Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 172) (bot |
A145GI15I95 (talk | contribs) →Talk:Detransition: new section |
||
Line 266: | Line 266: | ||
<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''' - There has been discussion at the article talk page, and notice to the other editors. If there has already been a [[WP:3O|Third Opinion]] and one of the editors has declined to accept it (because both Third Opinion and this noticeboard are voluntary), the question is whether this dispute will be resolved by discussion or whether a [[WP:RFC|Request for Comments]] is required. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 07:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Volunteer Note''' - There has been discussion at the article talk page, and notice to the other editors. If there has already been a [[WP:3O|Third Opinion]] and one of the editors has declined to accept it (because both Third Opinion and this noticeboard are voluntary), the question is whether this dispute will be resolved by discussion or whether a [[WP:RFC|Request for Comments]] is required. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 07:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
== Talk:Detransition == |
|||
{{DR case status}} |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 04:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1553748426}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! --> |
|||
{{drn filing editor|Jadepraerie|04:47, 14 March 2019 (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|Talk:Detransition}} |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> |
|||
* {{User|Jadepraerie}} |
|||
* {{User|Mooeena}} |
|||
* {{User|Equivamp}} |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> |
|||
Users Mooeena and Equivamp are doxxing other users, making false accusations on Talk pages, User pages, and edit logs. Mooeena is openly trans, and I believe they see the Detransition article as a threat to their political identity. I want what's best for detrans folk, but not at the expense of trans folk. |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span> |
|||
I've tried talking with them. Mooeena just made another false accusation and told me to come here. |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span> |
|||
Tell those two to cool it, please. Take some time off. Step away from the keyboard. Stop being disruptive. Stop trying to destroy the article. Stop accusing and doxxing users. |
|||
==== Summary of dispute by Mooeena ==== |
|||
<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 Equivamp ==== |
|||
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> |
|||
=== Talk:Detransition 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 04:47, 14 March 2019
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 |
Robert (doll) | Closed | Gabriellemcnell (t) | 2 days, 16 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 5 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 5 hours |
Undetectable.ai | Closed | Sesame119 (t) | 2 days, 13 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 5 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 5 hours |
Ibn Battuta | Closed | Jihanysta (t) | 2 days, 11 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 5 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 5 hours |
Eurovision Song Contest 2024 - Israel | Closed | PicturePerfect666 (t) | 2 days, 11 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 5 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 5 hours |
Aidi | Closed | Traumnovelle (t) | 1 days, 17 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 9 hours | Traumnovelle (t) | 1 days, 6 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 19:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Current disputes
Talk:British Empire#Suez_crisis_and_its_aftermath
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:British Empire#Suez crisis and its aftermath (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Diablo del Oeste (talk · contribs)
- Slatersteven (talk · contribs)
- Hzh (talk · contribs)
- Snowded (talk · contribs)
- Wee_Curry_Monster (talk · contribs)
- Wiki-Ed (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
A topic-relevant, sourced, brief addition to the article's lede talking about the Suez crisis and its importance in the decline of the British Empire, was objected by a sock (AlbionJack). The content-dispute went to the Talk section, where a long debate ensued. After some days the sock was banned. However, the dispute carried on with 3 supporting the inclusion of the content (Diablo del Oeste, Slatersteven, Hzh), and 3 objecting (Snowded, Wee_Curry_Monster, Wiki-Ed). Even though I always presented references to back up my affirmations, the objecting party never gave one and based its arguments on unsourced, original research. One by one the arguments thrown by the objecting party were nullified, some of them had glaring contradictions, for example: first they objected because the addition was unsourced, after I gathered the references they said ledes don't need citations, which comes at odds with the widely employed practice in Wikipedia of putting citations in the ledes. Although the supporting party showed will to follow the course of Wikipedia's policies regarding dispute resolution, the objecting party in numerous occasions voiced explicitly their lack of interest in following those policies, with comments like "No one is interesting" (sic) and repeatedly focusing on contributors instead of content, with aggressive comments like "someone with a bee in their bonnet" and "you who is deliberately trying to discourage discussion". The supporting party continued showing its will to debate, and we could have continued discussing in the Talk section for more time, after all Wikipedia's policies allude to turning the other cheek in the face of personal attacks. However, the objecting party started trying to use force to eliminate dissent, calling a sockuppet investigation, and that's the moment the debate in the Talk section was ended.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Like I said above, I was always willing to follow the normal protocol of discussing in the Talk section for as long is necessary, but the use of aggressive measures by the objection party made me bring the case here.
How do you think we can help?
I request a mediator, after a long discussion in the Talk section it is the involvement of an uninvolved third party what is needed to reach consensus over this content dispute.
Summary of dispute by Slatersteven
I supported a brief (one sentence) statement. Since then the debate has continued and I have got a bit bored with it to be honest. It is clear from much of what I have read that Suez was seen as a a watershed that signaled Britain's decline as a world power [[1]], I could find a lot more. But at the same time it was not a cause, but rather a symptom.
Since my agreement the discussion has rambled on (and NO ONE USER IS TO BLAME), with (frankly) a degree of tendentiousness from both sides. I still support a one one mention, I would just like ONE to vote on.08:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Hzh
I'm not really an active participant in the discussion, I will note however that there are really two different issues here - one is the inclusion of a summary in the lead, the other is the wording. I think a short summary in the lead is acceptable given that Suez is the content of a section. As for the use of word "superpower", I take no position on that. It is unfortunate that the discussion has descended into accusations including sock-puppetry, which appears to be unfounded - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter. Hzh (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Snowded
Opening statement is misleading. The disputant did get a brief agreement to a one sentence insertion but since the wording was challenged those editors have not provided any further support. This is a tendentious editor as a brief review of the talk page will show, in effect in a minority of one. Currently subject to an SPI report so I don't see any current need for dispute resolution -----Snowded TALK 20:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Wee_Curry_Monster
As noted by Snowded & Wiki-Ed the dispute overview is very misleading, there is some support for a brief sentence but not the convoluted sentence this editor wants. This editor is also fixated on introducing a problematic term to describe the British Empire - Superpower. It's a term that has been used by an author but is problematic as it is never had academic consensus or widespread use. [2] As can be seen from a cursory search of the archives, the use of the word "superpower" has never gained consensus. This is really one tendentious editor with a bee in their bonnet. I think they see mediation as the next step in getting their way in a content dispute.
What we are seeing is a problem of editor conduct, one editor who refuses to acknowledge previous dicussions, simply repeats the same comment and is personalising the content dispute in a manner which is raising tensions. His final comment in the current talk page discussion is most telling [3] If you didn't object to my contribution in the first place, everything would had run smooth. They're approaching this with a battlefield mentality and anyone whose comments disagree with them is treated like an enemy. WCMemail 08:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Wiki-Ed
The dispute summary is unhelpful. In short: the editor wants to insert the word "superpower" in a new sentence in the introduction to the article on the British Empire. The rest of us do not.
So how did we get here?
The user proposed new wording for inclusion in the introduction, increasing the word count by almost 10%. While not factually wrong, it was awkwardly phrased and placed undue emphasis on a single episode in a 500-year historical account. Comments from others persuaded the editor to shorten this, although his updated version introduced new errors. I counter-proposed an even shorter version which reflected the consensus established in earlier talk page discussions, including an RfC in Jan 2016. Since then the editor has been fixated on the use of the term "superpower". There are some sources which use this, but most historians avoid it. Given that the majority of reliable sources do not employ this terminology, doing so in WP places undue weight on the term and is misleading to readers.
I would observe that if the editor had settled for the earlier compromise this entire dispute would be unnecessary, but he seems to be more concerned with wikilawyering. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Talk:British Empire#Suez_crisis_and_its_aftermath discussion
- Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
First statement by moderator
I will see whether acting as a moderator can resolve this. Please read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the dispute is about?
Be civil and concise. Overly long posts make the poster feel better but do not persuade. Comment on content, not contributors. The objective here is to improve the article. I expect every editor to reply to my posts at least every 48 hours. Do not reply to each other. Address your comments to the moderator.
Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
First statements by editors
- Per current consensus, as shown by talk page history, [4] the use of the term "superpower" is problematic and should be avoided.
- Small concise sentence may be appropriate, equally zero coverage in the lead may be appropriate per WP:WEIGHT compared with other significant events in the lead. 10% of the lead dedicated to this incident is WP:UNDUE coverage. WCMemail 13:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- The proposed addition is about a relevant topic, sources can be provided per WP:V, also the proposed addition has been already synthesized to a single sentence.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator
I said to be concise, and I thank the editors for being concise. However, the statements were too concise to clarify what the scope of the issue is. Does the issue have to do with the use of the word "superpower"? Will each editor please state in one paragraph, but more than one sentence, what they think is the issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Second statements by editors
.
Talk:Dogsbite.org
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Dogsbite.org (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
Dispute overview
In these four diffs:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogsbite.org&type=revision&diff=885898944&oldid=885895843
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogsbite.org&type=revision&diff=885895843&oldid=885891398
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogsbite.org&type=revision&diff=885891398&oldid=885582225
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogsbite.org&type=revision&diff=885237747&oldid=885236153
I am contesting the following changes:
- Removal of the link to Fatal dog attacks in the United States in the article body, substituting it for a link in "Related topics". This page can directly be tied to the article's prose, and should be linked there
- Removal of statement saying the organization advocates for Breed-specific legislation. This is a clear part of their activities, justified by inclusion by the site's own words, as well as the two sources discussing the MD Tracey v Solesky case, where dogsbite.org was heavily involved, and the now-removed austintx.gov, where dogsbite.org was involved in a local public hearing
- Removal of aforementioned austintx.gov source, of which several documents to and from DBO are listed on their website, this speaks to DBO's lobbying activities for breed-specific ordinance changes, here addressing no-kill shelters. This source needs to be reinstated
- Unrelated information about the Chapple attack needs to be removed per WP:SYNTH. This is an article about dogsbite.org, and all sources and statements need to address dogsbite.org directly.
- Propose "After being injured in a pit bull attack while jogging on June 17th, 2007,(avma source) Colleen Lynn anonymously founded DogsBite.org in October 2007. Shortly after, her identity was disclosed and she began receiving harassing emails, and was threatened by a lawsuit. Numerous anti-breed specific legislation advocates set up blogs and websites posting theories attempting to cast doubt on Lynn.(buzzfeed source)". as text for "History" section
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Extensive talk page discussion, largely futile
How do you think we can help?
Provide commentary and consensus on above issues so article creation and expansion can go forward
Summary of dispute by Nomopbs
The short story (in 100 words): Dwanyewest and PearlSt82 created an attack page about DogsBite.org to push their own POVs. Months later, I discovered it and started to try to move the article closer to NPOV. Everything I did was reverted or edited to death (including 6 reverts by PearlSt82 on Feb 26, WP:3RR).[5][6][7][8][9][10] I tried using the Talk page to explain in detail the reasons for each of my edits. Didn't make a difference. Dwanyewest is waiting on the sidelines for some 'wiki admin on high' to grant him permission to continue. [11] PearlSt82 has been bucking me at every turn (WP:EW) and writes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH sentences in his criticism without appropriate citations.
Four years ago, in 2015, PearlSt82 had a lengthy argument with another wiki editor on the subject of DogsBite.org. Basically, PearlSt82 refused to allow someone to use a Huffington Post citation solely because HuffPost mentioned DogsBite.org within it. It was pretty heated. I summarized it and provided links to the argument on Talk:Dogsbite.org at this subheading [12]. I mention this to point out that (a) DogsBite.org has been on PearlSt82's shit list for a long, long time, and (b) discussions between PearlSt82 and other wiki editors didn't bring resolution back then, as it didn't bring resolution in this last month on Talk:Dogsbite.org.
Nomopbs' responses to PearlSt82's (P's) 5 points above:
1. I really don't care about fighting on this. I don't understand why P thinks a "See also" section is not appropriate "just because there's a link to it above". One cannot expect all readers to read a complete article and click on every link. A link to Fatal dog attacks in the United States is absolutely relevant to any discussion about DogsBite.org since the Wikipedia list is a summary of the same information (though different sources) as is covered by the website dogsbite.org.
2. I agree with P that someone could infer DogsBite.org is "advocating for BSL" in the sense that the DogsBite.org founder promotes the idea, however, there is no citation that says it that way and wiki editors are forbidden to write their inferences (WP:NOR). There's other language used in citations about DogsBite.org and BSL such as "Breed-specific laws strengthen existing dangerous dog laws by targeting some of those prime offenders" (AVMA), and "The organization's website includes ... and an overview of breed-specific legislation throughout the country" (AVMA), and "Lynn supports laws that specifically regulate pit bulls" (DallasNews), but none of these support what P writes, and leads only to an allegation of SYNTH and/or NOR.
2B. Also, P keeps trying to lump together in the same sentence "advocating for victims" and "advocating for BSL" which are two entirely different kinds of activity. P's lump-together comes out like "DogsBite.org advocates for victims of dog bites and breed specific legislation". Putting them together in one sentence is improper editorial synthesis. See the sample synth-and-no-synth examples in section of the article WP:SYNTH. It describes how two concepts pushed together into one sentence can be SYNTH, but left as two sentences is NOT SYNTH. Specifically, the verb "advocate" in this instance has two different meanings. If you mean "promotes" as relates to BSL, then P's composite sentence sounds like DogsBite.org is "promoting dog bite victims". No, DogsBite.org spends time and effort to HELP dog bite victims and reduce attacks by dogs. So, you see, P's composite sentence does NOT convey what he wants to say. It should be re-worded instead. I tried to pull it out into a separate sentence, but P reverted it and squished them back together.
2C. The Solesky citation currently in the DogsBite.org article is not about DogsBite.org but only uses footnotes referencing it in places. It does not mention anywhere that DogsBite writings were pro-BSL. The problem is that P is pulling from information he knows, or think he knows, from elsewhere that's not in citations, then writing his conclusions as WP:NOR in the DogsBite.org article and tacking on a citation that does NOT support what P is writing. It is that method of SYNTH that I object to.
2D. The austintexas.gov citation is irrelevant to the topic of BSL. It's a response to a request for information by DogsBite.org to Austin Animal Services, and was about a discussion as to whether their No-Kill policies were what led to increased dog bites in the Austin TX area. It's not about Breed Specific Legislation at all, which is why/where P keeps trying to add it. It does NOT support any discussion for inclusion (or exclusion) of BSL language. It's a response to a letter, not something to do with a hearing. I don't know where P get those ideas about that citation/document, because they are NOT in the citation. One must assume any Wikipedia reader knows nothing about the topic. And citations must support what one writes, and not lead to more confusion in the reader.
2E. One should find a real citation that says it, or P should re-word concepts to match what one CAN find citations to support.
3. See 2D above.
4. I really don't know what Wikipedia editor guideline P is using to say that every citation in an article must directly reference the title/name of the article and cannot be a citation to support something said in the article. As an example of how ridiculously strict that would be: In an article on Joe Schmoe, an editor writes "Joe Schmoe says that tractor trailers are dangerous on the roads." P's viewpoint on citations would preclude adding a citation to the end of that sentence that is an article on "tractor trailers are dangerous on the road" but which doesn't mention "Joe Schmoe" in the citation. See WP:WHYCITE.
4B. The 'unrelated' information to which P refers are the three citations I added to explain/refute P's Radio-Canada criticism sentence and citation. If P wants to include the criticisms, then he should include "who said what" in the criticism (which I did for him), and not just write his own SYNTH/NOR on the topic (which I removed). And P cannot object to another editor coming along and adding the other side of the story in an attempt at NPOV (which I did). If P would rather I pick apart the Radio-Canada citation and take it to the "reliable sources noticeboard", I can go that route, too. Instead, I had left P's citation there as a compromise.
5. P's recommended language exposes his true WP:G10 purpose here: to discredit and attack DogsBite.org and its Founder (a living person), NOT to write an article about DogsBite.org, and NOT to adhere to Wikipedia editor guidelines on NPOV. Here, the specific day of the pit bull attack is irrelevant — P insists on the specific date (not just the year) all the while omitting the time interval of four months before the founder started the website dogsbite.org. The way P constructs his sentence implies she did it as a revenge tactic, when in fact P's own added citations clearly mention that while she was laid up from her injuries from the pit bull attack, that she started to research the topic of dangerous dogs and pit bulls, and THEN four months later started the website. I've removed the month and day; P et al have added it back in. P's proposed language includes "and was threatened by a lawsuit," while glaringly removing my addition (from P's own citation, I might add) "which didn't materialize". So much for NPOV. Since the founder is a living person, see also WP:NOCITE, WP:BLP, WP:G10.
One last salvo showing that the article was intended as a G10 attack from the beginning.
The original article was created by Dwanyewest, and at the end of his edits that day the article contained three sentences and thirteen citations, all criticisms, in the worst case of citation overkill I've seen: “The website has being accused of using unreliable methods to collect dog bite data.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]”. [13]
Later, there were two hidden edits that were made.
1. In this pro-pitbull article, someone added a vicious easter egg: [14]
[[Dogsbite.org|Anti pitbull advocates]] accused Bronwen Dickey of...
2. Then added an invisible template to the DogsBite.org article: [15]
{{short description|Anti-Pitbull website}}
I found, and removed, both. Both were done by an IP editor. Both IPv6 addresses resolve geographically to “Manchester, England, UK” which coincidentally Dwanyewest says on his User page that he lives in England. (The topic at issue is USA-related.) He’s also the creator and main editor of both the article on which the easter egg was placed, a book review, [16] and the article for the book's author.[17]
Coincidence? Or evidence?
—Nomopbs (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Dogsbite.org discussion
- Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- I feel I should disclose I am the creator of the article. On a personal note after a resolution is completed if I can add certain sources to the Dogsbite.org for example this one [18] by the The Dodo (website) and [19] by the American Dog Breeders Association to Dogsbite.org. If the editors say no I will accept their final decision. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Lynching of Shedrick Thompson
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Lynching of Shedrick Thompson (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
Dispute overview
This is a dispute with Qwirkle. He put an
template on the article Lynching of Shedrick Thompson. I have made extensive changes to this article subsequently, increasing sources from 5 to 46 and the size from 3,454 bytes to 16,950 bytes. He has put the Accuracy template back on it and added POV. He has made no reply to my defense of the article's accuracy on the Talk page, just puts these templates on it.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have multiplied the size of the article by 5 and the sources by 7.
How do you think we can help?
Evaluate the content and documentation and advise whether these two templates are appropriate or not.
Summary of dispute by Qwirkle
Before going further, perhaps @Deisenbe: can explain how expanding an article would address a problem of undue POV. If the problem is, as it is here, advocacy, adding more isn’t necessarily going to help that. Qwirkle (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Lynching of Shedrick Thompson discussion
- Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. It seems unlikely that discussion here will result in compromise, especially since the issue is not a matter of the wording of the lede sentence so much as a tagging issue. This is a dispute that might be able to be addressed at the neutral point of view noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have posted the dispute on that board as recommended (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Lynching of Shedrick Thompson). deisenbe (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- My apologies, the correct link is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Tagging_as_not_neutral_of_article_Lynching_of_Shedrick_Thompson deisenbe (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa of Calcutta#Redirect classification
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa of Calcutta#Redirect classification (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Whats new? (talk · contribs)
- Netoholic (talk · contribs)
- Wallyfromdilbert (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Whether this redirect page should be classified as being a redirect from a long name, or a redirect from an incorrect name. The article title in question is used in the program's title card, reliable sources and until removed the article it redirects to. The contrary opinion is that a greater number of sources do not use this title, and there is a lack of sources close enough to the program producers using the longer title, and it is therefore used incorrectly elsewhere. User:IJBall attempted to change to the R from long name designation previously, as have I, and have been reverted by Netoholic each time. After stalled discussions, I requested a third opinion, which was given by Wallyfromdilbert who suggested the long name designation was correct, but too was reverted by Netoholic, who continues to oppose the long name redirect classification.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
After discussions with Netoholic on the talk page stalled, I requested a third opinion, which was given, however Netoholic continues to disagree with this opinion as well.
How do you think we can help?
Through determining which redirect classification is most appropriate. Whether this is based either on applying the consensus of three editors who disagree with the opposing editor, or determining that Netoholic's argument is valid on policy grounds, or indeed making a determination by citing other reasons entirely. For such a small issue, one would hope it could be determined fairly simply.
Summary of dispute by Netoholic
Use of {{R from long name}} is for a title that is a complete, more complete or longer version of the topic's name
. This is typically used when an official title is not the WP:COMMONNAME. In this case, there is no evidence from the producers or writers of the documentary that any such "long title" was used. The other user is basing his viewpoint on his own interpretation of the main title graphics and on a very small minority of sources which seem to have made the same misinterpretation - whereas the vast majority of secondary sources which fail to use such a "long title". In particular, we have sources very closely connected to the producers/writers (written by them, or interviews with them which cover the specific topic of how the documentary got its title) which likewise do not make any mention of a "long title". This lack of verification of a "long title" is the reason it is not mentioned in the target article, and should be evidence that it is indeed not "complete, more complete", but instead should be considered an {{R from incorrect name}} as an erroneous name – either an incorrect name or a title
. -- Netoholic @ 04:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Wallyfromdilbert
At least a dozen published newspapers and books can be easily found online using the longer version and explicitly describing it as the title. Most were already provided on the talk page. Not sure where the additional requirement that the sources be "close to the producers" comes from when it's easily verified by reliable secondary sources. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa of Calcutta#Redirect classification discussion
- Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page, and notice to the other editors. If there has already been a Third Opinion and one of the editors has declined to accept it (because both Third Opinion and this noticeboard are voluntary), the question is whether this dispute will be resolved by discussion or whether a Request for Comments is required. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Detransition
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Detransition (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
Dispute overview
Users Mooeena and Equivamp are doxxing other users, making false accusations on Talk pages, User pages, and edit logs. Mooeena is openly trans, and I believe they see the Detransition article as a threat to their political identity. I want what's best for detrans folk, but not at the expense of trans folk.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I've tried talking with them. Mooeena just made another false accusation and told me to come here.
How do you think we can help?
Tell those two to cool it, please. Take some time off. Step away from the keyboard. Stop being disruptive. Stop trying to destroy the article. Stop accusing and doxxing users.