Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 56
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Contents
- 1 Traditional Unionist Voice, David Simpson (British politician)
- 2 Talk:Alexander Mirtchev
- 3 Bitcoin as an investment
- 4 Talk:International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012
- 5 Talk:Steven D._Binder
- 6 "Breast Cancer Awareness" article and talk page
- 7 Juan Manuel de Rosas
- 8 PRSA
- 9 Talk:Mobile operating system
- 10 Talk:Friedrich Eckenfelder
- 11 Juan Manuel de Rosas
- 12 Hebron School, Ooty
- 13 Gun Safety
- 14 Jordan Belfort page
Traditional Unionist Voice, David Simpson (British politician)
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | While there is a small discussion on the article talkpage, it is not extensive enough to file at DR/N. Please continue to find common ground and disuss. If, after an extensive discussion there is still a dispute, please feel free to re-submit. Amadscientist (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview On the TUV article I believe that the material being added to the "controversy" section is a violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:COATRACK, negative material being added to smear the party through "guilt by association." One paragraph involves a minor news story, with no lasting significance, when a member was not acting in a party capacity. The second, regarding Tweed, is a sex scandal again outside the party's remit, as it happened after the individual was elected for the party and post-scandal they were subsequently suspended, pending expulsion. In both cases, it seems to me that the controversy attaches to the individuals not the party. In other comparable articles about political parties we do not include laundry lists of individuals who did wrong when they were acting outside a party capacity. In the Simpson case, again, it seems that a minor and negative news story is being added for "guilt by association." In this case, someone who worked for the politician did something bad (and was sacked as a result), it seems very undue to include it. Brocach has disagreed with these assessments, claiming that the stories in question are "newsworthy" and arguing that the Tweed case "reflects on the TUV." Various ips have also edited, without joining the discussion. Have you tried to resolve this previously? discussed on the relevant article talkpage How do you think we can help? As more than two editors are involved (counting the ips) provide a third opinion on whether these additions meet our WP:NPOV policies. Also advise on the best way/next step to resolve these disputes? Opening comments by BrocachIn these two articles on Unionist politics in Northern Ireland, User:Valenciano chose to delete fair, relevant, accurate and sourced material related to sex scandals. In the Traditional Unionist Voice article, the material related to one of the very, very few TUV elected representatives, the second most prominent man in the party, being convicted of child sex abuse. In the David Simpson article, the issue was that an employee of that Member of Parliament was under police investigation and had been dismissed after a camera was found hidden in the toilet of the MP's constituency office. Both these incidents attracted a great deal of media attention and are clearly proper matters to include in the respective articles. Nothing in either piece could possibly be construed as suggesting "guilt by association", and Valenciano is wasting your time by seeking support for his peculiar campaign to sanitise both pages. Brocach (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Traditional Unionist Voice, David Simpson (British politician) discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Alexander Mirtchev
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Wrong venue. Please use Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for questions on the reliability of sources. Thank you. Amadscientist (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Two editors are having a dispute over content. Have you tried to resolve this previously? There has been an extensive discussion on the talk page. WP:3O has also been called, but it did not settle the dispute. How do you think we can help? 1) Establish what is and what is not a reliable source 2) Establish what qualifies as an acceptable summary of the content of said reliable sources 3) Educate both users (as they are both relatively new) to the proper channels for content disputes Opening comments by RachelleLinPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Talk:Alexander Mirtchev discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Bitcoin as an investment
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | I am closing this DR/N filing. I am unsure why this was allowed to go forward with only two involved participants when the DR overview states "Large numbers of people" are involved and the talkpage confirms this. Far too limited. Please consider starting an RFC but, if participants wish they may refile this DR/N requesting more of the editors involved at the talkpage to participate. I believe this is why the filing went stale.Amadscientist (talk) 07:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Large numbers of people want to improve the Bitcoin#As an investment section's current content, which is basically one-sided, poorly-sourced opine. There is great content available (such as a quote from the Bitcoin lead developer on how Bitcoin is a particularly high risk investment), but due to protected status people cannot contribute this. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I came to the discussion after I was asked to revert what I considered an uncontroversial edit to the page, and was amazed at the volume of discussion already present. Noting that the discussion was dying out, I tried to take a middle ground, and participate in the existing talk page discussion, even going so far as to praise the cautionary nature of SudoGhost's approach thus far, invite other participants back and propose an example rough draft of some fairer text. How do you think we can help? Remove the section (currently poorly sourced links to one-sided opine) and require a rewrite to be proposed incorporating suggestions from the community before its re-instatement. Review the edit protection status of Bitcoin, which is a fast-evolving area and one in which additional community involvement is sorely needed. Opening comments by SudoGhostThere are "large numbers of people", yes. They are Bitcoin enthusiasts that arrived as the result of off-wiki canvassing on multiple Bitcoin forums.[1][2] The information in the article is well-sourced, whitewashing the article will not improve the article. It is also not "poorly sourced" by any means, unless it is being suggested that Reuters, the most reliable news-style source I can think of, somehow is suddenly considered unreliable by some consensus I have been unable to find. I do not believe that Bitcoin enthusiasts not being being able to find any reliable sources supporting what they want the article to say warrants removing the section altogether; that violates WP:DUE. I am not opposed to finding reliable sources that expand or "give the other opinion", but removing well-sourced content from Bitcoin just because Bitcoin enthusiasts canvassed from Bitcoin forums don't want the article to mention anything they perceive as negative is not the answer. The content should be improved, not deleted, because all its saying is that Bitcoin has been accused of something; it places no judgement on whether it is true or not. Given the massive canvassing going on (not to mention the sockpuppetry/vandalism that caused not only the article, but even the article's talk page to be protected), I don't believe that removing the protection is beneficial to the article; if these canvassed editors cannot even discuss the subject without attacking others, I don't think opening up the article to that kind of behavior is going to improve the situation. - SudoKamma (SudoGhost's Away Account) 00:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Response by Pratyeka
prat (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Bitcoin as an investment discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
As an admin who has protected Bitcoin in the past, I was invited to comment here. I'll wait until the discussion is formally opened. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Hi, I'm Ebe123, an volunteer at DRN. I have restored the discussion above. I invite EdJohnston to make his statement, and Pratyeka to show what he/she wants the section to be like, so we could discuss that instead of making a resolution in the dark. Also, DRN is not to review any administrative action such as protections. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
(This will be my first DRN, so bear with me if I mess up, I'm only human) - Well, since this is stale I'll reopen it. I see that this is very hostile and I've seen this dispute show up in many places recently. I looked over the one sentence section that this dispute is all about, and it seems well sourced. If defensive statements from Bitcoin users were added it would seem a bit more suitable and less POV, though. Have any sources for defensive statements been suggested in the past? --Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, I've been watching this discussion for a while and would like to ask a few questions.
I'll keep my personal thoughts shrouded but would love to hear what the disputants think. Hasteur (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Talk:International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Appears to be resolved, feel free to ask for reopen or to relist (probably better) if not resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview The page International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012 has a very large number of [sic]'s after the word "American." There is a disagreement between other editors and a specific one as to whether this is a correct use of it. I am really trying to avoid an edit war on this and another topic (Shaman predictions, notability/should it be listed on a "reactions" page) within the same page but I'm at a loss given the continued undo edits etc. Any help will be appreciated. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussed both on talk page, WP:3O (for Shamans) and tried using Editor assistance (was told this was the proper forum here) How do you think we can help? By laying out the correct usage of the term "sic" within the article from an expert or admin etc, and giving further assistance with the notability of the Shaman prediction (or saying if it does/doesn't belong in a page on "reactions"). Opening comments by LihaasPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
There is absolutely no dispute here whatsoever as i have zero qualms about changing the content as mentioned pon the talk page. The only thing i asked was discussion first for consensus. As you see there has been no discussion but 1 view and immediately change it. Thats no discussion. Both sides have to give views and then rationally discuss it. If im against the majority then by all means go ahead and remove. Im just in my right per BRD, etc to call for discussion first instead of warring and removing it individually, no? Because 1 view wasnt accepted (see the proposers comment and when he removed i, note the time gap which doesnt constitute a discussion) = dispute resolution? This is frivolous cause i have no qualms if consensus through discussion is against me. DR means attempts have to be made. I try time and again to use the talk page to discuss first, and tme and again the preference is to chane the talk page to WP:WRONGVERSION instead of discussion. Note the template: "What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled."
Opening comments by FishalI weighed in on the Talk page to respond to the generous use of the editorial tag [sic] in quotations by various world leaders. They appeared after every single use of the word "American," and in a few other places where the writer disagreed with the way a quote used a term. The [sic] should be used to help the reader understand a potentially confusing quotation; in this article, the purpose seems to be to criticize the speaker, since there was no risk of confusion or ambiguity. Fishal (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Talk:International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012 discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Steven D._Binder
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Premature, discussion continuing at talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Steven D. Binder is a writer on the TV show NCIS. In creating his page, I deemed it relevant to mention the popularity of the show Binder works on (I linked and cited a Harris poll voting it the most popular show of all time). That certainly seemed a "resume" point for Binder worth mentioning on his page. As he has also written more episodes of the show than any other single (aka individual) writer, I also deemed that relevant - just as I think it would be relevant on a hockey player's page to mention, for example, that he scored the highest number of goals than anyone in his league. AussieLegend does not believe the popularity of the show Binder works on OR his contribution of the most scripts for an individual writer to be relevant. He also believes that simply mentioning such things is the same thing as claiming that Binder is specifically responsible for the show's success -- though nothing of the kind was asserted or written. He has also cited inaccurately as a reason for his reversions that Binder did NOT "write more episodes than any other single writer" by referencing the fact that NCIS writers George Schenck and Frank Cardea have written one more episode that Binder. However, it was pointed out to him Schenck and Cardea are a writing "team" --which is different than being an individual writer (and the claim about Binder was about INDIVIDUAL writers). Finally, AussieLegend refuses to accept virtually ANY source about Binder's writing credits unless they specifically say the ACTUAL NUMBER of episodes he's written -- and refuses to accept a source that has a listing of Binder's credits if it's not numbered. In other words, if I said "Binder wrote 25 scripts" and linked to an official source that listed them all but didn't say "Binder wrote 25 scripts" he says that doesn't count. It has to say it exactly, in his view. No counting allowed. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The talk page for Steven D. Binder is filled with a discussion. He would make a complaint about a source, I would find a better one, and he would just revert my post. He would make a complaint about the wording...I would tweak...and he would revert. His position now is "I've reverted to the pre-disputed edits version of the article, and the section should not be edited until this discussion is complete" -- except he didn't revert to pre-disputed edits. He reverted to his edits, post-dispute. How do you think we can help? Right now, he is accusing me of edit warring when he, himself, is doing it. He is far more experienced that I am in Wikipedia, but I think he is coming at this from a biased position against newbies . The things he has cited as Wikipedia do not support his position; and several of his "facts" are simply not true. Plus, he's complaining about things I wrote...that I didn't actually write. I would like a 3rd party to come in, read the talk page, an lend their opinion. Mine means little to him Opening comments by AussieLegendPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
The discussion at Talk:Steven D. Binder#Relevancies only started a little over 26 hours ago.[3] Swiftcasting made a post there at 02:08 UTC, which he subsequently amended until 02:41.[4] Eighteen minutes later I responded, explaining that I was busy and would attempt to respond more fully in the next few hours.[5] Without giving me the courtesy of waiting for that response (he waited only 39 minutes), he posted a response,[6] and then apparently came directly here.[7] There's quite a bit at Talk:Steven D. Binder#Relevancies that I still haven't time to respond to, and I'm hoping (perhaps too optimistically) to resolve the issues there first. Swiftcasting acknowledges he is a newbie, and obviously does not yet understand Wikipedia policies. Hopefully this will change and DRN will not be needed, so I don't intend participating at this time; I have an 1,800 word post to respond to. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Talk:Steven D._Binder discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
"Breast Cancer Awareness" article and talk page
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.| | (Bear with me here) It looks as if there is no resolution on this. It is the opinion of this volunteer that the next logical course is a neutrally worded RFC on the article talkpage. This should be done for the current dispute as well as the citation formatting (which should also be given notification to all editors who have questioned/participated in discussion on the formatting over the past year as seen in the history, to involve all who brought up the citation format) There seems to be some amount of ownership to this article (an opinion that may not be shared by all) but I am concerned with the number of editors that came and went after discussion. Could to be an editor retention problem. Though, again, this may not be the opinion of others.Amadscientist (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview In short, the dispute is over 2 paragraphs that mention an "inner circle" of breast cancer awareness supporters. The article portrays awareness is an extremely negative light, making supporters seem like they are working secretly with pharmaceutical companies and have cunning agendas to actually cause more breast cancer so it will not "deplete their future supply of volunteers" (however, I am not disputing these since they are sourced and thus technically valid). All that I am disputing is "inner circle", which asserts that through "extended suffering of chemotherapy and radiation", women are "initiate[d] into the inner circle of the breast cancer awareness culture." This is presented as fact, violating WP:NPOV in my opinion. However, it is followed with a quote of the material that actually shows that it is in fact a metaphor. But if the quote were to be removed, the material would nonetheless violate NPOV. Of course, I believe the material should be removed due to it violating WP:UNDUE. It is a long (full paragraph) quote elaborating on a bizarre metaphor comparing women with breast cancer to initiates in a tribe going through circumcision rituals.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? These issues have been discussed extensively on the "Breast cancer awareness" talk page. There are entire sections about each. See sections "Inner circle", ""might contribute to" "cause" etc.", and "Shopping for the Cure". How do you think we can help? We can help resolve this dispute by coming to a consensus about the material. On the talk pages, we have so far failed, and it only seems to be growing further and further away from a consensus. I'm hoping that new opinions might be able to lead us on a better track. Objections to materialAlcohol
Inner circleThe second issue, "inner circle", involves WP:DUE, WP:TONE, and WP:NPOV. The objection is that the metaphor does not deserve 2 full paragraphs, 1 of which is a quote, especially because of its strong bias. The material speaks of an "inner circle" of the BCA culture. It at one point mentioned Elizabeth Edwards, but that contentious material about a living person was removed. The objection says that "inner circle" is all but conspiratorial and demonizes innocent victims of a tragic disease. I have argued that the claim undermines the integrity and reliability of wikipedia and taints the article with extremely radical and immature views. The paragraphs: Breast cancer culture values and honors suffering, selecting its she-roes by a "misery quotient". Women whose treatment requires less suffering feel excluded and devalued. The suffering, particularly the extended suffering of months of chemotherapy and radiation treatment, forms a type of ordeal or rite of passage that initiates women into the inner circle of the breast cancer culture. Barbara Ehrenreich says: Understood as a rite of passage, breast cancer resembles the initiation rites so exhaustively studied by Mircea Eliade: First there is the selection of the initiates -- by age in the tribal situation, by mammogram or palpation here. Then come the requisite ordeals -- scarification or circumcision within traditional cultures, surgery and chemotherapy for the cancer patient. Finally, the initiate emerges into a new and higher status -- an adult and a warrior -- or in the case of breast cancer, a "survivor." (Ehrenreich 2001) Charles35 (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Further explanation of issue: The article takes a critical (both in terms of criticism and critical theory) sociological approach to breast cancer awareness, which I consider undue weight because it takes up the majority of the article. The form of this is for the most part a metanarrative, or "grand storyline" if you are familiar with sociology terms. A "grand storyline" is a feature of sociological theories first seen in Marxism. It is criticized for being a rash generalization, unsupported by empirical evidence, and essentially fictional. This is condemned by contemporary sociologists such as Goffman and Michel Foucault for being archaic and overly simplistic. The inner circle is the best example of a fictional grand storyline in the entire article. This is because it is simply a metaphor. As you can see from the quote, breast cancer awareness (BCA) culture is being likened to primitive (for lack of a better word) human tribes. Chemotherapy and surgery are compared to scarification and circumcision rituals. It considers innocent victims of a, let's not forget, fatal and tragic disease to "initiates" this tribe to be "initiated" into the "inner circle" of BCA. Bizarre, right? And is 2 full paragraphs (one of which is exclusively a quotation) due weight? In my opinion, no. I also object to the term aside from the context of the quote (since, I assume the quote will likely be removed, leaving just the material). The term is conspiratorial and undermines the integrity and reliability (in a non-wikipedia sense of the term) of this article. It is extremely ridiculous, bogus, bizarre, etc. There is no "inner circle" of cunning conniving evil victims of breast cancer. The rest of the article implies that the awareness organizations work with pharmaceutical companies to cause breast cancer to be more prevalent in order to make money. "Inner circle" is the icing on the cake, so to speak. Examples of text that support this implied yet never explicitly stated include:
Charles35 (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Resolution?Okay so since no one has anything to say, I guess we should go ahead with deleting inner circle as undue weight and changing alcohol to linked to???? Charles35 (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by WLUThough there are certainly issues on the BCA page, the two cited here seem like they would far better be dealt with through a request for comment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm stil of the opinion that the page is best dealt with via a RFC or series of them, but I have no issue if the DRN volunteers are willing to provide a comparable service. I don't think any wikipedia page has ever been served by deciding in a final POV and working towards it, in my experience the neutrality of a page is best addressed by finding and integrating reliable sources rather than editors deciding on what a "neutral" version is and discarding sources on that basis. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Part of the issues we have been having is that you do not appear to understand some of the policies and guidelines - for instance, claiming a reliable source should be discounted because the "grand narratives" of sociology are now deprecated is pretty much wrong. Editors are taking great pains to explain these things, politely and with reference to policies, because you are making statements and errors that give every impression of you not understanding certain key issues. I don't know what policies you understand versus those you do not, and some of the lengthy discussions on the BCA talk page have involved common misunderstandings of core content policies.
If you agree to be bound by the outcome of any RFCs undertaken, then I will start suggesting issues we could resolve via this means. An RFC is generally a much narrower focus on factual (and sometimes stylistic) matters than a DRN discussion, and tends to be quicker. One way of ensuring I don't bring up the RFC issue again is by saying either "yes, let's use the RFC process" or "I would prefer that specific issue be addressed here" then consolidating discussion of said issues in a single location. Spreading it across two pages is confusing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think he is speaking in terms of your conduct or behavior. Simply of the issues you have brought up in the dispute. You have done the same. Lets stop making posts on the other openings. The discussion is disjointed enough.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Charles, you keep going on about "grand narratives" and modern methods of sociology. But you've not actually read Sulik, so you don't know that she's actually employing any "grand narratives" or outdated methods. Furthermore, and more relevantly for Wikipedia, you haven't produced a single source that criticizes her methods. I've pointed you at a very long list of reviews for her book, which range from newspapers to organization websites to peer-reviewed journal articles. All of the reviews that I've looked at (which is not all of them) seem to be positive about her results and her methods. If we stack all of that up against "one Wikipedia editor, who hasn't even read the book, has decided that Sulik did bad work", I'm personally inclined to stick with the results of the published, reliable sources rather than the Wikipedian. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by WhatamIdoingPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by GabrielFFirst, I would like to state up front that I will have limited time to participate in this process over the next two weeks. I apologize for that. I first became aware of this article via a request for help from Charles35 in the #wikipedia-en-help channel on IRC. I disagree very strongly with Whatamidoing that "There are multiple experienced editors working on that article, and none of them agree with Charles35's POV." I consider myself a very experienced editor (10,000+ edits, active since 12/2004) and I do think that there are some very serious structural issues with this article. I'm assuming that WAID is referring to Charles' POV about the article rather than about the topic, but I should point out that I find myself quite sympathetic to what critics such as Barbara Ehrenreich are saying. Yet, I still feel that the article in its current form is not neutral. Several editors have said that the tone and emphasis of the article accurately represents the state of the discourse about this topic in reliable third-party sources. I don't feel that this is accurate - I agree that a number of commentators and social science researchers have taken a strident tone, but my impressions from looking through the sources are that (1) some of these books (Kulik for instance) are not as negative as they are portrayed to be; (2) there are other perspectives from other fields that are not so negative (for instance perspectives from advertising and marketing professionals, from non-profit people and from public policy researchers) and (3) when this topic is portrayed in, say, the New York Times, there tends to be more balance than this article suggests. I've added in some additional information from the other side of this issue - for instance statements from the Komen foundation - but I do think that this article does need to be examined very carefully. I've outlined some significant issues that I see here: Wikipedia:NPOVN#neutrality of Breast cancer awareness (note this was written on 11/30 so some things may have changed). I do believe some progress has been made with this article and I look forward to more productive work. GabrielF (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by BiosthmorsPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by QuiddityThe overall dispute seems to be, that Charles35 objects to the quantity/balance of criticism in the entire article (He recently said it was "extremely unbalanced"). He believes the article should have less detailed information on specific aspects (which he has repeatedly described as "radical" and "conspiratorial"), and more details on the accomplishments/benefits of the BCA movement (which no-one objects to, but no-one has done the work of researching/writing about). Here's a specific example where he describes the problem as he sees it. I believe he started off wanting to delete the entire article and start over (in late October), and has since then adjusted his perspective significantly. However he still believes that some of the ideas summarized in the article are utterly inappropriate, and should be removed completely. That is what DRN might be able to help with (by either substantiating his perspective, or by explaining to him what aspects he might need to reconsider). Hope that helps, I can provide more diffs or thoughts if requested. –Quiddity (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
"Breast Cancer Awareness" article and talk page discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hi, I'm Ebe123, an volunteer at DRN. Please trim the opening statement to 2000 characters. I am not opening discussion right now. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Lets go ahead and begin the discussion. Charles, if you could, I wonder if a brief description of what you feel is needed to the article would be a good beginning. Is there any sort of compromise to the content you feel would be acceptable by the involved parties?
WLU made a revision that identified the idea as a metaphor in the text. I don't see that as making any difference because the quote identifies it as a metaphor anyway. Then I edited it more, removing the quote, keeping WLU's identification of the metaphor, and removing inner circle. To me, that makes the material acceptable. WLU reverted my edit, but didn't give any reason in the edit summary. WLU - can you let me know the reason now? What exactly did you not like about my edit / those 3 conditions? Charles35 (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe the following paragraph is particularly demonstrative of the neutrality problems with this article:
Here are some issues:
WLU, please do not jump to random conclusions. I said that "inner circle" was not in the text, which is true. I said nothing about "rite of passage". Of course, please correct me if I'm wrong. But half the things you say about me are false. So please, everyone, take his words about me with a grain of salt, because I don't have time to dispute all of them. Charles35 (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC) WhatamIdoing, when I googled "initiated into the inner circle", most of the hits were talking about Freemason conspiracies. Charles35 (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC) WhatamIdoing, the fact that this is, as you say, "1/200th" of the article is irrelevant. This is the exact reason why I, at the beginning of this, quoted a bunch of other passages from the article to give the context for this quote. Every sentence is 1/200th, or however small, of the article. Does that mean that we can't consider any single sentence undue weight? How does this thinking apply to the pro-Komen sentence that GabrielF added? [11]. Each sentence must be taken within the context of the larger article. Charles35 (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
On Gabriel's questions above:
Comments on quoteThe quote found in the culture section is a source of disagreement. The quote is:
A DRN volunteer indicated that this was an appropriate place to resolve issues like this, as an alternative form of WP:RFC. Discussions on the BCA talk page have indicated that a formal external opinion would probably resolve this issue. Accordingly, should the breast cancer awareness page include the above quotation?
I believe the quote briefly and evocatively describes a facet of the culture surrounding breast cancer awareness and treatment, the fact that the social capital of a breast cancer survivor is enhanced by the degree to which their cancer and treatment was painful and grueling. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Focus on Content & VolunteersNOTE: Does anyone know if we could / how to collapse some or all of the above text to make the page easier to navigate? Okay, so to me it seems like, while we might not line up on each and every point, WLU and WhatamIdoing (and Quiddity, I think) tend to believe the article is fine and there is no WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV problem, while Amadscientist, GabrielF, and I tend to believe that the article does have these problems. So, since it looks like WLU's, WhatamIdoing's, Quiddity's, and my opinions never seem to waver (Gabriel seems to be the exception), there's little point for more banter. I think we should do what we came here to do. There's a reason we left the talk page to come here, which is to get, and listen to, the opinions of the uninvolved DRN volunteers. Otherwise, we may as well still be back at the talk page. So, Amadscientist has expressed his thoughts:
So, as a little refresher, the main issue is "inner circle", which has 2 parts - the quote, and the text. IMO (the original point of this dispute), the quote violates WP:WEIGHT, and the text violates WP:NPOV. I don't see many other options besides some sort of formal "binding" type of debate or a "ruling". What do you guys think? Do you usually do that at DRN? However, other parts of the article have been noticeably discussed, mainly by GabrielF and Amadscientist. This is generally the shero section (presenting things as facts) and other things like the citation method. Do you guys see any resolution with these issues in mind? Again, I think we should hear what Amadscientist has to say. He was uninvolved and is therefore less biased than any one of us. Anyway, here are some recent points:
Does anyone want to take a vote to settle this citation style thing once and for all? It looks like something we can come to a reasonable clear cut yes/no agreement over. Charles35 (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Juan Manuel de Rosas
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | No extensive discussion. Editors are advised to continue to find common ground on the article talkpage. If, after such a discussion, there is still a dispute, attempt Wikipedia:Third opinion. If this fails then please feel free to re-file. Amadscientist (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview A user called Cambalachero has removed any mention that Juan Manuel de Rosas was a ruthless dictator of Argentina in the 19th century. Not only that, but the article about Rosas as written by Cambalachero does not mention any of the atrocities which occurred under the dictator. Although not the scope of this request, I also wanted to warn that Cambalachero has been whitewashing several other key aspects of Argentine history for the last couple of years. One good example is Juan Perón, also a dictator of Argentina who was antisemitic and had close ties with the Nazi. There is no mention in Perón's article that he was a dictator. None at all. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I opened threads in Juan Manuel de Rosas' talk page that were ignored. I also opened a thread in the Military Wikiproject's talk page that went nowehere because the other editors (who have little understanding of Argentine history) believe that the problem is merely two editors with different points of views. How do you think we can help? First of all, there is no need to speak Spanish. No one who is willing to help resolve this dispute will have to read books in Spanish. Everything can be found in reliable sources in English (and which are also online, such as in Google books). Thus, I wanted to see neutral editors who are willing at least to actually read a little bit about the subject under discussion before making up their minds and share their thoughts about it. Opening comments by CambalacheroPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Some points: Lecen requested article ownership here. He voiced his personal political preferences here. He borders into wikihounding here, discussing with a reviewer that approved GA that I nominated (not relation with any of this, and beyond his area of interests). The article of Rosas does mention that some people see him as a dictator; it simply does not do so in wikipedia's voice (as in "Rosas was a dictator"), because that is not an universally held opinion. I left full details of Lecen's recent behavior at User:Cambalachero/Lecen Cambalachero (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Juan Manuel de Rosas discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
User:Cambalachero, previously known as MBelgrano, has previously edited to play down the role of caudillo in Argentina's history. A literal translation of Caudillo is dictator or more politely strong leader. I have experience of the latter at Manuel Belgrano. I do not consider this is necessarily a deliberate desire to misrepresent history. Sadly there is a revisionist trend in recorded history in Argentina that has a tendency to present a somewhat sanitised view of the past; and to creatively interpret events to reflect modern political realities. Rather than sanitising the article he simply reflects what is taught in Argentina. My suggestion is that given the role of several leaders in Argentine history is open to a range of opinions you should be guided by how they are viewed in a range of neutral 3rd party academic sources. The article should present a range of opinion, attributed to individual historians to reflect the range of views. Both of you present equally valid views, what I suggest you haven't realised is the need to present both. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
|
PRSA
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | As the filing editor admits, "The issues have not been discussed at length". So please do. If you cannot find common ground it is suggested that parties seek Wikipedia:Third opinion for disputes between to parties before returning to DR/N. Amadscientist (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview At present the disputes are regarding the balance of the Controversy section and whether a university website operated by a college professor is an adequate source for PRSA's two publications having been started in 1994. The issues have not been discussed at length, but due to prior disputes with the other user[12] the closing admin suggested I use DRN early next time we have a dispute. We have a rather unpleasant history so maybe this will head things off. Have you tried to resolve this previously? For this dispute in particular we have just had some mild edit-warring and Talk page discussion. I have previously requested an IBAN about 3 or 4 times and we have been on all the drama boards regarding a good half-dozen articles. How do you think we can help? Not sure how the process works, but I'm open to a second opinion. The university website is an iffy source (I explained why I think this is an expert self-published source), but if we decide it doesn't pass, I would rather fix the problem than just marking it up. The controversy edits I think are counter to consensus. The section has been discussed at length and it was substantially paraphrased based on the comments of a lot of editors. Cant is re-incorporating content removed based on discussio Opening comments by Cantaloupe2I viewed the references cited for O'Dwyer and inserted what was in reference, but omitted in prose. CorporateM didn't advise that it had been extensively discussed in edit comment. If that was the case, then let consensus be. The CSU reference was simply a class website intended for that section which is subject to change as its the instructor's personal workspace for his class. I didn't look into it as deep as CorporateM did on subject but didn't seem like appropriate WP:RS.
PRSA discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Mobile operating system
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | This has devolved into nothing more than a conduct dispute. If the content dispute continues, then this can be refiled but it will be quickly closed again if conduct issues are again raised here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview User Smartmo (talk • contribs) (removed, either sock or other party. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)) keeps posting failed predictions of International Data Corporation on Mobile operating system. He also deletes other analysts predictions that he does not like. He did edit-warring for a while before he got blocked, but continues again. Have you tried to resolve this previously? An incident was filled: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#User:Smartmo_keeps_putting_WP:CRYSTALBALL_failed_predictions_on_Mobile_operating_system that blocked Smartmo (talk • contribs) for some days but he is back using an IP address. I also tried to request page protection: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive but I was suggested to continue to discuss. How do you think we can help? By trying again to make him understand that Wikipedia needs to have a neutral point of view. That he cannot use Wikipedia for his own interests. And it that fails block his account again and protect Mobile operating system. Opening comments by SmartmoIt is not true, I'm kept the most up to date research from IDC (this research is not failed, no one can say if is failed, because it is in future, year 2012 still not ended), and I'm NOT removed other researches, I only removed RUMORS (e.g. untruth that "IDC had to dial back their predictions", but is not true, or personal opinion of Jim McGregor, or unclear and unsourced information of Bernstein research, ... all sources and reasons are discussed on talk page) repeatedly inserted by Davidkmartin (talk · contribs). Also I'm not back using an IP address, I using my login, and I'm never modified this page after this incident. Meanwhile, user Davidkmartin (talk · contribs) repeatedly reverted back my contributions and contributions of another users, and repeatedly inserted non-credible rumors to this page (see above), inserted outdated information (old IDC information), and repeatedly DELETED up-to-date and credible information (most up-to-date IDC research form Dec 2012) from page (e.g. at 08:53, 7 Dec, 17:49, 7 Dec, 08:49, 8 Dec and 14:38, 8 Dec), without any discussion on talk page. I'm periodicaly contributed to wikipedia long ago on many pages (unlike Davidkmartin (talk · contribs)), but I'm stopped donating and contributing to Wikipedia, because there not a neutral point of view, I don't want continue with discussion about it.--Smartmo (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Talk:Mobile operating system discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. It does appear at this point that one of the primary disputants has chosen to leave Wikipedia. Unless there is some indication that they wish to continue this discussion within 24 hours after the time stamp on this post, then any volunteer may close this thread as stale or dispute abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
@Both: Please remember that this forum is only for content disputes. Please only discuss content, not conduct. If you wish to make a complaint about an editor's conduct, please use WP:AN or WP:RFC/U but do not raise it or discuss it here. @Smartmo: I'd encourage you to stick around, but if you are not going to continue to contribute to Wikipedia then this listing should be closed. Please clearly indicate your intentions. Saying that you're no longer going to contribute, but then continuing to post here is confusing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Talk:Friedrich Eckenfelder
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Not a content dispute, directed to WP:RfC/U. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 14:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by ChrisGualtieri on 05:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Tomcat7's continued removal of tags on the article after acknowledging their validity. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tomcat7 put Friedrich Eckenfelder up for GAN, I reviewed it, found numerous problems and decided to fail the article for numerous reasons. Tomcat7 made personal attacks, I addressed the matter at WT:GAN. Both the original creator and Tomcat7 acknowledged there were no other sources for the article to be found. I placed the appropriate tags, the editor insist on removing them without fixing the underlying problems. Tomcat7 will not address concerns according to policy or other users. How do you think we can help? Hopefully make Tomcat7 reexamine his behavior and address content matters, the editor will not listen to me or other users who have commented thus far. Opening comments by Tomcat7Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
This request is clearly inappropiate. Chris wants to punish me by doing something like that. I don't want to waste my time stating the same thing all the time. Chris is always welcome to propose more sources (he just added one poor source, which has insufficient information), but filling a request to this board and adding a miserable tag on my talk page is ridiculuous. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Talk:Friedrich Eckenfelder discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I am of the opinion that this dispute should be declined/closed, primarily because it is more of a conduct dispute than a content dispute (though it certainly has content aspects as well) but also partly because it is a matter which should be worked out at a different venue, namely WP:GAN where there is ongoing discussion in this thread. I'm not closing it myself because I'd like at least one other volunteer here at DRN to also consider the matter. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Juan Manuel de Rosas
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | This is still premature. Discussion is ongoing on the talk page, and has hardly begun. Dispute resolution cannot be used as a substitute for being willing to engage in thorough back-and-forth talk page discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The lack of neutrality in the article about Rosas. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The discussion in the talk page won't go anywhere. I opened a thread at the Dispute resolution noticeboard and I also requested a third opinion but no one appeared. How do you think we can help? Opening comments byPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Juan Manuel de Rosas discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Hebron School, Ooty
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.| | This case was not complicated. Content that cannot be shown to be verifiable can and will be deleted. Sources being used were not appropriate to cite BLP information on individual alumni, but may be used for current staffing and directory type information not usual for an alumni article. Editor has been warned about a number of violations, including innappropriate canvassing, possible disruptive COI editing and making "percieved legal threats". It is suggested that both editors attempt to work together if possible but further disruption may be reported to admin. Amadscientist (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview User:Alan.Gilfroy, who is evidently a newbie started editing Hebron School, Ooty recently. The editor, who is evidently a student of the school seems very defensive and reverts everything that changes the article from their "preferred" version. I accept my failings in trying to engage this editor as I think I was a bit bitey in the beginning. I believe the editor sees me as "anti-hebron school" but I also have a feeling that the user also realizes that there are no other editors watching the page other than the both of us. Every effort to either engage this editor or trying to improve the article has been met with blanket reversions in the article to their preferred version. To be frank, I have not been very active recently and I went out of my way to spend time to gather sources, type them out, and edit them into the article. But one of the reasons they gave for their latest reversion of my edits (as can be seen from the article talk), is that my grammar is poor and that it "degrades" the article. I have no more patience with respect to this editor. I therefore request any other patient and willing editor to engage this good faith editor and help improve this article. I would also be willing to learn about my shortcomings in this regard. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried engaging the user at User talk:Alan.Gilfroy. How do you think we can help? I think this user is disappointed with me and anyone patient enough to engage this newbie editor and is willing to go through the article history and our contribs (pardon the lack of links as I am editing from a mobile) might help resolve this dispute. Opening comments by Alan.GilfroyPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Hebron School, Ooty discussionHello, I am Amadscientist, a volunteer here on the Dispute resolution Noticeboard. There appears to be "extensive discussion" when you see both the article talkpage and the editor talkpage discussion combined so I am opening the case. Stay civil. No personal attacks and please stay within policy with your arguments. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC) I am posting this comment which will open this case, by stating that you are both edit warring but Alan.Gilfroy has not met the burden of evidence by adding content without a source. If an editor wishes to remove unsourced material, they may remove it. This brought to your attention that your claims were not sourced and claiming that the information is "verifiable" is not enough. It must be unquestionable fact to claim it need not be sourced. Since you do not wish to source this material...please explain (in the discussion section below) why you feel it should be included without sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Alan.Gilfroy (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break-1I would also like to bring to the attention of the volunteers here this edit by Alan to the user page of a former editor of the article, where they admit the association they have with the subject of the article (and also indirectly call me a vandal, showing the level of good faith they have assumed from me). Suraj T
Arbitrary section break-2My objections to the views of Alan: 1. The user assumes that as long as the content is not malicious, it can remain in the article unsourced until such a time an editor decides to cite the content. The user has had ample time to find sources. Also article space is not a repository for information. Whatever part of the article they feel can be cited at a future date, can be copied to their user subpage and can readd it to the article when they find a source. Suraj T
Arbitrary section break-32. As can be seen from the article talk, the user wants the information (especially in sections Activities and Administration) to be bulleted and have many one lined subsections instead of one paragraph. I accept it is a minor issue, but the way the user reverted all my edits explaining they didnt like information in paragraphs made me lose my cool. Suraj T
Arbitrary section break-43. In the last version I edited, I found and added primary sources for all of the paragraphs (except the Administration section, for which I requested for sources from the user here and had no reply since). The user blanket reverted all my improvements and gave a nice explanation here citing my "poor English Grammar". The result was that most of the paragraphs went back to being unreferenced. Suraj T
Arbitrary section break-54. Instead of blanket reverting all my edits, it would have been much easier for the editor to have corrected the capitalization errors etc. they mentioned in their opening statement. I normally check and correct errors before submitting my edit. This case of errors was because I was editing from my mobile with a small edit window. In response to the user's statement: "The user seems to be taking it personally that I have high grammatical and informational standards for the article, as is expected for Wikipedia editors. This is also reflected by his constant use of the derogatory term, "newbie", in order to unnecessarily assert his false sense of superiority and belittle other newer, but equally (if not more) competent editors", I have clearly communicated to the editor that belittling them is not my intention. Also there is nothing derogatory with the term newbie AFAIK. It is just a short version of new editor. Also please dont assume I have taken personally your self claimed high grammatical and informational standards. I personally don't care if an editor has a doctorate in English literature or has no English knowledge as long as the article is completely sourced and formatted. Such comments do nothing to promote a cool atmosphere here. Also I object to the following: 1. Questioning the competency of editors based on language skills. English is just that: a language and has no links to competency. 2. Calling editors one disagrees with as vandals, especially editors who have a fair bit of contribution. 3. Calling my edits as "mindless deletions" (diff1, diff2). Alan, also please answer Amadscientist's question above on why you feel it should be included without sources. P.S. On a more lighter note, I am very much interested to know the instance where Alan claims to have complimented me. Maybe they refer to this: Thank you for splitting the History section into two; that was a good, positive contribution. Such contributions, I am sure, are welcomed by all. I hope that you will undertake similar, helpful editing in future. (That split was later reverted by Alan). And I doubt it is a compliment. Cheers. Suraj T 07:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break-6OK, I will wait for 24 hours for a reply from Alan.Gilfroy as to why he believes the content should remain unsourced. If there is no further reply I will be closing this filing as resolved with the opinion that Alan make no further reverts based on removal of unsourced content unless within guidelines. They must meet WP:BURDEN when adding or returning information to the article as they have been challenged and have not responded with any policy or guideline that is accurate. Should they offer an explanation that satisfies policy, the discussion may continue. If they cannot offer an explanation that satisfies our policies the same will apply. It is also the opinion of this editor that asume that the new edtior is not familiar with our policices and not seek sanctions but simply a warning that canvassing other editors in such a non=nuetral manner will get them blocked the next time.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Gun Safety
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | No extensive discussion(one massive post by filing editor is more than half of the thread). Amadscientist (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Please review the section entitled "Scope of Gun Safety" on the Talk page of this article. I inserted a sentence at the beginning of the article to acknowledge the current broader usage of the phrase "gun safety". This sentence was followed by a suggestion to refer to the Gun Politics article for a discussion of issues related to this broader usage of "gun safety". I have placed on the Talk page for the article a discussion of the reasons why it is essential to include these additional sentences to assure that the article is neutral and consistent with current usage. I have also included on the Talk page another 10 references documenting current usage of a broader definition of "gun safety". The editors have yet to respond to my concerns about the neutrality of the article. I have no intention of politicizing this article. I would point out, however, that some proponents of gun safety have suggested that restricted discussion of "gun safety" has been used to promote gun ownership (see “Joe Camel with Feathers -- How the NRA with Gun and Tobacco Industry Dollars Uses its Eddie Eagle Program to Market Guns to Kids. Section Three: "The Safest Thing is to Not Keep a Gun at Home"” by the Viloence Policy Center, undated. http://www.vpc.org/studies/eddie3.htm). Due to such perceptions, it is essential that any article on this topic be viewed as neutral.
Please refer to the Talk page of the article. In addition, I have exchanged emails and Talk page discussions with Mark Shaw. I am asking for assistance to place a notice on the article itself that the article has been nominated for review of neutrality. How do you think we can help? Some additional neutral language needs to be added following the restricted definition of gun safety. I have proposed the following: The phrase "gun safety" is now frequently used to refer to measures that go beyond the prevention of unintentional injury. This includes efforts to reduce gun ownership by persons not prepared to assure safe use of guns and policies aimed to reduce firearms homicides and suicides. Please refer to the wikipedia article on Gun Politics.
Opening comments by Mark ShawIt is my opinion that the material added by Bob Pond is orthogonal to the article's subject and not appropriate there. I concur with the others who have expressed similar opinions on the article's talk page. I do wish this new editor well in his future Wikipedia experience, however. Mark Shaw (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by HohumI am amazed that this has gone from a small number of courteous comments on the article talk page to dispute resolution within a matter of hours. Perhaps the filing party could try building consensus instead of immediately attempting administrative action. (Hohum @) 23:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by DmolPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Gun Safety discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Jordan Belfort page
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | No talk page discussion. All dispute resolution processes require talk page discussion first. Apply to ANI for help if the other editor continues to edit after you've made a reasonable request for discussion on the article talk page and on the user's talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 01:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Going back to 2009, a series of accounts have attempted to downplay or remove references to criminal activity on the Jordan Belfort page. None of these accounts - particularly Reaction93 and Copycat2012, have made edits to any other page. The issue was mediated by editor Daniel J Leivick in 2009 and appeared resolved, but in November user Copycat2012 (a new account) started up again. Copycat2012 seems unwilling to engage in discussion either on the talk tage or their own talk page, and this looks to be headed for a revert war. I have posted on Leivick's talk page several times but so far no input from him. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Opening discussion on article talk page, user's talk page, explaining edits in history notes. How do you think we can help? Make an assessment as to whether a person convicted of stock-market manipulation and fraud is worthy of being described as a white-collar criminal. Copycat2012 appears determined that he should be described as either a "former criminal" or to remove the word "criminal" altogether. Opening comments by Copycat2012Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Jordan Belfort page discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|