FloraWilde (talk | contribs) |
→Talk: Piandme: new section |
||
Line 330:
:I have, I can, here are the diffs: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_American&diff=prev&oldid=632730112 talk page], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:115ash&diff=prev&oldid=632730811 115ash], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wtmitchell&diff=632730953&oldid=632619539 Wtmitchell], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Palmeira&diff=632731044&oldid=632582198 Palmeira], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom&diff=632731101&oldid=632683981 TheRedPenOfDoom], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tlqkfshadk12345anjtlqkf&diff=632731149&oldid=632519438 Tlqkfshadk12345anjtlqkf].--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 20:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
::Thank you, but unless someone can point me to a place that 115ash has discussed this more than his three edits on the article talk page so far, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to close this request for lack of "extensive" discussion about the issue in dispute, which is required as a prerequisite to filing a case here (and also at [[WP:3O|3O]] and [[WP:MEDCOM|MEDCOM]]). I recognize that it's that very ''lack'' of discussion that's the primary problem here, but continuing to edit in the face of talk page objections is a conduct matter, not a content matter, and we don't handle conduct matters here at DRN. I fully agree with the idea that, since the article was in a stable state (at least in this regard) for several months, that changes must gain a consensus if other editors object to them, as they have. — [[User:TransporterMan|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:blue; font-variant:small-caps;">'''TransporterMan'''</span>]] ([[User talk:TransporterMan|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]]) 20:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
== Talk: Piandme ==
{{DR case status}}
{{drn filing editor|Piandme|22:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)}}
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 22:12, 20 November 2014 (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|Talk: Piandme}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Piandme}}
* {{User| Sandstein}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
I have been having a dispute with the user over whther a fansite could be used as a refernce in a particular instant. When trying to calmly resolve the issue with the user he called the sorce "trash", which I found insulting, and questioned the website's integrity. Whilst I understand that the website actually shouldn't be used, I felt the aggressive manner in which the adminstrator tried to resolve the problem. When I asked him questions they were ignored.
I later made a couple of changes to articles he had edited as I felt his changes were incorrect I was issued a vandalism warning. I am very upset about this as my edits were made in good faith, and the fact that he had been the editor involved in these oages made him biased in this particular instant. I coudn't believe how I was being treated, and had to report him to stop him persisting.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>
I have tried to discuss the issue with the user, but he won't discuss it with me reasonably.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>
I hope that you will be able to stop the user abusing his powers as an administrator, and remind the user how to speak to others. I couldn't believe how I was being spoken to.
==== Summary of dispute by Sandstein ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
=== Talk: Piandme 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 22:12, 6 November 2014
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 |
Naseem Hamed | New | Mac Dreamstate (t) | 8 days, 15 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 11 hours | Jahalive (t) | 9 hours |
Primerica | Closed | TermLifeOG (t) | 4 days, 13 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 4 days, 12 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 4 days, 12 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, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Current disputes
Talk:Electronic cigarette#Violation_of_consensus
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Electronic cigarette#Violation of consensus (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Mihaister (talk · contribs)
- Zad68 (talk · contribs)
- QuackGuru (talk · contribs)
- KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · contribs)
- CheesyAppleFlake (talk · contribs)
- AlbinoFerret (talk · contribs)
- Alexbrn (talk · contribs)
- Jmh649 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Statements attributed to a reliable source [1] continue to be removed from the article. The group of editors arguing against the use of this source challenge its reliability per WP:MEDRS, while making exceptions for other sources [2], which are of clearly lesser quality. This creates the impression that a double-standard is being applied here, wherein statements in favor of a particular POV are being promoted based on marginal sources, while evidence against the preferred POV and based on higher quality sources is being suppressed.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
An extensive discussion and apparent consensus had been reached previously [3], but the discussion has recently been re-opened using the same arguments as before following introduction of the text in the article [4]
How do you think we can help?
It has been suggested here that an outside opinion may help settle the matter. It does not look to me that the current impasse can be solved without external assistance.
Summary of dispute by Zad68
The Dispute overview statement Statements attributed to a reliable source continue to be removed from the article
starts by assuming the conclusion, and if that is to be focus of this DRN discussion--that the McNeill article must be assumed to be reliable and worthy of inclusion as the starting point--I am disinclined to participate here. I never suggested taking this to DRN because we already had a very thorough, lengthy discussion about McNeill here which in my evaluation came to no consensus to include. I suggested several times [5][6][7] that those who did feel that discussion resulted in a positive consensus to include should seek an outside, uninvolved experienced editor to review and close that discussion--the attempt to open up the discussion anew here seems like WP:FORUMSHOP. Zad68
00:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by QuackGuru
"That was not a review and it was rejected."[8] The current discussion on the talk page is at Talk:Electronic cigarette#Violation of consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Mdann52, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine can determine whether the source meets WP:MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by KimDabelsteinPetersen
I find it strange that an single attributed statement concerning a peer-reviewed response, in a respected journal (Addiction), from experts on the topic, to what is a grey literature report, that cites these experts, cannot be used. The source is a WP:MEDRS by all measures that apply, and the arguments against its usage seem to be either in the "i don't like it category" or non arguments such as "there is no consensus" (which works just as well in reverse: "there is no consensus against") or "it is not a review" (which is baffling since reviews aren't required per MEDRS or practice in the article). So all in all in baffled about the resistence to this source. --Kim D. Petersen 13:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by CheesyAppleFlake
Summary of dispute by AlbinoFerret
McNiel is a critique the Grana report by some of the authors of the studies used in Grana. It reviews those statements and conclusions of Grana pointing out errors in how their work was used and the faulty conclusions reached because of this. A normal part of a review process is when something is published, articles are published pointing out the errors it makes. McNeil is WP: MEDRS, it was published in a peer reviewed journal, and reviews the conclusions Grana reached. An agreement on use was made.diff1diff2diff3 But reasons, including that it hasn't appeared by analog publishing has been used to keep it out. The review has now been printed, but the use of McNeil is still reverted. The article suffers from a negative POV and there is a lot of resistance for including anything that isn't a negative statement, but almost any marginal source can be used to make negative claims. Even going to far as to place and argue ASHRAE or the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers and allowing the American Industrial Hygiene Association to be used as citations to make negative health claims.
Summary of dispute by Alexbrn
I must say this filing deserves some kind of prize for non-neutral wording!
Anyway, when this was raised in Talk I proposed some wording that could be used and which is close to the text that's been added/reverted. I remain unpersuaded however that inclusion would be WP:DUE; the problem is that we would be using a weaker source to contaminate a stronger one, and that goes against the grain of WP:MEDRS and of our general requirements for neutrality. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Jmh649
It is a journal club not a review article. Thus not a high quality source per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Electronic cigarette#Violation_of_consensus discussion
- Hi all, I am Mdann52, a volenteer at the noticeboard, however this gives me no special standing in the dispute. Looking at the source and comments above, the main issues appear to be over the reliability of the source being used, ignoring the content of the edits at this time. May I suggest, as this dispute hinges on one source, that it is discussed over at WP:RS, where it is likely to recieve wider input from people who are generally fairly good at this?
- Looking at the content of the edit in question, there appears to be some question over WP:UNDUE. Reading through the article, there seems to be an overall negetive tone; Will including this really violate NPOV if the source turns out to be fine? Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 15:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Mdann52 and thanks for taking a look at this dispute. Let me comment on the issue of WP:WEIGHT first. The authors of the McNeill article felt so strongly about the misuse, misrepresentation, and misinterpretation of their research that they wrote a letter to WHO to explain the evidence [9]. If this does not deserve weight, I don't know what does. Then they summarized their arguments and published this peer-reviewed secondary article addressing the same issues: the misinterpretations of their own work (and others'). As far as WP:RS, the article is a secondary source published in the top journal appropriate for the topic. The authors are respected experts and research leaders in public health. Ann McNeill, the lead author, even served on WHO advisory committees regarding tobacco topics.
Since much of the current article on e-cigarettes is build on these misrepresentations of the evidence by Grana, many of which are addressed by the McNeill article, the only way to restore NPOV is to qualify all statements attributed to Grana with the corresponding critique and interpretation from McNeill et al. This is not a MEDRS issue, rather plain old common sense. Mihaister (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Mdann if you're reframing this discussion to be around whether McNeill meets WP:MEDRS and how much weight it should be given, that's appreciated. Regarding your comment
Reading through the article, there seems to be an overall negetive tone; Will including this really violate NPOV if the source turns out to be fine?
-- Please keep in mind that per WP:NPOV an article is required to reflect the emphasis found in the reliable sourcing. If the prevailing viewpoint found in the reliable sourcing regarding a topic is generally negative, the article must reflect that, and not undermine the sourcing or have a problem with WP:GEVAL.Before we move forward Mdann52 would you please review the discussion we already had regarding that topic here and evaluate the result? Thanks...
Zad68
22:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the background reading there; That kinda of makes consensus clear, and once again, the NPOV vs neutral issue has come up. I've also done my own background reading, and consensus not to include seems to be fairly clear to me. Just beacause a source meets MEDRS (let's say) doesn't mean it should be included. Therefore, I thinks as the same arguements are being discussed here as in the previous discussions, and as my reading of consensus from the discussion is not to include it (both by numbers and arguements), I think that unless significant new arguement comes to light, then the current form should be retained. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Can you please point to me the agreement of the editors of the article not to include it. I see that some have agreed to not include it, and perhaps a few more disagree with its inclusion, but consensus inst a vote WP:CON. The only reason it isnt in the article is because of reverts and the desire to stay out of edit wars. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- AlbinoFerret, as an outside editor and DRN volunteer, Mdann evaluated the previous discussion and closed it as "no consensus to include". If you really believe that the only reason McNeill isn't in the article right now is "because of reverts" (and by that you appear to mean you still believe positive consensus exists to include it but nobody's reverted it back in yet), that's a problem. But, do what you will at this point.
Zad68
13:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)- Enough editors believe that it should be included that the opinion to exclude is not broad and the reasons for exclusion seem to be shifted each time the goalposts are reached. If anything, that Grana relies on the work of the authors of McNeil to come to conclusions should give it enough weight for McNeil to be included as rebuttal to how their work was used. Only one editor at the time that reasoning was made disagreed with it, and only adding it should be the final published version. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- You must be talking about Alexbrn, who commented already in this DRN discussion about exactly this item you're describing? If you're talking about individual editors and action, it'd be helpful if you'd specify. The actual editing history does not agree with your assessment. Again, at this point, do what you will.
Zad68
13:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- You must be talking about Alexbrn, who commented already in this DRN discussion about exactly this item you're describing? If you're talking about individual editors and action, it'd be helpful if you'd specify. The actual editing history does not agree with your assessment. Again, at this point, do what you will.
- Enough editors believe that it should be included that the opinion to exclude is not broad and the reasons for exclusion seem to be shifted each time the goalposts are reached. If anything, that Grana relies on the work of the authors of McNeil to come to conclusions should give it enough weight for McNeil to be included as rebuttal to how their work was used. Only one editor at the time that reasoning was made disagreed with it, and only adding it should be the final published version. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- AlbinoFerret, as an outside editor and DRN volunteer, Mdann evaluated the previous discussion and closed it as "no consensus to include". If you really believe that the only reason McNeill isn't in the article right now is "because of reverts" (and by that you appear to mean you still believe positive consensus exists to include it but nobody's reverted it back in yet), that's a problem. But, do what you will at this point.
- @Mdann52: Thank you again for taking a look at this discussion and providing your input. I would like to point out that, whereas the previous discussion did not appear to converge on a "consensus to include" the McNeill source, there was substantive and well-argued dissenting opinion challenging the view that statements by WHO carry so much weight that they are de facto beyond contest. As I wrote in that older discussion [10], I think the weight of McNeill cannot be evaluated separately as a one-to-one standoff against WHO, but, rather, has to be considered in the context of all the existing evidence in the field as informed by other MEDRS publications, some of which contain language that is very similar to McNeill. For example,
- this study states "The existing literature tends to overestimate the exposures and exaggerate their implications. This is partially due to rhetoric [...] There is also clear bias in previous reports in favor of isolated instances of highest level of chemicals detected"
- and this study states "EC [e-cigarette] reduces cigarette use by facilitating smoking reduction and cessation on individual level"
- both of which add to the weight of the arguments made by McNeill. I don't think that it is good encyclopedic practice to uncritically default to the opinion of recognized organizations and overlook a growing body of evidence that is contrary to that opinion. Editors cannot summarize such evidence in the article, as it would constitute WP:SYN, however I don't think the weight of this evidence can be summarily dismissed when considering whether McNeill is WP:DUE. We're not talking fringe views here, but rather views held by a significant proportion of the reliable sources in scientific literature. Mihaister (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Can you please point to me the agreement of the editors of the article not to include it. I see that some have agreed to not include it, and perhaps a few more disagree with its inclusion, but consensus inst a vote WP:CON. The only reason it isnt in the article is because of reverts and the desire to stay out of edit wars. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the background reading there; That kinda of makes consensus clear, and once again, the NPOV vs neutral issue has come up. I've also done my own background reading, and consensus not to include seems to be fairly clear to me. Just beacause a source meets MEDRS (let's say) doesn't mean it should be included. Therefore, I thinks as the same arguements are being discussed here as in the previous discussions, and as my reading of consensus from the discussion is not to include it (both by numbers and arguements), I think that unless significant new arguement comes to light, then the current form should be retained. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Mdann52 and thanks for taking a look at this dispute. Let me comment on the issue of WP:WEIGHT first. The authors of the McNeill article felt so strongly about the misuse, misrepresentation, and misinterpretation of their research that they wrote a letter to WHO to explain the evidence [9]. If this does not deserve weight, I don't know what does. Then they summarized their arguments and published this peer-reviewed secondary article addressing the same issues: the misinterpretations of their own work (and others'). As far as WP:RS, the article is a secondary source published in the top journal appropriate for the topic. The authors are respected experts and research leaders in public health. Ann McNeill, the lead author, even served on WHO advisory committees regarding tobacco topics.
@Zad68: any views on this point? --Mdann52talk to me! 14:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Mdann52, sure. As discussed above, the scope of this DRN discussion is around whether McNeill meets WP:MEDRS and how much weight it should be given. Per your review of the previous discussion there was no consensus to include McNeill. Mihaister agreed with you that there was no consensus to include McNeill. I agree as well. I believe that this concludes this DRN discussion as resolved.
Discussion regarding the use of other sources like those from the WHO, Burstyn and Hajek have happened elsewhere, and in fact all three of those sources--the WHO, Burstyn, and Hajek--are used in the article already, but their use wasn't the subject of this DRN discussion.
Zad68
15:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Talk:2014 Russian Grand Prix
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:2014 Russian Grand Prix (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs)
- Haken arizona (talk · contribs)
- Jirka.h23 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
The issue concerns the inclusion of crowd attendance figures for the race. Haken arizona believes that the attendance figures should be included. I, on the other hand, have objected on the grounds that the sources he has provided have been flawed - they variously fail WP:SPS, WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABLE, have proven to be imprecise and contradictory, especially for a piece of information that is ultimately of little to no importance in the article. Despite repeated attempts to point this out, Haken arizona has refused to find alternate sources. The article has recently been locked following an edit war, but the moment the lock was lifted, Haken arizona immediately started editing his preferred content into the article, and the debate on the talk page has started getting personal.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have tried explaining what makes a source useable and what a better source would look like. I have demonstrated this to other users, who I think have been persuaded by my argument.
How do you think we can help?
Demonstrate the importance of SPS, RS, VERIFIABLE and the need for accuracy to Haken arizona. Also establish the notability of individual pieces of information to the article, and highlight the need for precision in sources and articles and show why close enough is not good enough.
Summary of dispute by Haken arizona
Tass Russia is recognized news agency. It is their event and they will have the correct data on event's success. They report 65,000 spectators attended the event, indicating fully sold out event. This is important to add to the page. It indicates how successful was the event. It improves the quality of encyclopedia, in future people will be able to see if the event did good or did it flop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talk • contribs) 16:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Jirka.h23
Talk:2014 Russian Grand Prix discussion
A list of the sources used, and the problems with them:
- The first, from ABC.net.au referred to crowd figures on the Saturday of the event. However, the field in the infobox specifically refers to the attendance on the Sunday.
- The second and third sources, from CNN and a Russian news service, gave the crowd figures as 55,000 and 65,000.
- The CNN article also referred to "near to capacity", but gave no indication of how near to capacity "near capacity" is.
- The latest source, introduced today, is one I have never heard of. I'm a long-time editor of Formula 1 articles, and I have never seen it used, and I cannot verify it.
I have repeatedly explained both these problems and how to overcome them on the article talk page, but to no avail. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Tass Russia is recognized news agency. It is their event and they will have the correct data on event's success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talk • contribs) 16:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Uninvolved editor's note.First a technical announcement. Prisonermonkeys has been blocked from editing for 72 hours for edit-warring on this subject. Haken arizona has been blocked for the same offense as well for 48 hours. So neither of them is going to be able to contribute to this discussion within the next 48 hours. Prisonermonkeys will not be able to contribute for another 24 hours after that.
- On the matter, In my humble opinion I think it would be helpful if we had the links to the various sources that have been used to justify the information here, so that one can explore them and compare them. I must admit that, having thought about it long and hard now, I too think that PM's concerns regarding some of the sources seem to be justified. Tvx1 (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here (and the current Coordinator), I am neither "taking" this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but wanted to make some administrative comments. I've taken the liberty of adding Tvx1 as a party and moving his initial comments to a summary section, above, to clarify that he's not here as a DRN volunteer. As of this writing two editors are still blocked. If they resume editing after their blocks expire, this case will be ready for a volunteer to open it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- @TransporterMan; Drop in comment from Interwiki Wikiprojects. The two editors share the principle among many Grand Prix followers of not backing down one inch in disputes. If the two editors agree to suspend edit dispute on the article page and agree to follow Dispute Resolution process here then I have read both the German version and the Russian version of the page and might be able to moderate. @TransporterMan, It may be worth your posting a note to the two editors that they have opened a Dispute section here and that normally they are assumed to await the results of the resolution process before making further edits on the article itself. FelixRosch (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Uninvolved editor's note. Rather than someone needing to sift through yards of article and talk page drama, a Volunteer could perhaps resolve this by visiting this latest version of the article and deciding whether this updated info about attendance in the intro is encyclopedic, and whether its two references actually support it. Moriori (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
As I have outlined on my talk page, the attendance figures should not be included in the article lead. They were never an issue during the race weekend, and including them in the lead overstates their importance. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Quite. While I have no problem with the figures being the article providing people are satisfied as to their reliability, they certainly do not belong in the lead paragraph. Infobox and/or article text, background info or somesuch. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- I still have reservations about the TASS source. It says "over 65,000", and while it might be reliable, it's way too vague for my liking. Everything else is accurately recorded; we say that Hamilton's pole time was 1:38.513, not 1:38.5 and just round it off. So when the TASS source says "over 65,000", how far over 65,000 are we talking about? And it's contradicted by the CNN source, which says a "near capacity crowd of 55,000". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- You make some good points, @Prisonermonkeys. I'd say that CNN and TASS can both be trusted, but if trusted sources conflict, it's a little difficult to figure out which one to trust. We could always say something along the lines of "Attendance estimates range from 55,000 to over 65,000 people", but that is probably a bit too vague to be helpful. --Biblioworm 21:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- I still have reservations about the TASS source. It says "over 65,000", and while it might be reliable, it's way too vague for my liking. Everything else is accurately recorded; we say that Hamilton's pole time was 1:38.513, not 1:38.5 and just round it off. So when the TASS source says "over 65,000", how far over 65,000 are we talking about? And it's contradicted by the CNN source, which says a "near capacity crowd of 55,000". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- That is probably too vague, @Biblioworm. We have always aimed for precision in the articles, and giving a range of 15,000 is far too broad for inclusion. Attendance data might be nice if it is available, but it is not so important that we can or should forget our standards in order to include it. If it is worth including, it is worth being precise about. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- If two reliable sources conflict, then it's very difficult to say which one is correct. I'd be a bit more inclined to trust TASS over CNN, because TASS is native to the nation of the race and probably provided more detailed coverage. Because of the contradiction within sources, however, I'm beginning to lean towards omitting the attendance figures from the article. I'd would like to hear more from @Haken arizona concerning these contradictions, though. --Biblioworm 02:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- That is probably too vague, @Biblioworm. We have always aimed for precision in the articles, and giving a range of 15,000 is far too broad for inclusion. Attendance data might be nice if it is available, but it is not so important that we can or should forget our standards in order to include it. If it is worth including, it is worth being precise about. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Attendance figures are also being inconsistently applied—the 2014 United States Grand Prix article says over 230,000 people attended, but as the venue cannot hold that many people, it's evidently the sum across the three days. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Khorasan (Islamist_group)#Sourced_information_being_removed_from_article
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Khorasan (Islamist group)#Sourced information being removed from article (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- LightandDark2000 (talk · contribs)
- David O. Johnson (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
A couple of users have been repeatedly removing reliably sourced content from the article, apparently for ideological reasons (they disagree with the source). The disputed content concerns criticisms against the use of the term "Khorasan Group" in media. The mentioned users wish to remove these criticisms from the article. I believe these criticisms represent a significant minority viewpoint and should be included.
The disputed content approximately corresponds to this diff.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
This material (among other things) was initially discussed here, where discussion concluded around October 10th. At that point the disputed content was present in the article. The content was removed on October 20th as part of a series of changes, primarily [11], [12], and [13]. In response, I created a new talk page section here on October 24.
How do you think we can help?
This has become a sort of slow-moving edit war. Please advise on the best course of action to move forward with this dispute.
Summary of dispute by LightandDark2000
Summary of dispute by David O. Johnson
The person who opened the dispute resolution insists on adding information that is contradicted by other sources. Specifically, he continues to use this source [14], that questions whether the group as "even exists in any meaningful or identifiable manner." However, this is contradicted by a fighter from the Al Nusra Front [15]. Furthermore, info in the same section of the article contradicts the disputed claim by stating that the group is "a network-within-the-network, assigned to deal with specific tasks" [16]. To say that the group never existed is clearly untrue. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Khorasan (Islamist_group)#Sourced_information_being_removed_from_article discussion
Volunteer's note: I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN (and the current Coordinator), but I'm not either "taking" this filing or opening it for discussion at this time. Some clarification is needed, however: I'm not sure if the dispute here is over (a) the repeated removal of sourced material, which is a conduct issue not within the purview of this noticeboard, or (b) particular material which has been removed and which is in dispute, which is a content issue and acceptable here. Would the filing editor please clarify that issue in the "Dispute Overview" section above, and if it is (b) also clarify (1) whether the material being discussed in the "Sourced information being removed from article" section is or is not the same material being discussed in the "questions about right hand talk" section and (2) provide diffs to whatever particular material is in dispute. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- @TransporterMan: The purpose of this posting is to get assistance resolving the content dispute itself, not any issues of editorial conduct. I have added a diff of the core disputed content, as well as a more detailed description of the dispute. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Eric Diesel#Wikipedia:Third_opinion
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Eric Diesel#Wikipedia:Third opinion (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Lampuser (talk · contribs)
- FloraWilde (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Most of the sources in the Eric Diesel article appear to be unreliable. Any attempts to edit the article are undone user FloraWilde/50.247.76.51, who also deletes sourced additions.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I got a third opinion, who agreed with me. I tried to put this on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but it was not answered and eventually disappeared.
How do you think we can help?
I would like to clean up this article but I can't without getting in an edit war and I don't know what to do.
Summary of dispute by FloraWilde
Lampuser supplied no diffs. I will supply the relevant diffs then reply. (Note: An amin on another page commented that Lampuser is a disruptive, WP:SPA, and WP:COI editor, as this contribution history clearly shows.)
- Re "Most of the sources in the Eric Diesel article appear to be unreliable" -
- Lampuser states, "The only real sources on this page seem to be the SFGate and SF Weekly articles." Editing as an IP, Lampuser falsely states "everything about Eric Diesel here is completely fabricated", citing the same two sources as the only "real" sources.
- Ignoring the discussion on the talk page, Lampuser then deleted all other sources, starting with USA Today, San Jose Mercury News, Santa Cruz Metro, etc. Lampuser deleted all of these sources (and deleted the entire lead first paragraph they supported, replacing the content with WP:NPOV violating, WP:BLP violating, WP:SPA, WP:COI violating, WP:UNDUE content, to push a strange pov entirely inconsistent with the article body).
- USA Today, San Jose Mercury News, etc., are "real", are not "fabircations", and Lampuser knows this. Lampuser is disruptively wasting the time of editors.
- When the RS sources and content was restored, Lampuser deleted these sources and the content again, this time without any edit summary, again ignoring discussion at talk. Lampuser then started a disruptive edit war to delete these sources. Yet Lampuser starts this DRN section saying the opposite - "Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already".
- Re: "I would like to clean up this article but I can't without getting in an edit war".
- What Lampuser means by "clean up" is to delete all of the RS sources, except for the two he wants to cherry-pick from to push a misleading POV that is entirely inconsistent with the rest of the article. As cited, this "cleaning up", then this "clening up", were followed by an edit war with the same kinds of "clean ups".
- Deleting reliable sources and the content they support is not "cleaning up" the article. It is disruptive editing. It has no place at Wikipedia.
- Re "Any attempts to edit the article are undone user FloraWilde/50.247.76.51, who also deletes sourced additions"
- This is false. Lampuser knows it is false. I added (not deleted) the only source Lampuser claimed was "real".[17] Lampuser knows what he said is false , because we explicitly discussed it at the talk page, with my edit summary comment being "source added".[18] Knowingly making false statements at a dispute resolution page is disruptive.
- If what Lampuser means by "attempt to edit the article" means his deletions of RS and long standing, stable content, then Lampuser should not attempt to edit. Lampuser's "attempts to edit" are in reality attempts to be disruptive and degrade articles with blp violating pov pushing.
- Re "third opinion agreed with me".
- This is false. The third opinion had nothing to do with the current complaints by Lampuser. Lampuser asked for a third opinion because I had not yet added inline sources to a section that was in construction, and clearly posted as such with a construction hat at the top of the section. The third opinion editor agreed that inline citations should be added at the end of sentences, and my sentences should not be added without these refs added at the same time. I then reverted the entire section back to the last version by an admin (which also did not have inline citations), then I added inline citations to that older version. This was fully discussed at talk. Lampuser then did a complete reversal and started new talk page section making the opposite complaint to the complaint that was addressed. Lampuser went from complaining about the lack of inline citations in the section under construction, to complaining that there were inline citations in the lead first sentence, with the same RS that Lampuser had tried to delete, USA Today, San Jose Mercury, etc. Lampuser wrote,“The clustering of sources in this article makes it impossible to verify which information is coming from which source… I'm talking about this type of thing – ‘Eric John Diesel (b. 12-19-1957) is an American mathematician, real estate developer, producer, and social activist.’[1][2][3][4][5][6]" That is not how sourcing is supposed to work. It's (probably deliberately) confusing to the point of being useless.” [19] Lampuser then adds to on this page that “Most of the sources in the Eric Diesel article appear to be unreliable”. These specific "unreliable" sources are the ones Lampuser deleted that I cited above: [1] is USA Today, [2] is San Jose Mercury News, etc. When I replied that there should be such references at the end of the sentence, Lampuser came here, to this DRN, canvassing to get attention, which is purely disruptive. Such a complete about-face, from complaining about the lack of sources at the end of sentences, to complaining that there are sources at the end of sentences, has no purpose other than to be disruptive, by wasting time of other editors in responding to it.
- Lampuser's "disputes" he want "resolved" are a wp:commonsense violating moving target - when an editor wastes time respoinding to the "dispute", he simply changes the subject, in an effort to get attention by being disruptive.
- There are many more examples of Lampuser making such disruptive edits, but I am already far over the 2000 character limit for my response. The diffs above should be more than adequate for other editors to see what is really going on here - Lampuser is a very disruptive WP:COI and WP:SPA account who wastes the time of other editors by frivolously deleting content and RS sources, then complains that when an editor restores the sources and content, it is “edit warring”. Lampuser overtly stated his purpose in editing is to disruptively edit and reduce the article to two sources and two sentences. Lampuser is not editing to improve wikipedia, but is a wp:spa editor with a wp:coi who is pushing blp violating pov deletions of content to harm wikipedia. I hope other editors will agree. FloraWilde (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: Lampuser also made repeated WP:Privacy violations, including on this page. I deleted them. The first time Lampuser made wp:privacy violations, I made the error of responding, by citing proof that his allegations were false, thereby revealing the location of myself and another living person. Each time Lampuser's wp:privacy violations were deleted, he complained about the deletion, trying to provoke another response. Lampuser made the same wp:privacy violations on this page, trying to trigger a response like as he got from the other pages. As wp:privacy says, these WP:Privacy violations should not be responded to in any way, and lampuser should be permanently banned. The first time, I had not carefully read that WP:OUT says, "Do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason." I treated the incorrect attempts by posting locations of individuals to disprove them. WP:OUT does not say how to positively report violations or who to report them to, only that they should not be responded to. Lampuser should have been banned after the first and second such violation. Instead, Lampuser got away with private information on locations of two living persons because I disproved his assertion on identity. Lampuser tried the same thing again on this page. Please do not respond, even if he again complains that his violations were deleted. Lampuser should have been banned after his first wp:privacy violation, instead of being allowed to repeat the same violations on other pages, which allowed him to continue disruptively wasting time of editors with inane canvassing like this section he created. FloraWilde (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Eric Diesel#Wikipedia:Third_opinion discussion
Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Just a reminder: It is the requesting party's obligation to make certain that all parties who have taken part in the talk page discussion are listed as parties, above, and are immediately notified of this filing. The notice must be placed on each party's user talk page and must include a link to this section. The easiest way to do that is add {{subst:drn-notice|Eric Diesel} - ~~~~ on their user talk page. If the other parties have not been notified within a few days — usually 3-5 — after this case has been filed it will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK)
- I've made an appeal on the DRN talk page for a volunteer. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Asian American
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Asian American (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)
- 115ash (talk · contribs)
- Wtmitchell (talk · contribs)
- Palmeira (talk · contribs)
- TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs)
- Tlqkfshadk12345anjtlqkf (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
An editor has since October 2014, attempted to make bold changes to the lead section and infobox of the article Asian Americans, without first achieving consensus/support for these changes. This has lead to an editing conflict involving multiple editors, including one potential single purpose editor. A consensus for the current state of the lead section and infobox was created with a large number of participants in 2012.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have repeatedly asked the editor in question to stop repeatedly re-adding the bold changes to the sections in question, as cataloged by Wtmitchell on 115ash's talk page, and have requested other previously involved editors to comment and edit the article, asking them in an appropriate manner per WP:CANVASS.
How do you think we can help?
Have 115ash stop editing the lead and infobox sections of the article, and reach a consensus for changes to the article, if any, prior to making additional edits.
Summary of dispute by 115ash
Summary of dispute by Wtmitchell
Summary of dispute by Palmeira
A look at the page's history supports my only involvement: "Bingo!" in response to a suggestion Wikipedia:Tendentious editing—Characteristics of problem editors should be considered while gazing in a mirror. There seems some ethnic driven "passion/special pleading" going on there that is gone into disruption. The argument that previous consensus distributed featured photos by percent ethnicity in the U.S. Census report seems a sound basis to have some factual hook other than a simple "pack it with my favorites" basis. Perhaps a lock on the page at the consensus stage until this can be resolved. Other than that I am not an expert on the subject, have no particular interest in the page—certainly nearly none in Wiki disputes—and can only say that when "encyclopedia" gets away from fairly solid fact into opinion and culture this is going to happen. Palmeira (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by TheRedPenOfDoom
Summary of dispute by Tlqkfshadk12345anjtlqkf
Summary of dispute by
Asian American discussion
Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Just a reminder: It is the requesting party's obligation to make certain that all parties who have taken part in the talk page discussion are listed as parties, above, and are immediately notified of this filing. The notice must be placed on each party's user talk page and must include a link to this section. The easiest way to do that is add {{subst:drn-notice|Asian American} - ~~~~ on their user talk page. If the other parties have not been notified within a few days — usually 3-5 — after this case has been filed it will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have, I can, here are the diffs: talk page, 115ash, Wtmitchell, Palmeira, TheRedPenOfDoom, Tlqkfshadk12345anjtlqkf.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, but unless someone can point me to a place that 115ash has discussed this more than his three edits on the article talk page so far, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to close this request for lack of "extensive" discussion about the issue in dispute, which is required as a prerequisite to filing a case here (and also at 3O and MEDCOM). I recognize that it's that very lack of discussion that's the primary problem here, but continuing to edit in the face of talk page objections is a conduct matter, not a content matter, and we don't handle conduct matters here at DRN. I fully agree with the idea that, since the article was in a stable state (at least in this regard) for several months, that changes must gain a consensus if other editors object to them, as they have. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
Talk: Piandme
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Piandme (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
Dispute overview
I have been having a dispute with the user over whther a fansite could be used as a refernce in a particular instant. When trying to calmly resolve the issue with the user he called the sorce "trash", which I found insulting, and questioned the website's integrity. Whilst I understand that the website actually shouldn't be used, I felt the aggressive manner in which the adminstrator tried to resolve the problem. When I asked him questions they were ignored.
I later made a couple of changes to articles he had edited as I felt his changes were incorrect I was issued a vandalism warning. I am very upset about this as my edits were made in good faith, and the fact that he had been the editor involved in these oages made him biased in this particular instant. I coudn't believe how I was being treated, and had to report him to stop him persisting.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have tried to discuss the issue with the user, but he won't discuss it with me reasonably.
How do you think we can help?
I hope that you will be able to stop the user abusing his powers as an administrator, and remind the user how to speak to others. I couldn't believe how I was being spoken to.