TheRealJKO (talk | contribs) →There are multiple forms: new section |
|||
Line 618: | Line 618: | ||
=== Neprology Review Collection, Template:XBDOM, Template:BDOM, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism discussion === |
=== Neprology Review Collection, Template:XBDOM, Template:BDOM, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism discussion === |
||
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.</div> |
|||
== There are multiple forms == |
|||
{{DR case status}} |
|||
{{drn filing editor|TheRealJKO|15:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)}} |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 15:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) --> |
|||
<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|There are multiple forms}} |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> |
|||
* {{User|TheRealJKO}} |
|||
* {{User| }} |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> |
|||
I am being slandered and abused on several pages. I asked for the comments to be removed and for someone to contact me privately if they had any issue with that request. I contact ALL the email addresses given on the site and they all ignored me. My request was then turned into a further opportunity to abuse and slander me. I have again requested this to be removed and I have said I will pursue this legally if it is not. Now I am being threatened by several users and one user called Pickette is slandering me and acusing me of all sorts of wikipedia abuse. Why will nobody do something? |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span> |
|||
I have sent several emails to all the published addresses. |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span> |
|||
Please contact me directly and HELP. |
|||
==== Opening comments by ==== |
|||
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.</div> |
|||
=== There are multiple forms discussion === |
|||
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.</div> |
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.</div> |
Revision as of 15:30, 11 May 2013
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 |
Maratha Confederacy | Closed | Mohammad Umar Ali (t) | 4 days, 3 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 15 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 15 hours |
Elissa Slotkin | New | Andrew.robbins (t) | 3 days, 22 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 2 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 2 hours |
Gangubai Kathiawadi | Closed | Ankitsalsa14 (t) | 3 days, 5 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 2 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 2 hours |
Naseem Hamed | New | Mac Dreamstate (t) | 1 days, 3 hours | None | n/a | JFHJr (t) | 14 hours |
Killing of Laken Riley | New | Gottagotospace (t) | 19 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 15 hours | Cakelot1 (t) | 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 11:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
An Bord Pleanála
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- An Bord Pleanála (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Sun Ladder (talk · contribs)
- Blue-Haired_Lawyer (talk · contribs)
- RashersTierney (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
The article is about a state institution that is quasi-judicial. In effect it is the highest 'court' in Ireland for planning matters. I added a section outlining a recent High Court judgment which found a recent decision of the institution had been biased. Quite a serious and significant finding by the High Court against another state institution.
That section was added in August 2012. It has citations.
Almost immediately User:Blue-Haired_Lawyer tried to delete the section claiming "POV and soapbox". That deletion was reverted and apart from some very questionable edits by a new user called User_talk:Pleanala which were all reverted the section was left alone.
That is until 10 April 2013 when User:Blue-Haired_Lawyer has started to delete the section again. This time he claims its because WP:UNDUE.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I started a discussion on the article page
How do you think we can help?
by providing an outsider's perspective
Opening comments by Blue-Haired_Lawyer
An Bord Pleanala is an Irish administrative tribunal which hears appeals from local councils concerning planning decisions. It hears thousands of cases a year. While the Usk decision was quite controversial, its current billing on the article is completely out of proportion. There was no issue of systemic bias, just one particular decision where the board ignored the directions of a High Court judge on how a case was to be considered after the initial decision had been struck down.
Sun ladder seems intent on making a false inference that because: '[t]he Board is supposed to be unbiased in 100% of its cases. Being biased in just one case is an incredible perversion of justice by the highest "court" on planing matters in Ireland. It raises questions about the fairness of every other case decided by the Board.' It doesn't and as it stands the article gives undue weight to this particular controversy. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by RashersTierney
What ever happened to User:Lapsed Pacifist? RashersTierney (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
An Bord Pleanála discussion
DRN Volunteer Note: One party was left off of the list of participants I have added RashersTierney (talk · contribs) to the list. please note I am not taking this case. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hello every one I've had a chance to read over the talk page, and familiarize myself with the article. Provided no one has an objection to me assisting with this dispute I'm going to open this up for discussion. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Cameron. Thanks for taking this case. I'm not really sure of the procedures here. What do you mean by opening this up for discussion? I think we've all kind of set out our stalls. Do you have a view on the dispute? Sun Ladder (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- I probably could have been more direct in my opening statement, my apologies. Before I give my views, I would like to hear from blue haired lawyer on why they think UNDUE applies. I think it would be helpful for me to fully understand where both editors are coming from. In the mean time would you care to enlighten me on why you think the information should stay (if you could include relevant policies it would be helpful for me to see where your views come from)? My goal is for both editors to develop an understanding of each other's point of view and then develop a compromise. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 17:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please remember, you approached me as a 'third disputant'. RashersTierney (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- I approached you because I noticed you had recently contributed to the article or on the talk page, if you do not wish to participate you are under no requirement to do so. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding. DRN volunteers usually ask if recent editors would like to participate. If you are willing I would like to hear your perspective on the issue. Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- I probably could have been more direct in my opening statement, my apologies. Before I give my views, I would like to hear from blue haired lawyer on why they think UNDUE applies. I think it would be helpful for me to fully understand where both editors are coming from. In the mean time would you care to enlighten me on why you think the information should stay (if you could include relevant policies it would be helpful for me to see where your views come from)? My goal is for both editors to develop an understanding of each other's point of view and then develop a compromise. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 17:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- An Bord Pleanála [ABP] is a powerful state institution. It is the 'court' that has the final say on all planing matters for the entire country.
- The Irish High Court found that ABP had made biased decisions based on unfathomable reasoning. That is an extremely important and very troubling finding by the High Court against a state institution that is supposed to be entirely impartial, unbiased and fair to all citizens, 100% of the time.
- I added a two sentence section with reliable, verifiable, archived citations highlighting the High Court's finding.
- Straight away Blue Haired Lawyer deleted the section, giving one reason (POV and soapbox). After being restored the section stayed intact for 7 months until recently when Blue Haired Lawyer again, unilaterally decided the section should be deleted, this time for an entirely different reason (UNDUE).
- It would seem that Blue Haired Lawyer just doesn't like the negative section. And his unilateral deletion appears to be censorship.
- The manner of the deletion, unilateral, with various different excuses at different times, with out the courtesy of a discussion on the article's Talk Page, or notifying the editor whose work he was deleting also compounds the perception of censorship. For whatever real reason, he just doesn't want the negative section in the article.
- Both censorship and not liking and are not valid reasons for deletions on Wikipedia.Sun Ladder (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Unrelated to the content dispute (DRN does not comment on editor behavior) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by Cameron11598. Please do not modify it. |
|
- @Sun Ladder, I am going over your response right now, I will wait to comment until we have heard from Blue Haired Lawyer (their last edit was the 26th of April so I will give them A few days to respond)--Cameron11598 (Converse) 01:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Unrelated to the content dispute (DRN does not comment on editor behavior) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by Cameron11598. Please do not modify it. |
|
(unindent) I probably should have added the tag ages ago. My reason for the deletion of the section remains the same. It picks out one (admittedly fairly significant) controversy giving it undue prominence relative to the subject matter as a whole. While the section is verifiable, its presentation is selective. Yes the board were found to be objectively bias but it was just an issued regarding how the board should determine cases where it is asked to "re-decide" a decision which had previously been quashed. There was no issue of systemic bias. The bias was that the people who had previously decided the case decided it again. Moreover "objective bias" sounds worse than it is. There was no finding that the board were biased, just that there was a reasonable apprehension that they could have been biased. I could edit the section to reflect these points but it would, IMHO, get us past the undue point so I just deleted it. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 22:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Compromise?
- Blue-Haired Lawyer Would you be willing to compromise and support the inclusion of that section if it was rewritten so it reads similar to the way you phrased it?
- Sun Ladder would that be an acceptable compromise to you? --Cameron11598 (Converse) 18:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- If this is unacceptable to either of you do you have any suggestions on how a compromise might be reached? Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have an objection to a re-write per se. But I do think there are some important differences between Blue Haired Layer's view and mine. For example:
- Where Blue Haired Lawyer says "Yes the board were found to be objectively bias but it was just an issue regarding how the board should determine cases…" highlights a key difference between our views on the section.
- Where he says "it was just an issue regarding how the board should determine cases…" is an attempt at diminishing and soften the judgement. Adding "it was just an" is a subjective (POV) attempt to lessen the High Court's judgment.
- Take away the "it was just an" and you are down to a fundamental and very important function of the board:
- "it was an issue regarding how the board should determine cases."
- That one of the most fundamental functions of the board should have been found by the High Court to have been biased is a very serious and significant issue and shouldn't be diminished.
- Again where Blue Haired Lawyer say "objective bias sounds worse than it is" is his subjective view (POV) that again is an attempt to lessen the judgement.
- Which all seems a bit contradictory to his opening line that the judgment is an "admittedly fairly significant" one.
- So I'm not sure how a rewrite would bridge that gap Sun Ladder (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
As the article is now I do think the section is in violation of WP:NPOV so it does need a bit of a rewrite. It is borderline on WP:UNDUE. Perhaps if you were to provide a rewrite for review, we could see if it mutually acceptable to both you and blue hard lawyer. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I might have my wires crossed here but do you mean me to do the rewrite? If so I'm not sure that makes sense. I've already written the two sentence section. I've kept it to an absolute minimum with verifiable citations. I don't see there is an WP:NPOV issue and I don't agree its WP:UNDUE. So I don't think I should be the one doing the rewrite if you see what I mean. If I was to write any more I would add a third sentences that contextualizes the first two sentences. Something along the lines of "At a minimum the judge's ruling raises questions about the Board's competence." Sun Ladder (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I retract my statements about the NPOV violation I misread a part of the policy which lead to a slight confusion on my part. I do think it does need to be expanded upon if it is going to be included; such as the implications and changes that resulted from the judges ruling, Otherwise it does come off as a boarderline UNDUE. An example of changes that were caused by this ruling that could be included would be if they changed how they determined cases. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 23:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately there were no changes made as a result of the ruling (this is Ireland we're talking about). The next nearest thing that I could write about is the effect that the judgment had on the actual development the case was about. So, what if I added the following?:
- "The ruling raises questions about Board's impartiality and competence. Plans for the Usk landfill were scrapped." Sun Ladder (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Erica Andrews article
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Erica Andrews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Lightspeedx (talk · contribs)
- Little green rosetta (talk · contribs)
- Qworty (talk · contribs)
- Coffeepusher (talk · contribs)
- Braveyoda (talk · contribs)
- Absurdist1968 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
I am requesting for some help on the Erica Andrews article. It has been hijacked by 3 authors who refuse to collaborate or listen to reason. They do not appear to know the material well on this person and have disregarded arguments from me about information to be included in the article that adds depth to it. I realize some information may not be able to be sourced but it is information that is true about the person. An example is that Erica Andrews did appear in some music videos. I know this as I knew her before she passed away. She can even be seen in the music videos albeit a cameo/small role. Unfortunately unlike movies, music videos do not list their full cast. Another example if Erica Andrews appeared on Maury Povich's shows and she can be seen in YouTube videos of the episodes. I have cited according to Wikipedia AV Media guidelines and yet these authors have removed information - thus denying a reader of good information about Erica and her work. I have done extensive research on Erica Andrews and have deep interest in her work and her life. One author blatantly deletes information without regard for how it adds to the article. I have told him/her that if the information requires more citation, then please assist by doing research to find out more and add to the article instead of blatant information deletion which harms the article. None of them wants to listen and have decided somehow that my edits are unworthy no matter even if they are sourced information. Though I have listed citations according to Wikipedia standards which includes citing from a printed book, citing according to Wikipedia's AV Media guidelines, they have deleted information from the article without wanting to discuss with me. They have engaged in an edit war with me. The bulk of the article was authored by me before these 3 editors came upon it. Please assist or contact me to help me.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have written on the authors' talk page and the article's talk page to explain my views and to request for them to help by doing more research for content to add instead of rampant destruction. If a source isn't verifiable enough, then help to find more sources instead of deletion. They refused to listen and continue to revert all my changes even though the content is cited. There seems to be no other method but to reach out for dispute resolution and assistance for this article.
How do you think we can help?
Please review article, contact me if you have questions about the content. The article should not be the battleground for an edit war just because these authors have taken a dislike to me. From their talk pages - They seem to have a history of deleting content of other authors without contacting the authors or assisting politely.
Opening comments by Little green rosetta
Coffee pusher hits the nail on the head below. The sourcing is just not up to standards. What I hope this DR accomplishes is to educate Lightspeedx about what constitutes a RS on wikipedia. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 23:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Qworty
Opening comments by Coffeepusher
User:Lightspeedx has been adding information to the Erica Andrews article that is either poorly sourced or no source at all under the claim that it "adds depth" to the article. When I came to the article, due to a call on the biography of living person's noticeboard, major chunks of the article were sourced exclusively to primary sources such as playbills and myspace accounts, which is a violation of WP:BLP sourcing requirements. The three editors named above agree that proper sourcing should be maintained on a BLP, but lightspeedx thinks it is more important to insert information about local shows and cameo appearances than it is to source the article with WP:RS.
Myself and several other editors have tried to work with Lightspeedx concerning proper sourcing, on both personal talk pages as well as the talk page of the article. Based on the amount of discussion regarding this article I think this may be a case of WP:IDHTCoffeepusher (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Braveyoda
Opening comments by Absurdist1968
Erica Andrews article discussion
Hi, I'm User:Howicus, a (new) volunteer at DRN. I've read up on the dispute, but I'm not entirely sure what the content issues are. A few questions: Lightspeedx, does this revision of the article [1] contain the information that you have wanted to add? If not, what is this information, and what references will you use to source it? And by the way, please don't accuse other editors of vandalism, as you did here [2], unless it's very obvious. WP:VAND is very clear on what is and is not vandalism, and what Little green rosetta did, isn't. --Howicus (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and I notified User:Braveyoda and User:Absurdist1968, both of whom made edits to this page while the editing dispute was ongoing. Howicus (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Note to DRN volunteer: I have added Braveyoda and Absurdist1968 to the list of users involved, and have created an "Opening Comments" section for those users --Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Is there any interest in continuing this or has it gone stale? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Seeing as User:Lightspeedx-who's one side of the dispute-hasn't edited since the 1st, I would say it's stale. Maybe we could reopen it if Lightspeedx comes back. Howicus (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Howicus, I haven't forgotten about this article. I haven't edited because every edit I make to the page is deleted immediately by Qworty, Coffeepusher, Little green rosetta. I end up being in some vicious edit war with them which becomes extremely stressful and counter productive. The loser in the situation being the Erica Andrews article. Every suggestion I make, no matter what it is deleted. All requests for Qworty, Coffeepusher, Little green rosetta to work on research to discover new material to add or lends itself to support deletion falls on deaf ears as they are more interested in deletion than collaboration or even listening to reason. They insist that many of Andrews' achievements are not sufficiently cited and to this, I would even argue that other entertainers' Wikipedia articles do not even require THAT much citation for their work. I read Braveyoda's note on your talkpage and totally agree with him/her that Wikipedia articles on other entertainers who are more well-known have required far less citation requests. This is NOT some scientific article we are editing here. It is important to look at other entertainers' bio pages and how their film/theatrical/music videos/pageant/misc achievements are listed. Most are very comprehensive in their listing, i.e. detailing their first movie even if it were a very small role. I cannot but help feel that the Andrews article became a vicious battleground for no reason other than personal dislike of me for whatever reason. I don't even really know why since I had never met those 3 authors prior and I'd been the main author for the Andrews article in that I'd written most of the content there and even have tried to substantiate by verifying with real life people who knew Andrews' career VERY well if what was listed are vicious lies or facts. My motivations for the Andrews article is simple. I respected her and her work tremendously as I know her and know friends of hers. I have tried to substantiate information with as much citation and sources that I can find and have even tried to follow as much as I can of Wikipedia's methods and standards for citation. I have collaborated on many articles with other authors and never once have I ever encountered the animosity I have experienced with these 3 authors (Qworty, Coffeepusher, Little green rosetta). I had even suggested that if there's any information that we can't completely find the source for but we know is factual info that we can tag it as requiring citation and there is no need to delete the information which makes the article very thin and weak. There was even one edit that one of them did where they completely erased/deleted ALL of Andrews' pageant title listings. That was absolutely ludicrous because EVERYONE who knew of Andrews' career knew she EARNED those titles and these titles can be verified to their sources easily and I had even added the source citation for them (a printed book, official pageant Web site's historical section, etc.) That kind of destruction of information was so harmful to the Andrews' article and to Wikipedia at large. When I tried to restore it, they started threatening me saying I was engaging in an edit war, etc. It's really unneeded to take it out on me by using the Andrews article like that. It is because I got very tired of being treated as such by them and because I cared about the Andrews article that I wrote in officially to request for mediation. The situation was getting out of hand and it obviously needed an intervention of another editor such as yourself. I was getting threats from them about banning me off Wikipedia just because I refused to take their crap and spoke up against them and gave them a piece of my mind. I have been on Wikipedia for many years and have never destroyed, never hurt, never vandalized any article. I did not need for my integrity to be questioned by such people who have done nothing to really help the Andrews article beyond using it as a battleground for their egos. Please let me know how you can help author/edit. I'd be happy to help you in any way. I'd be happy to discuss if whatever information should or shouldn't be included and we can collaborate to make the Andrews article to be substantial. I also do not want for my comments here to you Howicus be grounds for yet more nasty remarks from those 3 authors on my talk page or anywhere. Lightspeedx (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Seeing as User:Lightspeedx-who's one side of the dispute-hasn't edited since the 1st, I would say it's stale. Maybe we could reopen it if Lightspeedx comes back. Howicus (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Is there any interest in continuing this or has it gone stale? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- While not every source is bad, many of them are linked to Wikipedia pages and IMDB and they are not reliable. Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source or use references that cite Wikipedia. And draghistory.webs.com sounds like a personal site. Same goes for using a Youtube video as a reference, its largely viewed as unreliable. Calling other editors vandals because of it is also not good. You need sources to newspapers, magazines, the TV show itself, anything that meets the definition of reliable source, as outlined at WP:RS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Observing
Right now I have not looked at every single source, but I would like to post here as observing/monitoring this matter due to an interest in learning more about good sourcing req. I do understand that BLP- higher standards is a good starting point, but this person is apparently deceased? I'd also like to see if it is possible to ever stick to the source guidelines,as they are posted in the strictest sense, without having something look like it is full of original research. What I mean by that is allowing info. that is most likely correct, but has insufficient-for-higher-standard-sourcing, like "myspace". Playbills sound like a perfectly good reference to me because that is licensed material from the way that I understand it, and many playbills carry a union mark as well which give them even more credibility imo.24.0.133.234 (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
List of populated places in Serbia
Closed discussion |
---|
Ashkenazi Jews
Closed discussion |
---|
Islamism
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- BoogaLouie (talk · contribs)
- Ahmed 313-326 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
- User:Ahmed_313-326 made a few questionable (in my mind) edits of the Islamism article:
Deleting citations and not giving an edit summary
- deleting the word "theodemocracy" from the article.
- put the question on the talk page here. Not much of a response.
- Listed dispute at Third Opinion (april 21 or 22).
- A couple of people responded, one asking ahmed a question (april 22).
- Ahmed did not respond again on the talk page but in the mean time made another edit deleting a sourced sentence (april 24)
- very frustrating
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
talk page and third opinion. Not really any other editors involved or i would have taken the dispute to WP:RfC
How do you think we can help?
convince Ahmed 313-326 of the importance of explaining his edits, following wikipedia rules
Opening comments by Ahmed 313-326
Islamism discussion
- It has been a few days, and I am willing to try and assist, but I see that Ahmed 313-326 seems to have a lack of response and discussion. That may pose a problem for the effectiveness of this DRN, but it would not for a RFC/U. He has received the notice yet has not edited for 4 days either. So unless he gets involved, this close as stale. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Ashok Malik
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Ashok Malik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Soham321 (talk · contribs)
- MohitSingh (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
I wish to post Ashok Malik's views on Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi on Malik's wikipedia page. Narendra Modi is not only the Chief Minister of Gujarat, he is also being projected as a future Prime Minister by many quarters of the Indian media and by some quarters of his own party. Modi is a controversial figure since he was Chief Minister of Gujarat during the Gujarat communal riots of 2002 and there are various allegations against Modi related to these riots. At any rate, Narendra Modi is a public figure holding a high public office and i do not see why Ashok Malik's views supporting and defending Modi cannot be referred to in the wikipedia page of Malik. Particularly so since these views of Malik are gleaned from Malik's own article published in a reputed publication. But User:MohitSingh claims that Malik's views on particular individuals cannot be a part of the wikipedia page of Malik and he has deleted my edits pertaining to mentioning Malik's endorsement of Modi. My point is that i am adding Malik's views on an individual who is well known to the Indian public and who continues to occupy high public office. If there is any individual well known to the Indian public, and particularly so if that individual occupies high public office, then Malik's views on that individual can legitimately be added to Malik's wikipedia page.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Tried discussing this with User:MohitSingh on the talk page of the article
How do you think we can help?
Please clarify the wikipedia guidelines to me and MohitSingh on the talk page as to whether Ashok Malik's endorsement of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi (in an article published by Malik in a reputed publication) can legitimately be added to Malik's wikipedia page.
Opening comments by User:MohitSingh
First, I would like to tell that it was me who started the concerned discussion on the talk page to avoid the revert war. The edits which I had removed are as follows:
- 00:58, 25 April 2013 : Ashok Malik is a strong supporter and defender of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi. I had reverted this edit which was replaced with the below:
- 18:25, 8 May 2013 : Ashok Malik has praised, supported, and defended Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.
Secondly, I do not disagree that Narendra Modi is not a popular and famous public figure. Therefore the references to the issues that he is a Prime Ministerial candidate, his relation to riots, him (allegedly) being a controversial figure etc. are unnecessary and also irrelevant.
Thirdly, the concerned page is a Biography page and hence it must adhere to the Wiki BLP Policy.
In relation the impugned issue, I contend that the edits made by the Soham321 are editor’s own judgement as there is no direct evidence of the same in the reference provided or anywhere else online.
My arguments are:
- A journalist may write several articles in support of different leaders, this doesn’t mean that all those views have to be included in his biography page. This may make a BLP lose its original purpose. The impugned edits are not suitable in such a small Wiki BLP of Malik's. There is no section which discusses his opinion on other areas of his expertise viz India’s political economy, foreign policy etc.
- Wikipedia:WELLKNOWN#Public_figures provides: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
- In relation to above I contend submit that the reference cited by the Soham321 does not anywhere provide that Malik is a strong supporter and defender of Modi. Rather the article cited is an article written by Malik himself. It is Soham321’s own judgment that the article provides that Malik is a supporter of Modi.
- Unless any article directly provide that Malik is a supporter or defender of Modi, the removed data should not be added to the page.
- Arguendo, even if we assume that he is a supporter, I do not feel that it is of so much relevance that it has to be included in a BLP for the reasons provided above that him being a journalist, he may write such articles.
- Making a personal opinion/judgement on a senior journalist is not good which is not backed by any strong reference is wrong.
- Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Restoring_deleted_content also provides that any burden of proof to restore the deleted data rests on the User trying to keep it which has to be done only after reaching a consensus. I again submit that I had myself started the discussion on the talk page but Soham321 just put his comment on the talk page and restored it without reaching a consensus as required by the policy.--Mohit Singh (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Ashok Malik discussion
- Hi, I'm a volunteer and I'll help in resolving this. Could I have everyone read, WP:ABOUTSELF first because Malik's own views can be used to support his own opinion. However, it is Malik's biography and this addition will unbalance it and lack proper context. Until the page is more then a few fragments, it detracts from the subject's focus towards another individual. Political party affiliations if reliably sourced are acceptable, but specific stances on individuals rarely meet relevancy requirements. Your thoughts? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments Chris. So as i understand you agree that Malik's own views can be used to support his opinion. Further any political affiliations of Malik (in this case his strong defense and praise and support for Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi) can be referred to by giving a reference to Malik's own article published in a reputed publication. Your concern about 'specific stances on individuals rarely meeting relevancy requirements' is well taken, but in this case we are referring to Malik's views on Narendra Modi who is a very controversial figure in India. Narendra Modi is the Chief Minister of Gujarat and several sitting and retired Supreme Court judges have held him directly or indirectly responsible for communal riots in Gujarat in which by unofficial accounts more than two thousand people are believed to have been killed. Narendra Modi is also being projected as a Prime Ministerial candidate for the 2014 Indian elections by certain sections of the media and certain sections of his party. Considering that Narendra Modi is a very divisive and controversial figure, and considering the Indian polity is completely polarized between people who are pro-Modi or anti-Modi i think it is appropriate to include Malik's views on Modi in his wikipedia page. Consider also the wikipedia pages of other media figures in the U.S.. For instance, Bill O'Reilly. His wikipedia page clearly states his political preferences and his views on certain individuals well known to the public. This is the same for other left wing and right wing media figures whose wikipedia pages exist. We would have to make drastic changes to all these wikipedia pages if MohitSingh's desire to not include Malik's views on Modi (given by Malik in an article he has himself written in a reputed publication) in the wikipedia page on Malik. I also believe that in a very real way we are gagging Ashok Malik. After all he has publicly praised, supported, and defended Narendra Modi. Why should we try to hide or conceal his support for Narendra Modi, who not only holds high public office but is a potential Prime Ministerial candidate besides being a controversial figure. Considering the supreme importance of Narendra Modi in the current Indian political context, gagging Malik on his wikipedia page by not letting his views on such an important individual be published in his wikipedia page is an attempt at censorship and concealment and against the spirit of wikipedia in my opinion. Your comment that we should not include Malik's views on Modi 'until the page is more than a few fragments' is also well taken but in my opinion Malik's views on Modi do not detract attention from Malik; rather, they inform the reader more about Malik by providing insights about Malik's political leanings which in my opinion should not be concealed. --Soham321 (talk)
- The issue is that it will seem unbalanced if added; and the matter of endorsing a candidate is not the same as Bill O'Reilly whose job is to comment on such matters. It would be more appropriate to list support on Modi's page citing Malik's views, but not to have Malik's views on Modi on Malik's page. If it is that important; could we at least have 1500-2000 words on Malik before we get to the Modi matter? You seem very knowledgeable about the subject and our coverage is lacking. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments Chris. So as i understand you agree that Malik's own views can be used to support his opinion. Further any political affiliations of Malik (in this case his strong defense and praise and support for Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi) can be referred to by giving a reference to Malik's own article published in a reputed publication. Your concern about 'specific stances on individuals rarely meeting relevancy requirements' is well taken, but in this case we are referring to Malik's views on Narendra Modi who is a very controversial figure in India. Narendra Modi is the Chief Minister of Gujarat and several sitting and retired Supreme Court judges have held him directly or indirectly responsible for communal riots in Gujarat in which by unofficial accounts more than two thousand people are believed to have been killed. Narendra Modi is also being projected as a Prime Ministerial candidate for the 2014 Indian elections by certain sections of the media and certain sections of his party. Considering that Narendra Modi is a very divisive and controversial figure, and considering the Indian polity is completely polarized between people who are pro-Modi or anti-Modi i think it is appropriate to include Malik's views on Modi in his wikipedia page. Consider also the wikipedia pages of other media figures in the U.S.. For instance, Bill O'Reilly. His wikipedia page clearly states his political preferences and his views on certain individuals well known to the public. This is the same for other left wing and right wing media figures whose wikipedia pages exist. We would have to make drastic changes to all these wikipedia pages if MohitSingh's desire to not include Malik's views on Modi (given by Malik in an article he has himself written in a reputed publication) in the wikipedia page on Malik. I also believe that in a very real way we are gagging Ashok Malik. After all he has publicly praised, supported, and defended Narendra Modi. Why should we try to hide or conceal his support for Narendra Modi, who not only holds high public office but is a potential Prime Ministerial candidate besides being a controversial figure. Considering the supreme importance of Narendra Modi in the current Indian political context, gagging Malik on his wikipedia page by not letting his views on such an important individual be published in his wikipedia page is an attempt at censorship and concealment and against the spirit of wikipedia in my opinion. Your comment that we should not include Malik's views on Modi 'until the page is more than a few fragments' is also well taken but in my opinion Malik's views on Modi do not detract attention from Malik; rather, they inform the reader more about Malik by providing insights about Malik's political leanings which in my opinion should not be concealed. --Soham321 (talk)
- There are so many public figures, officials and journalists who have an opinion on Modi that Modi's wikipedia page will read like a novel if we start including the views of journalists, officials, and public figures on Modi's page. Ashok Malik is a senior journalist who writes in newspapers and magazines and appears on television shows--just like Bill O'Reilly. Just as it is Bill O'Reilly's job to comment on such matters it is also Ashok Malik's job to comment on such matters. I am not able to understand on what basis you are differentiating between Ashok Malik and Bill O'Reilly. Both are senior journalists and if Bill's views on certain personalities can be given on his wikipedia page, if Bill can be described as a 'conservative' in his wikipedia page, then i fail to understand why Malik's political leanings cannot also be identified. Having said this if you insist that Malik's views on Modi should not be added till Malik's wikipedia page has more content i will accept your decision and bide my time. --Soham321 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is preferred to expand with the content, but if he has a confirmed political affiliation make a minor note of it, just don't go with 'endorse, praised and defends' or some other form. Keep it simple like, "Malik is a registered member of <party>". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are so many public figures, officials and journalists who have an opinion on Modi that Modi's wikipedia page will read like a novel if we start including the views of journalists, officials, and public figures on Modi's page. Ashok Malik is a senior journalist who writes in newspapers and magazines and appears on television shows--just like Bill O'Reilly. Just as it is Bill O'Reilly's job to comment on such matters it is also Ashok Malik's job to comment on such matters. I am not able to understand on what basis you are differentiating between Ashok Malik and Bill O'Reilly. Both are senior journalists and if Bill's views on certain personalities can be given on his wikipedia page, if Bill can be described as a 'conservative' in his wikipedia page, then i fail to understand why Malik's political leanings cannot also be identified. Having said this if you insist that Malik's views on Modi should not be added till Malik's wikipedia page has more content i will accept your decision and bide my time. --Soham321 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Chris. I will wait to add this content after the article has expanded a bit. Also please give a few more examples of how I can keep it simple. I do not believe Malik is registered with any political party. This is similar to Bill O'Reilly being registered as an independent but Bill's political leanings are clearly mentioned in his Wikipedia page.Here is an extract from Malik's Times of India article (BJP is the main opposition party in India, and Modi is a BJP leader):The Modi that excites India is the one who has made Gujarat India's Shenzhen, who has converted a trading society into a manufacturing economy and who has sold his voters the dream of becoming India's first middle-class state. Such aspirations are not unique to Gujarat and should, really, be the bedrock of an all-India right-wing party. It is this Modi who is the BJP's natural face for 2014. It is this Modi who has now become an undeniable power centre in the party and probably holds a veto as to the choice of its next president. It is this Modi who the BJP awaits. --Soham321 (talk)
- Specifically, I do not see that as an endorsement. It reads like a segment from the BBC; seriously, try saying it aloud and the tone while favorable to Modi, is not the same as 'I personally endorse and support Modi for <reasons>.' or something of that effect. I do not think there is sufficient distinction on Malik's personal opinions in that piece to warrant claiming his biography as such. O'Reilly basically has to do what he does to keep his job, but I am not too familiar with his show, think I got a signed book of his I read through, but never met him personally. Political leanings change with the wind; especially within party lines. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Ceramic foam
Closed discussion |
---|
Francesca Hogi, Survivor Caramoan
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Francesca Hogi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Survivor: Caramoan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- MouthlessBobcat (talk · contribs)
- Mr. Gerbear (talk · contribs)
- Whpq (talk · contribs)
- Katanin (talk · contribs)
- Frietjes (talk · contribs)
- Nathan_Johnson (talk · contribs)
- Sandstein (talk · contribs) - Admin of the 1st Deletion review
- The_Bushranger (talk · contribs) - Admin of the 2nd Deletion review
Dispute overview
I created an article of a television personality with the subject being "Francesca Hogi".
It is properly sourced and had good enough reception to warrant an article. It was nominated for deletion twice and wasn't deleted as two seperate admins felt the article was sufficient enough not to be deleted.
However the members behind my back decided to merge the article to a television show that the subject was in. I don't think the article should be merged at all.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I tried talking to the users yet they claim they gave me a week to have a consensus and they didn't.
They talked about other cast memebrs on the television show not having an article. I told them what's stopping them. If you want something done, do it yourself. Properly source and cite references and I'm sure the article will be fine for publishing.
How do you think we can help?
Understanding my side of the issue and allowing my article to be unredirected.
Opening comments by
Opening comments by User:Katanin
I have been heavily involved in these discussions over the past few months and have argued for either the merging or deletion of the article. The reason for the conclusions of "keep" on the first AfDs were not due to the content of the arguments therein, they were because of "Poor discussion quality" and due to a "bad-faith sockvandtrollfest"; essentially due to a large number of sock puppets and ad hominems. I have stated my arguments both on the first AfD and the merge discussion here. I stand by my argument, and believe that this debacle falls under WP:OWN on the part of User:MouthlessBobcat. While I understand that he is proud of his contributions, I still stick by my argument. - Katanin (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Nathan Johnson
- I simply closed the latest RfC as an uninvolved users per a request at WP:AN/RFC. I have no interest in the subject. Cheers. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Mr. Gerbear
I reverted MouthlessBobcat's edits because consensus had been established in the talk page, and warned him appropriately. I felt that the warning level I gave was appropriate as said user has a history of going against consensus and, obvious from his attitude in many of his comments, not a team player. Afterwards, I received this message on my Talk Page, which was reverted. MouthlessBobcat was then issued a 24-hour block for this personal attack.
MouthlessBobcat's accusations of racism and hate are unfounded. In fact, I had voted to keep the Francesca Hogi article in the second deletion discussion.
I believe MouthlessBobcat has acted and is continuing to act in bad faith. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Francesca Hogi, Survivor Caramoan discussion
- Hello, I'm Howicus, a volunteer here at DRN. MouthlessBobcat, could you please explain which user(s) are the other side of the dispute? Howicus (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Howicus, I added every single user involved with this dispute. I also added both users who closed the deletion discussions to keep the article the way it is. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Fractal antenna
Closed discussion |
---|
Neprology Review Collection, Template:XBDOM, Template:BDOM, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Neprology Review Collection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:XBDOM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:BDOM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
Dispute overview
Ossip Groth is adding links to his own website "as requested" to any page that needs additional citations, often with a pretentious header that gives it undue weight and never using the citations/references system. Several editors have been busy reverting those edits, including myself, as they seem to serve little purpose but to promote the website.
The website in question actually links back to Wikipedia, but with a big ad banner added, although it also contains information scraped from PubMed.
O.G. is now reporting Scray and myself for vandalism and seems to be taking things quite personally, without responding in a constructive way to criticism.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I've tried reasoning with O.G. on various talkpages, including his own.
How do you think we can help?
I hope a third party is better able to reason with O.G. and convince him to discuss on the relevant talk pages whether or not links to his website serve a purpose on Wikipedia.
Opening comments by Ossip Groth
Opening comments by Scray
Neprology Review Collection, Template:XBDOM, Template:BDOM, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism discussion
There are multiple forms
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- There are multiple forms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- TheRealJKO (talk · contribs)
- User-multi error: no username detected (help).
Dispute overview
I am being slandered and abused on several pages. I asked for the comments to be removed and for someone to contact me privately if they had any issue with that request. I contact ALL the email addresses given on the site and they all ignored me. My request was then turned into a further opportunity to abuse and slander me. I have again requested this to be removed and I have said I will pursue this legally if it is not. Now I am being threatened by several users and one user called Pickette is slandering me and acusing me of all sorts of wikipedia abuse. Why will nobody do something?
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have sent several emails to all the published addresses.
How do you think we can help?
Please contact me directly and HELP.