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.
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.
If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.
Volunteers should remember:
Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 with no other edits.
Open/close quick reference
To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).
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 00:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Filed by Danachos on 22:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
User Danachos updated the Nova Scotia page to include Wabanaki history in the intro and in the History section. There were several edits made. User Magnolia677 blanket reverted all edits citing issues with the Creation story being irrelevant to the History section. Danachos undid the revision, requesting more targeted edits rather than blanket revisions. Discussion occurred on the Nova Scotia talk page, and a consensus was reached to not have the Creation story present; however, there were requests to not erase Indigenous histories, such as the Peace and Friendship Treaties mention in the intro or the more beefed up pre-European section of the History section.
Users Moxy and Magnolia677 reverted the article back to its near-original. To note: The European information remains unsourced, such as the Acadian presence and treaties between Britain and France. The problem both users seemed to have were the fact that the Wabanaki information was unsourced, with user Magnolia677 further claiming that information––such as the Peace and Friendship Treaties and the districts of Mi'kma'ki that overlap with the modern day province––"is almost entirely out of scope and only marginally relevant to Nova Scotia."
User Danachos then, in response to both the need for citations and to its 'marginal relevancy,' rewrote the previous edits, making changes here and there, and added appropriate citations throughout.
User Danachos made special mention to both Moxy and Magnolia677 about how frequently European histories are favoured over Indigenous histories, and there is a history of censorship when it comes to equal-footing writing. I (Danachos) urge those deciding upon this dispute to consider the uneven requirements made of Indigenous inclusion compared to European inclusion and to make note of the consistent history North America has in the erasure of Indigenous topics and presence. The goal of the Nova Scotia page is to have a more equitable overview of the province.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Most basically, the addition of more than just three users is helpful. Further, additional viewpoints (and different sets of biases) should help round out this issue. Finally, although I (Danachos) have a long history on Wikipedia, I still do not entirely understands the steps needed to advance issues; having users of more expertise should assist this process
Content in dispute
Miꞌkmaq: Nopa Skoꞌsia[1][2] The land that comprises what is now Nova Scotia was inhabited by the Miꞌkmaw Nation at the time of European exploration.[3] Their country, Miꞌkmaꞌki, has existed within the Dawnland region[4] since time immemorial.[3][5] In 1605, Acadia, France's first New France colony, was founded with the creation of Acadia's capital, Port-Royal, in one of the eight traditional districts of Miꞌkmaꞌki called Kespukwitk.[6] Britain fought France and the Wabanaki Nations[7] for the territory on numerous occasions for over a century afterwards.[8] The Fortress of Louisbourg was a key focus point in the battle for control. In the fight against the French, following the Great Upheaval (1755–1763) where the British deported the Acadians en masse, the Conquest of New France (1758–1760) by the British, and the Treaty of Paris (1763), France had to surrender Acadia to the British Empire. Once surrendered, the resulting jurisdiction included what would later become Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick in 1769 and 1784, respectively, and encompassed much of the Wolastoqiyik and Miꞌkmaw countries.[9] The resulting modern day territory of Nova Scotia overlaps with the Miꞌkmaꞌki districts of Piktuk, Sipekniꞌkatik, Eskikewaꞌkik, and the country's capital territory (or "fire"),[10][11] now most popularly known as Cape Breton, Unamaꞌkik.[12][13][14]
The seven traditional districts of Mi'kma'ki, excluding Tqamkuk.
What is now considered Nova Scotia overlaps with several districts of the Mi'kmaw Country, called Mi'kma'ki[3] or also spelled Mi'gma'gi,[19] in a region termed "Dawnland" by the local Indigenous nations. Dawnland, or Wabanakik, encompasses the territorial entirety of the Maritime provinces and New England as well as Newfoundland. The Mi'kmaq, also called L'nu in the Mi'kmaw language, would later become one of the constituent nations of the Wabanaki Confederacy, whose territorial integrity would include countries such as Wolastokuk and Ndakinna.
Traditionally, Mi'kma'ki maintained seven autonomous districts headed each by a Sagamaw.[3] The eighth district, Tqamkuk, is today understood to be Newfoundland. The core of Mi'kmaw governance occurs through the Sante' Mawio'mi, or Grand Council (also called the Mi'kmawey Mawio'mi),[3] which resides at Mniku in Unama'kik, and which still functions as the capital of national Mi'kmaw governance today in the Potlotek reserve.[19][20] Representatives from across Mi'kma'ki sat, and continue to sit, on the council which consisted of captains (Kji'keptan), who led the council, wampum readers (Putu's), who maintained treaty and traditional laws, and soldiers (Smagn'is), who protected the people, as well as a women's council.[19][20][3]
Mi'kmaw Law is called Netukulimk which drives and oversees the use of the natural bounty of Mi'kma'ki "for the self-support and well-being of the individual and the community."[21] Functioning as the foundation of sustaining Mi'kmaw families, communities, and society[22] in order to achieve "adequate standards of community nutrition and economic well-being without jeopardizing the integrity, diversity, or productivity of [the] environment,"[21] this mindset understands the whole of life to be interconnected, describing the rights and responsibilities of the Mi’kmaq with their families, communities, nation, and eco-system.[23]
Notes & Refs
^"Following the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Marshall, Canada is engaging in negotiations with Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy on the basis that they have treaty rights to hunt, fish and gather towards earning a moderate livelihood. These treaty rights must be implemented. Along with these treaty rights, First Nations maintain that they continue to hold Aboriginal rights and title throughout their traditional territory."[15]
^Jacobs, Rebecca. "The Wabanaki Forest". Community Forests International. Community Forests International. Retrieved 4 July 2022. Wabanaki comes from the Algonquian word Wabanakik, meaning “Dawnland”, and stems from waban (meaning “light” or “white,” referring to the dawn in the east), and aki (“land”). The Wabanakik region roughly spans the Gaspé Peninsula of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and parts of New England. Wabanaki (“People of the Dawnland”) refers to a number of eastern Algonquian nations — and to the special forests across Wabanakik that they call home.
^West, Jerry (22 October 2015). "Mi'kmaq resistance kept British holed up in their forts, historian finds". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 4 July 2022. In the early clashes between the British and Mi'kmaq, the British usually came out on the losing end, new research suggests. The Mi'kmaq were so successful at defending against the settlers, British soldiers were often too scared to leave their forts, according to historical documents.
^Prins, Harald E. L. ""We Fight with Dignity": The Miawpukek Mi'kmaq Quest for Aboriginal Rights in Newfoundland". Kansas State University: 292. Retrieved 4 July 2022. For centuries, the Miawpukek band has maintained a unique relationship with the Mi'kmaq bands of Cape Breton Island (or Unama'kik ‘foggy land’). Not only is Cape Breton relatively close to Newfoundland (Cabot Strait is just over 100 km wide — two long nights of canoe travel, only a day by sailing vessel), but this island is also the traditional place of residence of the grand chief and his assembly of keptins (spiritual leaders) organized in the Sante’ Mawio’mi (Grand Council). Hence many Mi'kmaq consider Cape Breton Island the traditional head district in Mi'kma'kik{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^Huber, Bernard (January 2009). Negotiating the Political Ecology of Aboriginal Resource Management: How Mi'kmaq Manage their Moose and Lobster Harvest in Unama’ki, Nova Scotia, Canada(PDF) (Master of Science in Geography). Victoria University of Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand. Retrieved 4 July 2022. Cape Breton Island (Unama’ki in Mi'kmaq language), just north of the main peninsula of Nova Scotia, is widely regarded as the heart of the Mi'kmaq nation and has been hosting the annual meeting of the Mi'kmaq Grand Council (Sante’ Mawio’mi) since pre-colonial times. Traditionally, Mi’kma’ki was divided into seven semi-sovereign districts and the district chiefs would convene as the Grand Council for decisions of nation-wide importance.
^"L'nuey PEI". @lnueypei. Twitter. Retrieved 4 July 2022. What does “Mi'kma’ki” mean? It’s the Mi'kmaq Traditional territory: all of PEI & Nova Scotia; Eastern New Brunswick; Gaspé Peninsula; & southern Newfoundland. The picture shows the 7 Mi’kmaq districts, including Epekwitk aqq Piktuk. Care to try and pronounce any of the others?
^Scott, Todd. "In defense of Mi'kma'ki: Mi'kmaq military power in Northeastern North America (1675-1761)". Royal Nova Scotia Historical Society. Royal Nova Scotia Historical Society. Retrieved 4 July 2022. Starting in the last quarter of the seventeenth century until the end of the Seven Years War, the Mi'kmaq successfully defended their land, families and way of life through seven colonial wars against the British. These efforts kept British settlers from migrating into Mi'kma'ki. From the west the Mi'kmaq successfully projected their power along the Kennebec region of present day Maine. In the east they demonstrated they were a power to be reckoned with by frustrating British economic activities and settlements in Newfoundland. When British settlers finally migrated into Mi'kma'ki in 1749, the Mi'kmaq were able to contain them in British fortified enclaves until a peace was established in 1761.
^"Law". Tepi'ketuek Mi'kmaw Archives. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
Summary of dispute by Magnolia677
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This Indian tribe covered an area much larger than Nova Scotia, so adding five paragraphs and two photos unbalances the article. Moreover, the text is hardly relevant to this article about a Canadian province. Maybe if this tribe had made a large contribution to the province's development--built a railway or a university--then of course, but five paragraphs about their superstitions and treaty signing does not improve the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Moxy
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
As mentioned before WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.....better article for this information would be at Miꞌkmaq or Wabanaki Confederacy...not a provincial article. Why are we talking about a huge region spanning Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New England in this article?Moxy- 23:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This space is for a summary of the dispute by Moxy. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because five of the seven districts (aka, more than half) of Mi'kma'ki overlap with Nova Scotia, including the country's capital at Mniku (Potlotek), Unama'ki? Because the treaties signed between the British and Mi'kmaw Nations constitute living documents and are equal in importance to the ceding of French claims in the Treaty of Paris (esp. since the Peace and Friendship Treaties maintain Mi'kmaw aboriginal rights and title to all of Nova Scotia's territory)? Because other similar articles (e.g., Bavaria, Wales, Hebei, Tamil Nadu, Osun State, Catalonia, etc.) also have similar historical threads in their intros and their articles?
In response to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, especially that "you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses"; this is why I went back and properly sourced all the information. It has been reported in mainstream media, books, modern and historical government files, etc. Danachos (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yup "aboriginal rights and title" is the point being made about 5 percent of the population. Would love to see integrated history as is done in the examples you gave.Moxy- 02:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nova Scotia discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors. One editor has responded, and so is aware of the filing. Notification of the remaining editor on their user talk page is required. The space that is provided for a summary by an editor is for a summary by that editor, not for discussion of the summary. Any discussion at this noticeboard is supervised by a moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly do I notify them? I let Magnolia677 know in two separate places that this dispute resolution has been filed Danachos (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by moderator (Nova Scotia)
I will act as the moderator. Please read the usual rules. There will be no back-and-forth discussion. I will ask the questions, and you will address your answers to me and to the community. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements do not communicate effectively; sometimes their main purpose is to make the poster feel better. Please read the rules a second time. Discuss content, not contributors.
It appears that one editor wants to add information about a First Nation creation myth, and two editors disagree. Is that correct? I will ask each editor to state, in one paragraph, what in the article they want changed, or what they want left the same that other editors want to change. If you have any other questions, please ask them. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by editors (Nova Scotia)
Statement by Danachos:- In response to: "It appears that one editor wants to add information about a First Nation creation myth, and two editors disagree. Is that correct?" This is incorrect. The original edit did indeed have a creation history added alongside additional historical information (in the history section above "European Settlement") and along with an updated introduction. After that was reverted—citing the creation history was not necessary on this page—I conceded that point and stopped trying to add it in. I do not wish to have the creation history present nor have I tried to include the creation history in the last several attempts to edit the page.
In response to: "I will ask each editor to state, in one paragraph, what in the article they want changed": What I would like to see changed in the article is everything you see here on the dispute resolution page. 1) To maintain the name "Nopa Sko'sia" at the beginning of the introduction (note: I did not add that in myself; it was deleted along with my edits by one of the cited editors here in this dispute resolution; after its deletion, I re-added it along with my other edits, adding two sourced citations for its use as Mi'kmaw translation of "Nova Scotia"); 2) Update the introduction to the page that integrates Wabanaki (and, specifically, Mi'kmaw) history. This means updating the language to the modern Canadian standard (i.e., referring to the nation as a nation, talking about their country as a country, considering treaties made with Indigenous nations equal of importance to treaties made with European nations, etc.); 3) Updating the History section of the article to include a proper section prior to "European Settlement" (labelled in my edits as "Indigenous Dawnland" referring to the region's translated English name) rather than the current measly two sentences that are on the live page. I also moved the current Mi'kmaw family photo down to the appropriate time (photo was taken in 1871, so I moved it to the "19th century" section, the 1870s part of the history section), and I included under Indigenous Dawnland two maps of the countries of the region, showing all the countries of the Dawnland or Wabanaki Confederacy and zooming in on the Mi'kmaw country (again, please note: five of the seven / eight districts of Mi'kma'ki historically and currently overlap with Nova Scotia, including the country's capital at Mniku, Unama'ki, in Potlotek). Danachos (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First comment by random editor (Nova Scotia)
I look at the above content, and it seems very solidly sourced, and relatively well written (I'd omit flavourful language 'time immemorial' in favour of 'record history' or similar). There is certainly a place in the Nova Scotia article for this most of this content (the first three paragraphs, the last two doesn't belong in the Nova Scotia article but elsewhere), though in the lead in this version was substantially too wordy. Particularly mentioning the individual 'districts' seem out of place (like in In 1605, Acadia, France's first New France colony, was founded with the creation of Acadia's capital, Port-Royal, in one of the eight traditional districts of Miꞌkmaꞌki called Kespukwitk. or The resulting modern day territory of Nova Scotia overlaps with the Miꞌkmaꞌki districts of Piktuk, Sipekniꞌkatik, Eskikewaꞌkik, and the country's capital territory (or "fire"),[18][19] now most popularly known as Cape Breton, Unamaꞌkik.[20][21][22], which could simply be summarized as the 'territory of the Wabanaki Confederacy', or alternatively 'the Wabanakik region' or similar). The lead should cover the very broad strokes, not the finicky details. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second statement by Moderator (Nova Scotia)
The filing editor listed two other editors, User:Moxy and User:Magnolia677. They made preliminary statements, but have not replied to my request for a first statement. I will ask them whether they will reply, in one or two paragraphs, to the filing editor, who wants to introduce large amounts of additional material into the article. I will also ask the filing editor if they wish to make an additional one-paragraph statement. If the other editors do not want to discuss the rewriting, then we will figure out where to go from here.
Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second statements by editors (Nova Scotia)
Just to much...not the place for laws and myths of one group comprising only 0.51% of the population ......i am ok with what is below ...not the above.... Lead a whole other issue as are other articles. Moxy- 07:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is now considered Nova Scotia overlaps with several districts of the Mi'kmaw Country, called Mi'kma'ki or also spelled Mi'gma'gi,[1] in a region termed "Dawnland" by the local Indigenous nations. Dawnland, or Wabanakik, encompasses the territorial entirety of the Maritime provinces and New England as well as Newfoundland. The Mi'kmaq, also called L'nu in the Mi'kmaw language, would later become one of the constituent nations of the Wabanaki Confederacy, whose territorial integrity would include countries such as Wolastokuk and Ndakinna.
Traditionally, Mi'kma'ki maintained seven autonomous districts headed each by a Sagamaw. The core of Mi'kmaw governance occurs through the Sante' Mawio'mi, or Grand Council (also called the Mi'kmawey Mawio'mi), which resides at Mniku in Unama'kik, and which still functions as the capital today in the Potlotek reserve.[1][2]
References
^ abGallant, David Joseph. "Mi'kmaq". The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Canada. Retrieved 20 June 2022.
I am going to start over again. It is not clear to me whether there is an article content dispute. If there is an article content dispute, we will try to resolve it. If not, we will close this case.
Please read the ground rules and comply with them. (There hasn't been a problem in that way so far.) Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, whether they think that there is an issue about the content of the article, and, if so, what is the issue. If you want to add something, tell where you want to add it, either to a section or between sections. If you want to subtract something, tell what you want to subtract. Otherwise, please explain concisely what you want changed. Then we will decide where to go. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Third statements by editors (Nova Scotia)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The dispute is mostly about race and racism. The other editor is trying to downplay or deny the involvement of white Brazilian in the killing, or of a white Brazilian reportedly harassing a journalist by trying to do a literal translation from Portuguese to English. It is quite hard to assume good faith considering that in a different article about race relations in Brazil, this user removed all the content, which I have replaced with plenty of sources. this edit
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I have shown multiple sources contradicting the claims and edits of this user, but I was ignored. He is still repeating arguments that the sources linked throughout the article explain why racism and xenophobia is a relevant to the article about the murder. Even his own sources contradict his edits. I also see no rational argument to remove any mentions of white Brazilians when corroborated by reputable sources.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I honestly am trying this venue because I don't know a less aggressive way to deal with it. Should this fail, I will try the admin's noticeboard.
Summary of dispute by Knoterification
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
He opposes two of my edits to the article.
In one of them I use a source where one of the killers claims he has "the same skin colour as the victim", which he thinks should not be included. In the complex and ambigous racial panorama of Brazil it is not at all clear the killers were "white", just look at their pictures, and actually no source claims they were. Tet opposes my edit because he claims the article I used as a source states that even if the killers were black or brown it would still be a racist killing. Again, my point is not to claim that it was, or it wasn't a racist killing, just to add the information about one of the murderers statement about his skin colour, and how he used that to claim it was not a racist killing.
Secondly I edited a statement about a black reporter being harassed during protests against the murder. In the source he uses the term "gente de pele clara", meaning "people of light skin", which Tet translated in wikipedia as "white Brazilians", I edited and changed it to "people of light skin", to better reflect the source. If he wants to add the information about the reporter being specifically targeted by a white men, in addition to being harassed by people of light skin, I think it is fine.
In relation to my edit on "dominant minorities", I understand that it was wrong to delete his contribution and I should have discussed that on the talk page. For that I appologise.
But my point in that action was none of the sources claims white Brazilians are a dominant minority. They are sources that show that white Brazilians are in average wealthier and suffer less violent deaths than black and brown Brazilians. For the reasons I already explained, I don't think that is enough to make the claim that "white Brazilians are a dominant minority" like the other ones listed on the article (white South Africans during Apartheid, Alawites in Assad's Syria, Americo-Liberians in pre 1980's Liberia etcc) Knoterification (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Murder of Moïse Mugenyi Kabagambe discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The filing editor writes It is quite hard to assume good faith. It is necessary and required to assume good faith at this noticeboard. Questions about bad faith can be raised at WP:ANI, if they must be raised. So comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Reply - Only after you have read the boomerang essay if you really think that you have a strong case that the editor is editing in bad faith. If so, that is where you should report a conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroth statement by moderator (Kabagambe)
This is a preliminary statement to determine whether there is an article content dispute. If there is an article content dispute, I will act as the moderator. Please read the ground rules. The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article. Do either of the editors want to make any changes to the article? If so, please make a concise statement as to what you want to change in the article. Comment on content, not contributors. If no one has any concerns about article content, we will close this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroth statement by editors (Kabagambe)
Robert McClenon, There are a few updates of the situation since February when the murder took place. Because of the current dispute, I will not translate these updates from the Portuguese article since some of them are related to xenophobia.
On my statement, I'd like to revert two edits: [1], which is unnecessary since both sources already provide the claims of the killers. The previous version of this text already said that the accused denied their motivation was due to xenophobia and racism. This is their POV, and both media and the article shows that. [2] tries to reinforce that no white person was involved in the harassment of the journalist mentioned by literally copying what is written instead of interpreting the whole text. Various paragraphs mention insults and situations that are unique or more common to Black people in Brazil. "macacada" is a slur towards black people in Brazil, even if they are pardos.
In both cases, I have mentioned that these edits underplay the role of racism and xenophobia in Brazil, and also remove any blame towards White Brazilians in this particular situation. Tetizeraz - (talk page) 19:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My contribution solely reproduces what is stated in two sources, his opposition to my contribution is based on his own interpretation of the sources. The fact that his main opposition to my contribution has nothing to do with the sources in itself, but with" underplay the role of racism and xenophobia in Brazil", shows he believes the article should have an agenda, instead of merely reporting what appears on the sources. We should not ignore information because it apparently goes against an agenda.
1. My first contribution is that one of the killers states that he has the same skin colour as the victim. I don't understand why that information is unaccaptable to be included. If we are going to talk about the "race" of those who harrassed a reporter in a minor event, not directly related to the murder, why not talk about the "race" of the murderers?
2. In the other I was mereley reproducing the same source he used. A man states he was harrassed by "people of light skin", which Tetizeraz interpreted as "white". I don't think that is correct. We cannot freely interpret a quote. That is Original Research. If he wants to add the fact that he was specifically harassed by a white man that is fine.
Again he uses his own preconceptions to argue that if the slur "macacada" can only be used by white people, not by pardos. Knoterification (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
quick edit: I believe the English sources in the article will suffice, but here's two of them that I believe are relevant here: [3] and [4]Tetizeraz - (talk page) 19:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by moderator (Kabagambe)
Please read the rules again. One editor has stated that they want to revert two edits. The other editor has not replied. I will allow another 24 hours for them to reply. If they are silent after that time, I will tell the first editor to revert the edits, after which we can discuss further if necessary.
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick solution to this dispute. One short answer to the editor, since I was not able to: WP:YESPOV should have been mentioned by myself. I'm unsure on how to wikilink to diffs on other wikis, but this one is the last major change in Portuguese Wikipedia about the situation. There is also another small update on the situation of one city councilor who was accused to participating in the protests in Curitiba. He was supposed to lose his post, but a judge kept him in place (not sure the exact words in English, sorry). All other edits on wiki-pt were done to change words to the past tense. Tetizeraz - (talk page) 16:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Third statement by moderator (Kabagambe)
User:Knoterification: You replied by adding to your previous statement rather than in the section for a reply, so that I didn't see it. In the future, please reply to me below my statement. We can now discuss adding those statements back in.
Will each editor please state concisely what if any changes they want made to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Third statements by editors (Kabagambe)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion started on 10 May in response to this edit where I rewrote the article: [5]. Almost all of the content from that edit has since been reverted by wiki-psyc, and the content dispute is almost entirely about the contents of that diff. The discussion on wiki-psyc's talk page and the manipulation talk page are both quite long, so I will try to summarise my changes and my understanding of their perspective.
What I changed:
I updated the sections on predispositions to use modern data from review articles about the influence of gender and other factors
I tried to remove stigmatising language in the spirit of WP:MEDLANG by rewriting "manipulators" to "people who manipulate"
I rewrote the "mental illness" section to describe in more detail which mental illnesses are associated with manipulation and removed those I could not find evidence for (in the DSM-5 or elsewhere)
I added information about assessment tools for manipulation
I removed self-help material based on the understanding that it is not a reliable source for psychology as it is not subject to peer review and is not empirically founded
I mention the relationship between manipulation and machiavellianism
I removed and disagreed with the use of ethics citations for the article about psychology
Removed "see also" entries covered in disambiguation page
What I understand wiki-psyc's perspective on the content to be:
Because there is no specific page for philosophy/anthropology of manipulation, that content belongs on this page
Manipulation is not pathological and should not be written as such
The contents of my edit constitutes original research and cherry picking not consistent with existing academic consensus
The page should not discuss topics irrelevant to manipulation, including machiavellianism, and details about assessment
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
The controversy is whether "manipulation" is a human behavior or a clinical pathology. The article as it stands characterizes it as a human behavior and has a section on mental health that directs readers to mental health conditions where extreme manipulation is one of a cluster of symptoms comprising different clinical pathologies (there are several). Darcyisverycute, respectfully, is proposing a major rewrite of the article ( see revision 1086775412 ) which I contend cherry picks info from a few small esoteric research papers to create a complex narrative (WP:ORIGINAL) inconsistent with the philosophy, ethics, behavioral, and clinical literature. Notwithstanding, I commend Darcyisverycute for handling this diagreement in a constructive manner. Wiki-psyc (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Manipulation (psychology) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (manipulation)
This is another preliminary statement to determine whether there is an article content dispute. If there is an article content dispute, I will act as the moderator. Please read the ground rules. If you have questions about the rules, ask rather than guessing. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to what changes you want to make to the article. Remember that the purpose of discussion here is to improve the article. If you want to rewrite the article, please state concisely how you want to rewrite it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroth statement by editors (manipulation)
I want to expand the article with information from newer review articles about correlates (gender, mental illness, and personality traits) with manipulative behavior, remove content based on self-help sources, describe the cross-cultural diversity of definitions for the concept, indicate in-article which information originates from ethics/philosophy research, and remove stigmatising language about people with tendencies for manipulative behavior. Darcyisverycute (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The term manipulation is broad and, as such, has 21 line items on the disambiguation page ( see Manipulation disambiguation ). This article in question was labeled "Manipulation (psychology)" to differentiate it from physical behavior, etc. Manipulation is a universal human behavior (like callousness, deceitfulness, hostility, impulsiveness, irresponsibility, etc.) and an age-old topic with an extensive body of information written by philosophers, ethicists, behaviorists, and to a lessor extent, psychiatry. The article framework currently represents this balance, and
1) I would suggest that it is best to build on that framework/perspective.
2) I would also support a re-naming the article to Manipulation (human behavior) if that would be helpful and
3) I would recommend against re-writing the article to characterize manipulation as a psychiatric pathology because
a) the is not the primary use of the term and
b) the psychiatric mainstream literature does not support this idea. For the most part, "manipulation" appears in the clinical literature in symptom lists and in some esoteric work measuring its presence or use. A simple search using Google Scholar for terms such as "pathological manipulation", "clinical manipulation", "manipulation pathology", "sub-clinical manipulation" will yield little or nothing. A Google General search will mostly pull up these terms from unreliable sources like hobbyist psychology youtube videos, message-boards, blogs, and self published e-books. Wiki-psyc (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by moderator (manipulation)
Read the ground rules again. No one is breaking the rules, but it doesn't hurt to look at them again. One editor would like to rename the article to Manipulation (human behavior). Is there agreement, or do we need to discuss?
Are both editors in agreement that the article can be expanded? Will each editor please make a one-paragraph statement either detailing the expansion that they want or listing the points that they want expanded, or explaining why expansion is not necessary?
One editor has put a {{disputed}} tag on the article. Please specify what parts of the article you are disputing, so that we can address those disputes in this discussion.
There are other editors who have been discussing on the article talk page. Either they should be invited to take part in this discussion, or we can close this discussion to move it back to the article talk page. Do the editors want to continue this discussion and invite the other editors, or to close this discussion to move it back to the article talk page?
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First statements by editors (manipulation)
I disagree with renaming the article to Manipulation (human behavior), since Object manipulation is also human behavior and there is ambiguity in that. I would note there is significant overlap between psychological manipulation and affect induction + mood induction, although the two concepts are distinct (see [1])
I agree the article can be expanded, and I wish to expand all sections of the current article. ie: lead section, characteristics, mental illness and assessment. I am not qualified to write a section on history/background, but I would also like to see that added.
These are the factually disputed elements for which I added the {{disputed}} tag:
"For males, higher levels of emotional intelligence, social information processing, indirect aggression, and self-serving cognitive distortions significantly predicted emotional manipulation [...] For females, being younger, higher levels of emotional intelligence, indirect aggression, primary psychopathic traits, and lower levels of social awareness significantly predicted emotional manipulation. However, for females, emotional intelligence acted as a suppressor" - I believe this information is superseded by this newer review article which includes this quoted article as a citation: "[...] gender was found to have a moderating effect in the relationship between ability-based EI and non-prosocial emotional manipulation. The relationship was stronger for males than females, thereby supporting our hypothesis. This suggests that, if males and females have equally high EI, males can be expected to be more manipulative for non-prosocial purposes than females; conversely, if the level of EI is low across genders, they may not differ in their levels of emotional manipulation."[2]
"In the extreme, it is a stratagem of tricksters, swindlers, and impostors who disrespect moral principles and take advantage of others’ frailty and gullibility. At the very least, manipulation is influence used to gain control, benefits, or privileges at the expense of the others." I believe the first sentence is factually incorrect as originating from an unreliable source for WP:MEDRS, and I believe the underlined text should be removed as this is the primary definition.
Influence and persuasion are neither positive nor negative for being an imprecise claim and not originating from a WP:MEDRS (it's a Forbes business article)
The Vulnerability-Description table: I believe it is factually incorrect as relying on an an unreliable source for trait-based rather than behavior-based descriptions, and is superseded by newer behavior sets such as this one: [3].
Manipulation is not part of factitious disorder or conduct disorder as listed in the mental illness section. It is also controversial to claim that manipulative behavior is part of borderline personality disorder as the article does.
EMS employs a ten-item scale to characterize the approaches used by individuals to manipulate. I believe this is factually incorrect as described in the cited publication the main role of the EMS was to measure correlates with emotional intelligence and personality traits.
I would prefer the discussion to continue here rather on the talk page. I apologise it was my mistake not to offer other editors there to come to DRN and thank wiki-psyc for doing so.
From Wiki-psyc: This exercise is hard to respond to because Darcyisverycute is asking for WP:TNT and considers references like Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, American Psychiatric Association, Forbes to be problematic. The Manipulation (psychology) topic is a very basic subject, the article is pretty good as it is and should continue on its current trajectory with incremental edits as it has for 11 years, 545 editors, and 1,300 edits. In an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia [7] it says manipulation manifests itself in all the fields of activity of the individual, basically in all human relationships, even in love, religion, philosophy, science, art, etc. It focuses on all these aspects, proving that manipulations in itself represents an inherent social phenomenon for the contemporary human being.
Narrowing and redefining manipulation as a pathology/mental illness is WP:ORIGINAL. There is no reputable source to substantiate this. Pathological people can manipulate, but manipulation, itself, is not inherently pathological.
The article currently provides links to mental conditions where manipulation is part of the symptomology. I think it makes sense to discuss, for example, a study of manipulation related to the Dark Triad in the Dark Triad article rather than in a general article about manipulation. Wiki-psyc (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second statement by moderator (manipulation)
It appears that Darcyisverycute wants to make numerous changes to the article, and that Wiki-psyc has not proposed any specific changes to the article, and disagrees with the need for the changes. If my understanding is incorrect, then the editors should restate and explain. If my understanding is correct, then the next step is for Darcyisverycute to put their requested changes into the form of a "laundry list", a numbered list of items (numbered 1 to N), each being one paragraph, either stating specifically what they want to change, or that they want to rewrite a section. I will then, in the third stage of this mediation, ask Wiki-psyc to respond to each item either by accepting it, disagreeing with it entirely (rejecting it), or stating that they want to work on it or compromise on it. It is Darcyisverycute's turn to provide the list, at this point. Both editors may ask any questions and may disagree with my plan. Then it will be Wiki-psyc's turn to reply. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to restate, this doesn't mean that any of the changes will be made, and this doesn't mean that any of the changes won't be made. At this point, we are just breaking up or breaking down the scope.
Clarification
For now, if the item to be rewritten is a paragraph, you may provide the proposed text. If the item to be rewritten is a section of more than one paragraph, just indicate that you want to rewrite it. You may provide the laundry list now. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second statements by editors (manipulation)
Robert McClenon, I believe your understanding of the situation is correct. I will go ahead with your suggested plan unless there are objections from wiki-psyc. I would like to ask, when you say each being one paragraph, [...] that they want to rewrite a section. for sections that I wish to rewrite, should I be adding the suggested rewrite as a paragraph, or just saying that I wish to rewrite it? Thanks Darcyisverycute (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Laundry list:
(1) Lead section: Proposed rewrite
Manipulation or emotional manipulation is behavior designed to exploit, control, or otherwise influence others to one’s advantage.[1] Definitions vary in which behavior is specifically included, influenced by both culture and whether used in clinical or non-clinical contexts.[2] Skills necessary for manipulation can be used for both prosocial and antisocial purposes.[3] Antisocial or non-prosocial manipulation has been described as using "skills to advance their own agendas or self-serving motives at the expense of others",[3] whereas prosocial behavior is "a voluntary act intended to help or benefit another individual or group of individuals".[4] Manipulation is correlated with higher levels of emotional intelligence,[3] and is a behavioral component of the Machiavellianism personality trait. Manipulation is also related to affect induction, where emotions are manipulated under experimental conditions.[5]
(2) Lead section, second paragraph: Move to a new "Ethics" section -- this could be expanded much further but my proposal for now is to just move it to a separate one since I am not an expert on the ethics aspect.
(3) Characteristics of manipulators: Rename section title to "etiology" or "causes" or "risk factors"
(4) Characteristics of manipulators: Rewrite section
(5) Manipulation and mental illnesses: Move to subsection "Mental health" under the title of the section for (3)
(6) Manipulation and mental illnesses: Rewrite section
(7) Clinical assessment tools: Promote from subsection heading to section heading
(8) Clinical assessment tools: Rewrite section
(9) See also: unbold entries and remove those already covered by the disambiguation page
(10) Further reading: "Modulated Feelings: The Pleasurable-Ends-Model of Manipulation" and "Then again, what is manipulation? A broader view of a much-maligned concept" should be converted to inline citations. The rest of the articles in the further reading section should be removed. This is for not meeting MEDMOS and for being too old, and as far as I can tell they are not used in the article. (I would not rule out using them in a future "History" section however.)
(11) Assuming the ethics stuff gets moved to a separate section, I think it might be worthwhile to add the article to Wikiproject philosophy as well.
Both editors should be aware that this may be a long content dispute resolution. Be prepared for this to take one to three months.
Darcyisverycute has listed eleven changes that they want to make to the article. Wiki-psyc may now reply to each of the 11 points by saying either that they agree, in which case that change will be made, or that they disagree, or that they would like to compromise or negotiate. Either editor may make any other concise statements or ask questions. This is primarily the turn for Wiki-psyc to respond to the eleven points. If you disagree with a change and want to leave the article as is, disagree briefly. It is only necessary to reply at length if you want to compromise.
Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Third statements by editors (manipulation)
I'm willing to commit 1-3 months for this. I appreciate Robert McClenon and wiki-psyc for participating in this mediation. Darcyisverycute (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, I'd like to suggest that before we invest 30-90 days doing a WPTNT and a rewrite of 11 years worth of of editors work, we should ask to see a few substantial references that show that Darcyisverycute's fundamental proposition is valid, specifically that (1) Manipulation is a mental disorder/pathology and (2) the "mental disorder" is the primary definition/use of term. All of her recommendations she has made are based on this premise. It will be very hard to find compromise on what to put in an "etiology" or cause section if there is not agreement that this is a disease or disorder that has an etiology. I've been in medicine for 40 years and I am unaware of this disorder. It seems the American Psychological Association, World Health Organization (WHO), American Medical Association, Oxford and Britannica are also unaware. But certainly, we all should be open minded to hear her out and we could exhaust this exploration in a day or two. We already have 3,000 words of polite and cooperative discussion on the talk page and another 3,000 here to indicate good faith. Indeed, if there is substantial evidence that manipulation is disorder/pathology, and the disorder is the primary use of the term, I believe the editors would find compromise rather easily. Whereas without it, the only reasonable response I can give to the suggested rewrite of the article introduction summary is that it is not supported by the article, nor the clinical literature, and that terms like prosocial, non-prosocial, affect induction, antisocial, and Machiavellianism are overly complex terms for a summary statement on a very basic concept (manipulation) and most readers will be going back to Google to find another source about manipulation that they can read and comprehend.
I'd also like to ask that we remove the
tag from the article as it has not be established that there are factual inaccuracies.
What substantial reference can we examine to verify that (1) Manipulation is a mental disorder/pathology and (2) the "mental disorder" is the primary definition/use of term? Wiki-psyc (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth statement by moderator (manipulation)
Wiki-psyc has expressed a concern that the whole rewrite effort may be misguided. So rather than try to address eleven points, we will focus first on the first point, the lede section, which leads into the other changes. For now I am not planning to try to analyze the differences between the existing lede and the proposed lede, but to ask the editors to address the arguments for and against the rewriting of the lede. Each editor should provide a statement consisting of anywhere between one and several paragraphs supporting or criticizing either the current lede or the proposed lede. I will then decide what pieces of this content issue will be addressed next. So, please assess either the current lede or the proposed lede. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may also submit one to three questions for the other editor. Do not answer the questions. I will decide whether to ask them. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may also ask any questions to be answered by the moderator.
Fourth statements by editors (manipulation)
If I understand correctly, I am meant to choose to either do one option or the other, so I will say what I think could be improved with the article's current lead.
The sourcing of the lead section is somewhat poor in that it does not cite or appear to base its claims from any review articles for a topic which they are available, which makes it difficult to determine to what extent this description is accepted by other academics and disciplines.
The first paragraph in the lead fails to define the concept in the broad scope with which the term is used. I will compare the definition to what is used at wikitionary: (transitive) To influence or control someone in order to achieve a specific purpose, especially one that is unknown to the one being manipulated and beneficial to the manipulator; to use - both this definition and the one in the first paragraph of the lead section are quite broad, and I would note the wikitionary one does not claim it must occur at the expense of others. While wikitionary is useful in its brief form, I think the current lead does not sufficiently indicate the breadth of the term, and how the definition differs among demographics and contexts. The second and third sentences say "in the extreme" and "at the very least", which suggests a continuum of some sort to define the term, although what lies on middle-points on this continuum is unclear, and the cited sources do not clearly discuss any such continuum.
The second paragraph contextualises manipulation in the ethics framework of other forms of social influence, although it claims to make an ambiguous claim/judgement that "influence and persuasion are neither positive nor negative". I think the 2022 publication in the general references is not sufficiently addressed in the lead, for example to quote the source Conceptualizing manipulation is no easy task, not just because there are many intuitions involved.[8] The second paragraph also fails to contextualise the term as it is used and compared in psychology literature. The lead section fails to explain which interdisciplinary fields are involved in studying manipulation, which could include for example ethics, criminology, marketing and advertising, behavioral psychology, clinical psychology. I will note the article is a member of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising. Lastly, the lead section fails to identify the origins of the concept (who developed it, who are the major contributors to surrounding theory and when did this all happen), and clearly establish why it is an important concept in the relevant fields with evidence such as statistics or statements from subject matter experts. Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am out of town and unable to respond until Wednesday. Thanks for your patience. Wiki-psyc (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Icertis
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Kvng on 20:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Disagreement over need for {{Advert}} and other tags and removal of material in History section based on claims of WP:PROMO issues. See discussion on talk page. These are the disputed changes.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I need a better understanding of Hipal's objection to the state of the article before they removed large sections. Reasons for removals are given in edit comments but I'm having trouble mapping that to policy or I don't see the same problems Hipal sees. I am unable to get clarification from Hipal because discussion goes in circles or is terminated with we continue to disagree.
Summary of dispute by Hipal
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Until editors are willing to answer questions and stop misrepresenting others, I don't see how we can make any progress. --Hipal (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hipal as I understand it, you're not obliged to participate here. If you are unwilling, I believe the next stop on our dispute resolution tour is WP:RFC. Please let us know. I don't want to waste more of anyone's time here. ~Kvng (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how we can make progress without working much more cooperatively. If you simply want to get a better understanding of my position, ask. I'll answer. I hope you'll reconsider doing the same. RfCs require simple questions: I don't see any at this point. --Hipal (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kvung, have you had good results from DRN in situations like this? I've not. If you think it would give you a better understanding of my position and get you to address my concerns, then perhaps it's worth trying. --Hipal (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there somewhere else where you think we could get good results? I've had good results at WP:3O and WP:ANI. I participate in a lot of RfCs and they seem to work. I haven't used WP:DRN before. You don't want to use WP:3O. At this point we have disagreement, not misconduct so I don't think WP:ANI is appropriate.
I don't see what would be so complicated about RfC questions: Should we restore the material you deleted? Should we remove the tags? We could do two RfCs if you think answering both questions at once is too complicated. But, in any case, with WP:RFC we don't need your cooperation. We bring in other editors and they form a consensus and one of us (or both?!) joins that or not but we find out who holds an outlying position.
As for understanding your position, I have asked you for clarification and when I get answers they tend to just create more confusion for me or pull me away from WP:AGF. I appreciate if it feels the same way from your side and so all the more reason to get help from a moderator.
Let us know if you want to give this a try. Frankly, WP:RFC is now looking more attractive to me. ~Kvng (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't want to use WP:3O That's another example of the misrepresentations that I mention. Please strikeout.
with WP:RFC we don't need your cooperation If you're looking for excuses to not cooperate, then we'll not solve anything. --Hipal (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Icertis Laura
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by PK650
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Icertis discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Statement
I am willing to mediate this dispute, but before I do so, I would like confirmation of who is willing to participate. I note that at least 1 user has a disclosed COI and will take that into consideration. Please review the rules and guidelines about discussions on this page and indicate that you have done so. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.