standards. This is why I am here, and what I primarily wish to represent. Dcs002 (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- If you both agree then I am Ok with the change, but I think that for stuff that is uncountable, e.g. Tip's damages, should be unknown. Unspecified to me makes sense in the Australian Region because I don't think they measure low wind speeds. ✶Mitch199811✶ 04:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- (moved comment to discussion section below)
2022-23 European Windstorm Season discussion
I moved the following from my summary section above. I think this is where such things belong: IP user 2a02:a44c:6682:1:2d2c:d0ea:3ca6:66e9 just deleted the entire discussion section titled Use the word “Unspecified”, saying the issue had been resolved, which clearly it hasn't. I reverted the deletion. I suggest that page be watched closely for such activity, and I'd also like to request that the talk page and article be temporarily protected from ip edits pending this dispute resolution. Dcs002 (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Since I made the above comment, the ip editor has deleted two more sections. One section has been reverted by another user, and I left the other section removed, as it was a discussion about the Dark Mode WP option, which I don't think was appropriate for the article talk page anyway. However, the ip editor is giving the reason that issues are "resolved" as a reason for deleting entire sections.
- This ip editor needs to be stopped and perhaps taught how to use the discussion pages, and how WP works by common standards and policies. An editor must not be allowed to delete other people's contributions with impunity, particularly when they have become the topic of a dispute resolution.Dcs002 (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Easier said than done depending on what type of vacation he's ending. If he was at home the entire time we should be fine; but if he was at a hotel or friends house, his IP will change and we might have a harder time tracking them. Even if we have the best case scenario, since this mess started I think I've seen like 7 IPs so we couldn't contact them very easily. ✶Mitch199811✶ 15:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- The IP is continuing the be at least semi-disruptive, on this article they changed Turkey to Turkiye and on an other article they insisted Northern Ireland should be listed and that it was rude to not. I kind of want to range block the IP at least for a bit. ✶Mitch199811✶ 23:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Easier said than done depending on what type of vacation he's ending. If he was at home the entire time we should be fine; but if he was at a hotel or friends house, his IP will change and we might have a harder time tracking them. Even if we have the best case scenario, since this mess started I think I've seen like 7 IPs so we couldn't contact them very easily. ✶Mitch199811✶ 15:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by moderator (European windstorms)
If this is only about what wording to use when information in a table or an infobox is not present, then this seems to be a European windstorm in a glass of water. However, if the editors want moderated discussion, I will act as the moderator. Read the usual rules. Do the editors agree to comply with the rules, and do they editors want moderated discussion? The unregistered editor is reminded that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (European windstorms)
Breitbart News
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Breitbart News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs)
- Isi96 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
One editor cited Breitbart News at the end of a sentence quoting Breitbart News. Another editor reverted. The issue is whether to reinstate the cite.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
[[1]]
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Say "reinstate the cite". Or say "don't reinstate the cite". Or say "I've been involved with this topic before therefore cannot help".
Summary of dispute by Isi96
Peter Gulutzan added a citation to the website on its own article without adding the link to the spam whitelist first, so I created a request on the spam whitelist talk page. The request went unanswered, so I removed the citation, as the consensus for the site notes that links must first be added to the spam whitelist before they can be used. Peter Gulutzan seems to be arguing that it's fine to add the citation without adding the link to the spam whitelist first.
Breitbart News discussion
- Volunteer Note - This filing appears to be a request for a Third Opinion. I suggest that the editors request a Third Opinion at that noticeboard. I will not provide a third opinion so that I will remain uninvolved in case I am asked to mediate anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Burning of Smyrna
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Burning of Smyrna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- TimothyBlue (talk · contribs)
- 79.107.121.185 (talk · contribs)
- Te og kaker (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Noticing propaganda on the caption of photo in article, I edited it out due to no reference (naively). Edit was reversed in 2 minutes with claim that content justified it. Found that Wikipedia does not allow interpretation and neither in a caption, I again deleted propaganda interpretation. My edit was reversed again within two hours with additional propaganda of genocide, with 2 weak references added. Editor said to Talk for Consensus. I wrote a long paragraph in Talk, pointing out my reasons for my edit in minute detail and disputing the validity of his references. Editor responded by writing they will add a new paragraph (never did, and now shows up as retired from Wikipedia!) I noted that Wikipedia was not for propaganda. Editor asked my reason for objecting to his references, and I explained in detail. No more replies from editor, although after 4 days I wrote further citing their various Wikipedia violations. Waited more days, then made a more involved edit with 2 additional references and accompanying text modifications. I also made a literal translation under an existing reference to remove a misrepresentation of what was said in reference. This edit was now reversed before a day passed by a brand new editor (replacing retired one?) with boilerplate edit summary with no proof. I undid this reversal citing my reasons (edit summary & Talk). Reversal was quick but no Talk. My undoing of reversal was again reversed the same evening, by yet another editor, again with boilerplate edit summary, but no proof. I decided that I am against a coordinated effort to lead me to an edit war which I cannot win, due to rotating non-responsive editors that do not participate in Talk. Therefore Talk was futile. I have already indicated in the Talk page my intent to escalate the issue. My edits and points are valid and the reversing editors have not brought any proofs, but have simply quickly reversed my edits citing vague incorrect reasons. Neither have they "Talk"ed.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
By considering the Wikipedia rules and violations, judging the content, trying to suppress propaganda, what to do when editors that are quick on the trigger when reverting (2 minutes response time?) will not Talk (how can consensus be reached then?), and by looking for ways to deal with the rotating editors issue. A single person like me cannot have an edit hold in such a case for obvious reasons. Most importantly, the value of the edit content goes to zero no matter how significant.