Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 134
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Talk:Institutional racism#Removed_Section_.22In_America.27s_Original_Sin.22
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | General close without prejudice. Filing party has not provided notice of filing to the other editors three days after being reminded of the need to provide notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Editor removes content without making any attempt to advance the passage or improve the cite, despite having access to better sources. Have you tried to resolve this previously? edited content to better present veiw How do you think we can help? Edit warring is frowned on, this is what the editor is doing... Summary of dispute by Malik_ShabazzPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by anon phone userPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 69.126.163.14Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Institutional racism#Removed_Section_.22In_America.27s_Original_Sin.22 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Failed. See volunteer's comments in the collapsed section, below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 05:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I inserted a generic image of the murder weapon type in what I think is the appropriate section of the article. It was reverted. I objected, and began to logically refute each of the reasons presented, so far, for non-inclusion of the image. I tied my logic to the guidelines at each turn. In my opinion, the counter parties have insisted on their positions, but haven't backed them up with well reasoned arguments. Have you tried to resolve this previously? None How do you think we can help? Evaluate the various arguments for their soundness, and then act according to your experience and best judgment. I'm aware that you can't render a final 'verdict.' Masem's user page indicates he's an administrator. If he's advocating for censorship, as I assert, he needs to hear the Riot Act on that. And for heaven's sake, expand the "Users involved" type in box. If someone stops in the middle of the task, for whatever reason, it's necessary to start over again. Summary of dispute by Ianmacm
Summary of dispute by Masem
Summary of dispute by ShearoninkPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I am not sure what encyclopedic purpose the photo of the murder weapon serves. The image is a photograph of a generic gun/assault weapon/etc of the type used in this killing spree/mass murder/shooting (not images of the actual weapon/s). Does the image add information to the article? Yes, but the real crux for me is the information needed? Throughout Wikipedia, editorial discretion and editorial consensus are called for regarding this online encyclopedia we are all creating. I think my issue with using this images and others like it in articles about recent mass murders/killing sprees is the difference between history & news - readers will have a different reaction to the derringer John Wilkes Booth used to kill Abraham Lincoln than they will to an image representing the weapon used to kill schoolchildren within our memory. When people go to read the Sandy Hook article, they want information about what happened there, who the heroes were, what the response was like, what weapons were used, what the immediate aftermath was and what the continuing cultural and political fallout are. They are not coming to this article for all the information that is available on the Internet about Sandy Hook - the theories, the details, the killer's surviving family-members, the relatives of the victims...in my opinion the Wikilinkage to the articles about the guns is sufficient. Readers who want to then delve further into the weaponry can do so. Shearonink (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting discussion
I'm the volunteer for this case, and I am now opening it. Shearonink, could you summarize the dispute in the space above? Ianmacm, it would be helpful if you summarized the dispute here to make sure everyone understands what the disagreement is, unless you agree with Masem's summary. KSFTC 20:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC) @Tapered:, can you respond here to the above reasoning by Shearonink, Masem, and Ianmacm? KSFTC 13:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC) The Lanza family's rifle, a Bushmaster, was a vital component of the murders. As per the MOS, it's “directly relevant” to the subject. As such its image deserves inclusion. @Ianmacm “Standard practice” needs to agree with Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia encourages “directly relevant” images. If it's directly relevant and and doesn't violate other guidelines, it ought not to be excluded. This particular standard practice doesn't agree with the guidelines. Re the objections to verisimilitude, the MOS:IMAGES states, “Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic.” So, the concensus @ Talk:2013 Santa Monica shooting, or any similar concensus, contravenes Wikipedia's guidelines. @Masem The guidelines' example for gratuitous is the use of a pornographic image as an anatomical illustration. On the face of it, the photo used doesn't meet that test. In addition, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of firearms photos @ Wikipedia. Short of physically superimposing one on a scene of carnage, no firearms photo can be considered inherently gratuitous. Wikpedia describes censorship thusly: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. “...as I can see some objecting to the weapon images as off-putting given the nature of the incident (eg glorifying the weapons used); the article works without seeing any images of the weapons, free or not,” at least condones catering to certain readers' “social...norms,” which meets the definition of censorship. As such it has no validity. Editing to avoid inflaming an already disturbed individual who might glorify a weapon because it was used for indiscriminate slaughter is equally invalid, (though adding an image to deliberately inflame disturbed minds would be grounds for banishment). I'm going to defer a response on the personal issues, for now. @Shearonink The essential undergirding of the argument here is, 'Some images may be unnecessary, here's why this one is unnecessary.' If an image is “directly relevant” to an article, the 'bar' for unnecessary is very high, requiring very strong reasons. These aren't. The argument rambles, but at its core is the comparison between the Lincoln Assassination and Sandy Hook, and the fact that readers may have a less pleasant, more intense emotional reaction to a picture of a readily available weapon used in recent history, than to an antique museum piece used in a historical murder 150 years ago. Editing to spare readers emotions (tied to social norms) at the expense of relevant information/images, unless the images are gratuitous, meets the above definition of censorship. The argument fails. Tapered (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I was asked to come to this page and give a summary of the dispute as I saw it. I did so above - I said what I meant and I meant what I said. I think a discussion of the issues on including or not including images of this gun is valuable. I think editorial consensus is valuable. I think working together to come to an agreement between all the interested parties is valuable. I really don't give a flying crap if my summary is perfect or if it is not, these were my thoughts, I took the time and the effort to set something down on the subject. My thoughts on the subject have worth, regardless of whether or not I perfectly cite relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. All we are attempting to do here is trying to decide if some information should be included or not, that's a decision we all make every time we take up our keyboards and write - what words, which sources, and so on. Shearonink (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC) We know what Adam Lanza's Bushmaster looked like and a link is given to it in the article. There is no need to dash off to Commons to find an an image of a Bushmaster which is a) not the murder weapon and b) is a shiny new gun on somebody's floor that looks nothing like the murder weapon. The image fails WP:PERTINENCE on these grounds alone, even before you start to consider whether it is necessary to say "Here is what a Bushmaster looks like" just in case the reader was too lazy to click on a wikilink.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@Tapered: Can you respond to these points in the posts above by Masem and Ianmacm? KSFTC 17:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Note: external link included @Shearonink The response seems to interpret my arguments as a personal attack, and responds with a defense. I did criticize the response as rambling, but made no personal attack. This doesn't address the points made vis a vis the Guidelines, so I can't make an informative/logical response. @Ianmacm Ianmacm may know the appearance of a Bushmaster, but many other readers don't. The illustration is intended for those readers. Wikpedia/MOS simply doesn't demand journalistic verisimilitude: “Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic,” so it's a mistake to insist an actual picture of the weapon itself. A reasonable facsimile, such as the image in question, is sufficient--again, to repeat, according to the guidelines. Regarding wikilinks as an alternative to images and "lazy readers" who don't click the links, if that logic is extended throughout the encyclopedia, all images would be replaced by links inviting readers to click and see a relevant image. It would make pages less crowded. Also, although the discussion needs be fact and debate based, I think that "lazy" label reads like an insult to the general readership. @Masem Masem also seems to me to assume that many readers know what a bushmaster is. The most recent [statistics] indicate its article is viewed about 4000 times per month, a low number, so to assume that the rifle's appearance is common knowledge isn't justified. "Critical:" Wikipedia, wisely in IMO, doesn't require that images be "critical"--read vital--just relevant. There is nothing in the guidelines about a "fine line between censoring and editorial concensus," and when this is over, I'm going to drop that in Jimbo Wales talk page, which is in point of fact a sort of debate forum, for reaction. If editors are editing to avoid offense, without apparent external pressure, that's censorship--internal censorship, which IMO is more effective and pernicious than the overt form. As I read it, all censorship is verboten here: excision of the gratuitous is policy. A simple firearms image, of there are at least hundreds, fails gratuitous. To sum up, for purposes of this discussion: if it ain't gratuitous--it's censorship. Tapered (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC) @Masem:, @Ianmacm:, @Shearonink:, @Tapered: We aren't reaching a consensus here, so I'm closing this as failed. I have started an RFC here. KSFTC 04:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
|
Talk:My Bebe_Love#Critical_response_section_is_not_neutral
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Pending in other forum (3O) at time filed and since there's not yet been any response to the Third Opinion, but also because there is no current legitimate dispute. Doniago's third opinion is exactly on point: While statements summing up critical positions may not be challenged in many cases even if uncited in a reliable source, the Verifiability Policy says in the BURDEN section that once an unsourced statement is challenged that it is the obligation of the party wanting to add it back in to provide a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia when doing so. Until that is done, then any dispute over whether such a statement is accurate is meaningless under Wikipedia policy. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Jojit does not seem to understand the points that I am implying no matter how much I reiterate it to him/her. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have carefully explained my points. I have provided the links/references that he/she had requested. How do you think we can help? Please make him understand my points. Summary of dispute by JojitPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:My Bebe_Love#Critical_response_section_is_not_neutral discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Could you give a brief overview of the dispute in the section above? Your current description doesn't tell me what the dispute is about. KSFTC 14:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note: The other involved user has not been notified of this case. The case can't be opened until they have been notified. KSFTC 14:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note: An opinion on this issue was requested at WP:3O and provided (by me). Hopefully that opinion will remove any need for this case. DonIago (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
|
Talk:Uechi-ryū
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Procedural close. DRN, like Third Opinion, requires prior discussion on a talk page. The filing unregistered editor has expressed their concern about content (the ordering of the organizations in the list) on the article talk page, but there has been no reply. A Third Opinion was requested and declined because of the lack of prior discussion. This noticeboard also requires prior discussion. The filing party is advised to go to the user talk page of the other editor and attempt to discuss there, or, better, ask them to discuss at the article talk page. The filing party is also advised to go to the appropriate WikiProject, which is Martial Arts, and request assistance. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Sorry to bother, but a user: Special:Contributions/32.97.110.58 keeps changing the order of the Major Organization section without explanation. I reverted the edit and requested this person discuss it on the Talk page for Uechi-Ryu. I also asked for a more senior member to vet the situation, but nothing has happened. As I explain on the Talk It is very subjective which organization "is more bigger important awesome" than another. For example, currently, the first organization listed is very small, the third is bigger than the second and the first, but advocates of the fifth could argue their organization is bigger than all of them! I am not aware of a way to OBJECTIVELY resolve such fights, but I would like it to end. Otherwise, I fear members of every organization could potentially play with the order to satisfy whatever personal agenda they have. "My organization is ONLY 13th?! IT'S TOTALLY 11th!!!!" For the record, I have not ordered/re-ordered the organizations based on what I think since that is not objective. Robert McClenon in the Help Desk directed me to use the Dispute Resolution. On that advice I sought a Third Opinion which the same Robert McClenon refused. The other editor has ignored engagement in Talk. I simply wish to avoid an "edit war" If there is a better way to order the organizations, I am willing to be enlightened. I regret that Robert McClenon rendered a decision that did not advance towards a conclusion. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Asked for a Third Opinion which was refused by Robert McClenon. How do you think we can help? Simply state that a particular order should be adhered to ABSENT objective evidence to the contrary. Summary of dispute by 32.97.110.58Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Robert McClenonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 98.227.140.14Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Uechi-ryū discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Living Stream_Ministry#Addressing_the_conflict_over_the_Inclusion_of_the_.22Leadership.22_Section
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Procedural close. The filing party has failed to notify the other editors. The filing party may refile this case if they provide proper notice, but must also include the coordinator of this noticeboard as an editor and should be aware of the policy objection noted by the coordinator. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview I added a section to the page listing its key people. A pair of users contended that this section should be removed because it was not relevant, had no precedent, added nothing to the article, was superfluous and unhelpful, and doesn't help the general reader. A precedent was provided for a similar organization listing key people and wikipedia's encyclopedic content principle was cited as a reason for including the organization's key people. The discussion moved to the talk page I was asked to provide a rationale for including the section and address concerns over whether there is a precedent elsewhere for such content to be included on the page. A rationale was provided, including several examples of functionally-similar organizations listing key people. After a long discussion on the talk page, a resolution was not reached.
It appears that the position of including the content in question has born the burden of proof here. As such, much rationale was provided on the talk page, including lengthy responses to various objections and allegations raised by other users. It does not seem that an adequate resolution was reachable through those means. How do you think we can help? Please review the discussion on the "Addressing the conflict over the Inclusion of the "Leadership" Section" section of Living Stream Ministry's talk page and help us to determine whether the leadership section should be included or not. Summary of dispute by Abishai 300Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Theophilus144Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TransporterManPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have provided an unsolicited opinion at the article talk page (wearing my "regular editor" hat rather than my "dispute resolution" hat) saying, in effect, that this dispute is at this point premature because the source, the ministry's tax filing, for the leadership section in dispute is unacceptable under WP:BLPPRIMARY as the use of a public record to support a statement about living persons. Until a proper source can be provided for that material, this dispute is meaningless and I would recommend closure for that reason. I will probably not take further part in this case, but reserve the right to make a final decision on that matter after things develop further. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Talk:Living Stream_Ministry#Addressing_the_conflict_over_the_Inclusion_of_the_.22Leadership.22_Section discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Afro#Jewfro: anti-Semitism
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. One edit on the talk page by each party in the dispute cannot be considered extensive; there must be extensive discussion, that is, extensive back-and-forth making an effort to work out the dispute. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Ongoing edit warring centered on two images created by two users, each wanting their version (possibly self-portraits) to be in the main article. Alternate suggestions were offered which seemed to be accepted by the initiator of the image warring. After a brief respite we have started anew, along with an WP:SPA type user involved. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Offered suggestions of alternate images to be used. How do you think we can help? I am hoping an additional opinion or suggestions would help prevent further disruptive warring. Summary of dispute by ZmenglishPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Wiki1259By not allowing the original 'Jewfro2.jpg' image to remain in the article, the precedent that is being set is that any user, at any time, can replace longstanding images across Wikimedia simply because they don't like them, regardless of the quality of the image and how it contributes to the overall article. This could prove to be extremely disruptive and subject to widespread pranks and trolling. The original picture, 'Jewfro2.jpg' had been in place for the previous 8 years, is used in multiple Wikipedia articles, including the List of hairstyles, is one of the top image results in Google for the keyword "Jewfro", and has been featured on several other articles around the Internet. There used to be an independent page for "Jewfro" between 2007-2009, and 'Jewfro2.jpg' was the sole image displayed on that page and was migrated over to the "Afro" page when the two merged. User Zmenglish replaced the image with no discussion or edit explanations. When asked to explain his alteration, he insisted that the original image was racist, and insulted it as grotesque, which is simply not the case. The continued switching of the images does nothing to improve the overall quality of the article, which has been at peace ever since the "Jewfro" article merged into the parent "Afro" article. The 'Jewfro2.jpg" image has served it's purpose of providing a visual aid to this section of the "Afro" article for quite a long time. Many other hairstyle articles use pictures of everyday people to visualize their concepts, it is not mandatory that an image of a celebrity be used to represent every known hairstyle as a neutral compromise. A Wikipedia article should not be thrown into turmoil because one user decides to switch out imagery that had been in place for 8 years in what seems to be an attempt to cause trouble and discontent rather than helping improve the state of the "Afro" page. Switching the image to "Classic_Jewfro.jpg" or any other neutral image would not serve to improve the overall quality of the article, and would only serve to reward a disruptive user's attempts to cause controversy. I implore the Wikipedia community to leave the 'Jewfro2.jpg' in place.Talk:Afro#Jewfro: anti-Semitism discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Afro#Similar styles_internationally
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. One edit on the talk page by each party in the dispute cannot be considered extensive; there must be extensive discussion, that is, extensive back-and-forth making an effort to work out the dispute. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Many users are interested in normalizing and standardizing the image of a "Jewfro" with a familiar actor or well known pubic figure. One disgruntled user is committed to consistently thwarting these efforts in order to promote a low-quality "self-portrait". Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk pages have been initiated on this subject- the consensus to install the image of a well known public figure- Seth Rogan- was reached. Loriendrew is committed to reject this and continues to push the image of himself How do you think we can help? In accordance with the consensus- insert the image of well known public figure Seth Rogan Summary of dispute by LoriendrewPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Procedurally close this thread: dispute already registered above, failure to notify participents, false accusations (I attempted mediation, did not upload anything).--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 10:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Afro#Similar styles_internationally discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Jaffna Airport#Request for Comment
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as failed because there was an impasse. See comments by moderator. An RFC is recommended. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Jaffna Airport is an airport owned and operated by the Sri Lanka Air Force. Although civilian aircraft can use the airport with the military's approval, it is primarily a military airport. Since September 2013 the infobox has had the crest of the air force contingent. On 1 January 2016 User:Pathmaraman removed the air force crest with the edit summary "We can't use the SLAF Crest when the Airport is used as a Civilian as well". After a couple of reverts I started a discussion in which I provided WP:RS to show that the airport wasn't civilian, it was controlled by the military. Pathmaraman then proceeded to rename the article Palaly Airport and again removed the air force crest. Pathmaraman then started a WP:RFC on the name of the article and use of the air force crest. A few involved editors responded but none supported Pathmaraman's position. I myself provided evidence to show that the airport's WP:COMMONNAME was Jaffna Airport. Pathmaraman has ignored my and other editor's comments and refuses to allow the inclusion of the air force crest. He has not provided any policy based reason for excluding the air force crest. He has also ignored standard protocol, namely WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD, which require the status quo to reign during an ongoing dispute. There is no consensus for Pathmaraman's position. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Pathmaraman took the dispute to ANI on 28 February where he was told by an admin that this was a content dispute and that he should read what other editors, including myself, have said on the talk page. Pathmaraman ignored the advice and removed the crest again, ordering me to "take this to WP:DRN". How do you think we can help? Decide if there are any policy based reason for excluding the air force crest from the article's infobox. Summary of dispute by PathmaramanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Jaffna Airport#Request for Comment discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note:
Volunteer note: There's a discussion here anyway, so I'm formally opening this case. KSFTC 13:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Coordinator's note: The discussion at this point does not, at least on quick examination, seem to be making any real progress. I'm going to ask the parties to hold off on any further discussion until the lead volunteer on this case, KSFT, can provide some additional structure. If you wish to continue discussing at the article talk page you are, of course, free to continue to do so, but it would be much better if you would both simply hold off from further discussion and editing in relation to the matters in dispute until KSFT weighs in. His/her remarks and any further comments or discussion should go after this Coordinator's note, by the way. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator) @Pathmaraman: Can you explain the discrepancy between this edit and this one? Specifically, I'm asking about why you claimed that "there is a consensus for the use of AirForce Roundel" in the first one, and then that "[t]here were no consensus either for Roundel or Crest usage" in the second one. obi2canibe is correct that citing policy and quoting the relevant parts would help your argument. @Obi2canibe: Repeating yourself doesn't help progress the discussion. While you're right that silence implies consensus, there is not silence; Pathmaraman objects. You need to cite established policies that support the inclusion of the crest, not implied consensus that doesn't exist anymore. KSFTC 22:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Time to drop the stick - Pathmaraman hasn't provided any policies or any other editor editor to support his position but is filibustering to get his own way. I don't want waste anymore of my or the mediator's time on this editor. It is editors like Pathmaraman who come to Wikipedia for a single purpose who make regular editors like myself question why we bother trying to create an encyclopedia when an editor can get their own way through bloody minded stubbornness.
Thank you to KSFT for trying to mediate. Please close this discussion.--obi2canibetalk contr 19:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
As Pathmaraman is not attempting to have a useful discussion about policy, we aren't getting anywhere, so I'm closing this case as failed. I agree with Robert McClenon's recommendation of an RFC. KSFTC 23:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
|
Responses to_sneezing#List_of_responses_in_other_languages
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editors will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 07:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Hello! I try to edit an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responses_to_sneezing (correcting Kazakh responses) But a user Lazylaces keeps reverting my correction because he/she thinks that it is not important. This issue is not vague. “Рахмет/Rahmet" means "Thank you" in Kazakh (as it does in many Turk languages). But Lazylaces keeps changing it back to “God bless you”. Why? I am Kazakh and I know better. Why this Lazylaces person is so stubborn? Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page didn't help How do you think we can help? Make him/her keep correct Kazakh translation Summary of dispute by LazylacesI stopped after they told me to stop. Lazylaces (Talk to me) 07:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Responses to_sneezing#List_of_responses_in_other_languages discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
The Barony of Blackhall
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. There has been no discussion on the article talk page. Also, one editor identified in the opening statement, User:Justlettersandnumbers, has not been listed as a party. Discuss on the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, this request can be filed. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview This one-page article was posted in 2012. The article has local historical information concerning feudal barony since the middle ages in this part of Renfrewshire; the barony was created by King Robert II in 1395, and the first caput, Blackhall Manor, remains Paisley's oldest dwelling. The current baron is the most recent of 27 since 1395, fully researched by Janet Bolton of the Royal Stewart Society, as has always been mentioned in the footnotes. The Scottish Lord Lyon King of Arms made the current baron of Blackhall infeft in 2002; a footnote extract from the Edinburgh Gazette in the original article has since been inexplicably removed. In fact, after many, many exchanges to satisfy what were claimed to be Wiki guidelines, the whole article disappeared, and has now been completely overwritten, but nt by us. The article existed virtually without problem for a few years until complaints were posted about article quality and the notability of the current baron. In 2012, a request was lodged for speedy deletion of the baron’s bio. The complaint boxes were eventually removed when, as instructed, we transfered the current baron's bio information in 2013 from an individual bio page to the Barony of Blackhall article. Someone called Justlettersandnumbers disputed the baron's bio again in 2015, long after the Wiki resolution in 2013. To satisfy this person, the baron’s bio was totally removed, despite the 2013 resolution. He put up boxes complaining about copyright and challenged us about knowing the baron despite the fact that all information came from a public website and from Who’s Who. Recently, the exchange became acrimonious: Justlettersandnumbers made personal remarks in the talk pages concerning the baron, using thinly veiled inuendo; calling the website a “peacock” page; asking pointedly why the previous baron’s son is not the current baron!! Justlettersandnumbers continually modified, and finally, has removed the article without warning or ado. Have you tried to resolve this previously? For four years, we have worked to resolve continual challenges issued to us principally, we think, by this person. Every time we resolved the most recent criticism, another appeared in total disregard of the article’s previous Wiki authorizations and clear historical interest for Renfrewshire, Ayrshire and the City of Paisley. This uncanny game goes on and on, and to arrive at this final destruction despite the research and care that went into it to meet these never-ending so-called guidelines. How do you think we can help? Please find a new, objective arbitrator, who has no issues with Scottish feudal barony, to attempt to resolve any outstanding guidelines. If real problems still exist with the article, or with the text, please, nominate someone to help us to rewrite. Passions have become so high concerning Justlettersandnumbers that we really do not want to work with him or her any longer. Summary of dispute by bgillespPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The Barony of Blackhall discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Non-aggression principle#The_NAP_is_absolutely_not_the_defining_principle_of_libertarianism.
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | General close. There are two problems with this filing. First, only one editor is listed, the filing party, and it is the responsibility of the filing party to identify and notify the other editors. Second, the case is premature because, while editors have made statements, there has been no real exchange of statements. If discussion on the talk page continues and is inconclusive, this case may be refiled with a full listing of editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Jeff Smith claims that the non-aggression principle is the defining characteristic of libertarianism. The page states that "the NAP is the defining principle of libertarianism," and cites the Libertarian Party Platform, along with an opinion article. The LP Platform does not mention the NAP at any time. The overwhelming majority of libertarians are deontological, and Wikipedia itself has several well sourced articles about libertarian topics that directly or indirectly discuss various ethical justifications for libertarianism other than the NAP. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I discussed it on the talk page, and offline with Jeff. How do you think we can help? The line should read "some people consider the NAP to be a defining principle of libertarianism," and the citation to the LP Platform should be removed. Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Non-aggression principle#The_NAP_is_absolutely_not_the_defining_principle_of_libertarianism. discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Karait
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | As currently filed, this is a conduct dispute and DRN does not handle conflict disputes and it's getting worse as others chime in . Feel free to refile without making any mention of other editor's conduct, but it would probably be advisable to wait to do so until after the sockpuppet investigations are closed since they can be seen as dispute resolution cases pending in other forums and the refiled case may be closed if they are pending. When I say refile without making any mention of other editor's conduct, I mean do not discuss or mention (either in the original filing or in any summary or reply) any other editor's motives, biases, conflicts of interest, skills, habits, competence, POV, POV-pushing, or anything else at all which has to do with an editor, period. Do talk about what content issues are at the heart of the dispute. The filing party has suggest that dispute resolution be done at the primary article talk page, but there is no dispute resolution process in English Wikipedia which provides for that except Third Opinion and 3O is not available because there are more than two editors involved in the dispute. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Fundamentally 2 users User:Toddy1 and User:Неполканов are very "sensitive" about any sub-topics which relate to the word Karaites the current content of which is the result of months of consensus building facilitated by nothing more than simply the presence of contributions from Admins like User:Midas02, User:Niceguyedc, and User:Dbachmann (although Nepolkanov did initially accuse Dbachmann of being a sockpuppet). The dispute began at Talk:Karait and has been dragged out over virtually all the pages of the sub-topics on the Karaites page (e.g. Talk:Keraites, Talk:Karaims etc.) but the vast majority of the times the discussions are taking place in the edit summaries and my requests for participation on talk pages are ignored. Rather than discussing content and discussing sources the users post adhominem attacks in the edit summaries and discuss ways on user talk pages to trick editors who challenge their POV into WP policy violations as pointed out by User:Bbb23 here [1]. For my part I do confess I have lost patience on more than one occasion too mainly because Toddy1 interrupts and answers questions I have posed to Nepolkanov as if Nepolkanov can not answer for himself or as if he himself were Nepolkanov in fact. Toddy1 has demonstrated very little knowledge or understanding of the subjects and really only stepped in because Nepolkanov asked him to. Nepolkanov's understanding of the subjects is better but sadly his English skills are very clearly lacking. Apparently (if I have understood the outcomes correctly) according to ANI results there seems to be no real behavioral issues to action (see next section). Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have always tried to include any points I have managed to understand from Nepolkanov. [2] and there are many instances where I have tried to extend an olive-branch to Nepolkanov only to have it th Taken the matter 4 times to ANI. ANI admin User:KrakatoaKatie recommended Dispute resolution [3]. How do you think we can help? We need a good long facilitated discussion on the sources without anyone calling anyone else names or puppets, nor any other kind of ad-hominem. It is no problem to talk about how the sources have been used. It is no problem to talk about why a source might be RS or not. But in the end the only thing wee need to do is talk about the sources and find a way to ensure that accurate report of what the sources say is presented on the pages in question. Summary of dispute by Toddy1Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaz-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC) See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vadcat, which YuHuw has opened today. I imagine that the reason for opening this SPI was that Vadcat reverted an edit by User:Budo in 2012. Budo was blocked for being a sock of User:Kaz. The policy for dispute resolution noticeboard is that "We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves." Given that the dispute features in two sockpuppet investigation reports, this item should be rejected.- Toddy1 (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by User:НеполкановPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Karait discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I agree it is very hard to follow for people who have not been involved. It is possible to look through my edit activity [4][5][6] to help get an idea of how the disputes migrated. The disputes started on the 9th of January when I signed up top defend an editor whose work I admire who had been accused of being a puppet by Nepolkanov[7]. The result was that I became the new focus of Nepolkanov's attention almost immediately after that. YuHuw (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC) It does not help that the only thing Toddy1 ever does is joke [8] and call me a sockpuppet [9] rather than try to engage in discussion of the subjects on any kind of intellectual level. YuHuw (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Since the entire dispute relates to sub-topics of the Karaites page. My suggestion is that a dispute resolution discussion commence there (Talk:Karaite) and we agree to hold off on edits to the related talk pages until the dispute is resolved. YuHuw (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
|
Talk:Amway#FTC in_lead
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | General close. An RFC is being used to assess consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 A reference to FTC case in the lead of the article has been deleted by Arthur Rubin on Jan 20, 2016. However, the edit was based on a false claim (see the Talk page) that Amway has been found to be a pyramid scheme in some other countries (which were not specified). Nevertheless, it was agreed by two users (Rhode Island Red and Arthur Rubin) that the reference to the FTC case which proved the opposite would be removed and it was designated as not meeting the NPOV requirement. The problem is that the claim that some other states proved Amway to be a pyramid scheme was not backed up with any source. It couldn't be because it does not exist. The result is that the current version creates the impression that Amway is in fact a pyramid scheme, because it only says that "Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme." The relevant argument, i.e. that Amway was found not to be a pyramid scheme got deleted and is kept secret. Moreover, two of the links provided by an editor RIR do not work. Have you tried to resolve this previously? 1. I tried to add the FTC case back to the text - it got reverted. 2. I tried to explain it on the Talk page and asked for explanation why it was removed. The answer was it was not NPOV. 3. I asked why the statement about FTC ruling doesn't meet NPOV requirement. I got no answer. 3. I repeatedly asked editor what is his source for claim about Amway being a pyramid scheme. I got no answer. How do you think we can help? 1. Add the following text at the end of the paragraph: "The Federal Trade Commission found that Amway does not qualify as a pyramid scheme.[2]", or 2. Delete the information about the investigations from the lead where it is not necessary because the same information is already contained in Pyramid scheme accusations section, or 3. Revert to the following version (before Arthur Rubin made his claim): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amway&diff=700746152&oldid=700297897 Summary of dispute by Rhode Island RedThis is a simple case of a WP:SPA[10] trying to POV push an unbalanced non-NPOV edit, which is getting reverted by 3 veteran editors because it violates WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE, and WP:CONSENSUS. The veteran editors (myself, Arthur Rubin, and Grayfell) have made every reasonable attempt to engage on the Talk page and have explained the underlying rationale in excruciating detail, repeatedly, but it has fallen on deaf ears and not prevented driveby tagging and edit warring on the part of the disputant(s). One of the editors (Platinum) listed in the complaint is a 2-edit WP:SPA and appears to be a sock puppet who suspiciously registered and popped into the Talk page discussion just in time to back up Historik (apparent vote stacking).[11] Another (Icerat) is a WP:SLEEPER with an apparent WP:COI[12][13] who also popped up just in time to try to sway consensus. There is some seriously contentious conduct involved here and jumping to DR was premature on the part of the disputant, given that the Talk page had not been properly utilized to gain consensus. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Arthur RubinPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by PlantiumThe three editors (Arthur Rubin, Rhode Island Red and Grayfell) appear to be interested in POV pushing their negative opinion about Amway. As the two other editors pointed out in the discussion, the trio tries to pick up cons and keep the pros secret to create the bad impression about Amway. The text as it is now is unbalanced and POV of the three editors. Adding the FTC case can not harm NPOV, it can only help it. On the other hand, the current version can mislead the readers as it can be interpreted that Amway is a pyramid scheme and it can't be considered NPOV. I would suggest either including the FTC case or delete the sentence about accusations and leave it in the appropriate section. Summary of dispute by IceratSeveral authors wish to maintain the text "Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme" in the Lede. The text I believe was originally added by an author who claimed Amway had been found to be a pyramid scheme in other (ie non-US) jurisdictions. This is false, Amway has never been found to be a pyramid scheme. Now, Amway has indeed been investigated as a pyramid scheme. This is a fact that is not in dispute and discussed in the body of the article. Mentioning this fact in the Lede and then failing to mention that every time an investigation has led to an official outcome (eg a court case), Amway has been cleared is clearly an unbalanced presentation of the facts and implies Amway is a pyramid scheme. Editor Historik75 added an NPOV tag to the article while the dispute was discussed in Talk. Users Greyfell and Rhode Island Red objected to the tag and removed it multiple times. In attempt to provide a balanced representation of the facts, reflecting the current body of the article, I changed the lede, with multiple reliable sources, to read -
This edit was deleted and I was accused of edit-warring. Pyramid Schemes are illegal operations in virtually every country of the world and is a serious charge. Multiple jursidictions have explictly investigated and cleared Amway of this charge. Implying through ommission is clearly not a Neutral Point of View.--Icerat (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by GrayfellThe dispute is over how to characterize investigations into Amway being a pyramid scheme in the lede. "Pyramid scheme" sometimes has legal connotations, but is not an exclusively legal term, and has been used to describe both legal and non-legal businesses. A 1979 FTC investigation into Amway is notable enough to have its own article, In re Amway Corp., but there have been many other accusations, arrests, lawsuits, and investigations of this issues in almost every country Away operates, which is supportable by an avalanche of sources. The newer batch of editors would like to emphasize in the lede that the FTC found that Amway was not a pyramid scheme in 1979 (and in the U.K. in 2008). This downplays the many other accusations, lawsuits, arrests, etc., also that the ruling(s) required Amway to change its practices, and also that the ruling and its precedent remains extremely controversial to this day. This is far too much for the lede, so emphasizing the positive sides of this case appears to be promotional. For these reasons, I and other editors would prefer to leave it simple, saying that Amway has been investigated as a pyramid scheme. The details belong in the body of the article. There are potential changes that could be made, but the antagonistic and overly promotional suggestions made so far impede discussion. Grayfell (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Talk:Amway#FTC in_lead discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by volunteer moderatorI am accepting this case for moderated discussion. Here are a few ground rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not on contributors. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, especially in dispute resolution. Overly long posts do not clarify anything. Threaded discussion, that is, responses to posts by other editors, is not permitted. Respond to the moderator and to everyone, not to each other. I expect every party to review this discussion at least every 48 hours and to respond to any questions. I will review this discussion at least every 24 hours. First, I see that there are questions about whether "pyramid" claims should be mentioned in the lede paragraph. Are there any other issues, such as about the body of the article, or is the only question about what is appropriate in the lede? Would each of the editors state why "pyramid" issues should or should not be mentioned in the lede, and exactly what they think should be mentioned in the lede? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
First statements by partiesThank you for your time Robert. I have significant concerns about the WP:BALANCE of the article as a whole, with the amount of text dedicated to criticism and sometimes obscure and tangential legal cases (eg Dr Phil) far exceeding the proportion of coverage these matters have received in reliable sources covering the article topic over it's 56+ year history. However, dealing with that would likely distract from the more immmediate issue that led to this request for assistance, and certainly would likely take longer to resolve than the time I'm willing to put in to it! Regarding "pyramid issues", this is a well known and significant challenge the company has had, so it deserves some kind of commentary in the lede, but the fact official investigations have, without exception, cleared the company of the allegations is obviously an extremely important fact - indeed more important than the allegations themselves. --Icerat (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Hello, thank you for taking part in this discussion. My suggestion is that the pyramid scheme accusation should either be present along with the most important decision, i.e. the landmark FTC case (as it was in the original version before Arthur Rubin made the change) or deleted from the lead and left in the Pyramid scheme accusations section. However, if other editors find it necessary to include all the details about cases in India, etc. in the lead, it would become very long because in order to provide NPOV and balanced text we should also mention all the details such as (among others) that:
Moreover, this long text would be duplicate with the content of the Pyramid scheme accusations section, and I can't see one reason to have two duplicate long texts on the same page. Please also note that the argument which [an editor] used to justify his edit, i.e. "the statement that the FTC ruled that Amway is not a pyramid scheme is true, but other countries have ruled that it IS a pyramid scheme. Doesn't belong in the lead." was not backed up with any source. In fact, no other editor presented one single evidence for this claim, i.e. that other countries have ruled Amway is a pyramid scheme.--Historik75 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Regarding the rest of the article, I would suggest several changes but as we only discussed the content of the lead, I would suggest to focus on this topic only as the other topics were not discussed, so there is no dispute running.--Historik75 (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Thank you Robert for accepting this case. As it is apparent from my previous summary, I basically agree with [two editors]. Mentioning the FTC case (or the fact official investigations have, without exception, cleared the company of the allegations) or deleting the sentence about accusations and leaving it in the appropriate section seem to be the best options in order to be consistent with the encyclopedic style of Wikipedia. Anyone interested in the particular investigation can go deeper in the article and learn more about it by simply clicking on Pyramid scheme accusations link in the Contents. The reasons for the changes are WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. We should present all the facts, not the selection of negative sources. If we cannot satisfy this due to the length of the resulting text and keep the encyclopedic style, then we should definitely delete incomplete and misleading information from the lede and leave the details in the appropriate section for those who care.--Plantium (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC) The guidance in WP:LEAD couldn't be any clearer -- "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC) First let me ask if anybody can confirm validity of Arthur Rubin's claim upon which he based his edit, i.e. that "the FTC ruled that Amway is not a pyramid scheme is true, but other countries have ruled that it IS a pyramid scheme". According to my knowledge and the sources available, no country have ruled that Amway is a pyramid scheme - in fact, it is exactly the opposite: every single time the company had been accused of running a pyramid scheme, the court said either "no" or it said that the law upon which the complaint was based did not prima facie apply.[21][22][23] Yes, there were charges that Amway was a pyramid scheme but they have been proven to be baseless every time the court has decided. Moreover, there is a statement by an Indian official - Corporate Affairs Minister Sachin Pilot - who said that it "is disappointing that such an eventuality (i.e. the arrest of Amway CEO) came about." and "We (Corporate Affairs Ministry) will work closely with concerned ministries and industries to remove the ambiguity in the law." It couldn't be any clearer. So in order to have a NPOV in the lead, my proposal is to change the current version to Icerat's revision as of 21:30, 10 March 2016:
This proposal is as short as it could be, it is accurate, it doesn't hide any prominent controversy (like Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme) and it provides NPOV by explaining what the results were. Any objections?--Historik75 (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Second statement by volunteer moderatorI will restate my instruction not to respond directly to other editors. It results in going around and around. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Does any editor say that Amway has been found to be a pyramid scheme in any country? If not, it would seem that the real question is whether to state that in the lede paragraph that there have been such allegations that have been ruled against. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC) What issues are there about the article body? If there are significant issues about the article body, it may be necessary to request formal mediation. If the only issue at this point is about the lede, since the editors appear divided, the question is how to state the issue so that it can be published as a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Second statements by editorsThank you, Robert. As I stated previously, according to my knowledge Amway has not been found to be a pyramid scheme in any country. I, of course, will welcome any evidence that would prove the opposite which is what I repeatedly said on the talk page. Regarding whether to mention the accusations in the lead - again, as I stated previously, I have no problem with deleting the information about accusations from the lead and leave it in the main body of the article. I also have no problem mentioning it along with all the cases that ruled against the accusations. But I do have a problem with mentioning only the accusations and not the court decisions as I consider this not to be NPOV. Regarding the main body of the article, I would first have to analyze every statement made there. At this point my suggestion is to continue with the lead only.--Historik75 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Amway has been around for a long time, and has been active in a lot of countries, so I'm not sure. Amway began in China around 1995, and in 1998 China banned all MLMs, at least in part due to pyramid scheme concerns. Regulations have shifted, and Amway has found ways around that, but it was clearly a concern at the time. Setting it up as a strictly government-level issue is overlooking the larger context, though. As I said before, the term "pyramid scheme" is often, buy not always, about illegal pyramid schemes, so setting it up this way is misleading and is giving too much credence to one aspect of a complex issue. Amway has frequently been used as shorthand for "legal pyramid schemes",[30] which is made explicit in the body of the article with the reference to Skeptic's Dictionary entry.[31] Amway makes an effort to distance themselves from pyramid schemes precisely because it's so ubiquitous that it's a punchline.[32] There are many, many legitimate criticisms of Amway that do not claim that it's illegal, but which still characterize it as a pyramid scheme, or euphemistically for having a "pyramid structure" or such.([33], etc.) While Amway has been found not to be a pyramid scheme in some instances, it has also settled multiple multi-million dollar civil suits about this, which suggests that it's not a black-and-white issue, even in the courts. Amway is one of the most iconic MLM companies, and as that article and Pyramid scheme both make clear, the connections are extremely well documented. Simply saying that they were found not to be a pyramid scheme would be downplaying all of that. Leaving it out completely would be even worse, and would undermine the neutrality of the WP:LEAD. Grayfell (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC) So let's summarize: we are now talking about 3 different terms:
All of these sources stress that Amway was found to be legal which is the information that is missing in the current version of the lead. Moreover, the AlJazeera explicitely says Amway is a multilevel marketing (not a pyramid scheme) and so does FTC. Saying "Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme" has a great potential to mislead the readers due to the connotation to legal term (point three) than to the term "Amway-like legal pyramid scheme" which was used by a handful of critics for the purpose of short selling. So far we do not have one single reference to a case where Amway was found to be a pyramid scheme. So the question remains: does any other editor know of any decision in any country, which says Amway is a pyramid scheme?--Historik75 (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC) If you want to continue in this vein, you should've stuck to the article's talk page, where we've already gone over all of this over and over. It's clear that you don't like sources which aren't flattering, but they are all reliable sources, and they all stress that Amway is closely connected to the term pyramid scheme. You are deliberately misinterpreting my words while ignoring their underlying substance. Between that and the high level of aggression displayed means that I'm reluctant to continue this, as it's not dispute resolution, it's an attempt to legitimize WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Am I wrong? Grayfell (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Dear Robert, being relatively new here, I do not know how exactly the dispute resolution works (for example how many inputs I can have per one round of statements, etc.). I would be glad if you could tell me when I step aside or break the rules. Best regards, --Historik75 (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Re China - China banned all direct selling and then proceeded to licence companies they considered legitimate. Amway was one of the first to be licenced. While there were some changes to the model, the heart of the it where you can earn income through retail sales and through introducing and training others remains. Re "legal pyramid schemes", this is an oxymoron. Pyramid schemes are explicitly illegal and with good reason. Robert Carroll's Skeptic's dictionary is generally considered an RS for Wikipedia however he has no expertise in business, marketing, or law and refuses to take correspondence on MLM related articles, making it somewhat difficult to correct his (many) errors on this topic. Given the fact that Amway has been explicitly cleared of the "pyramid" charge in several countries, including the US, a class action settlement covering a wide range of issues clearly doesn't cloud that issue at all. The FTC Administrative Court cleared Amway in no uncertain terms ("It is not a pyramid sales plan","The Amway Sales and Marketing Plan, not being a 'pyramid' plan, has not led to any significant difficulty in recruiting new distributors","This is not, however, a pyramid plan", " Amway is not in business to sell distributorships and is not a pyramid distribution scheme", "since Amway is not such a pyramid, the concept is immaterial here", "Unlike the pyramid companies, Amway and its distributors do not make money unless products are sold to consumers.","The Amway Sales and Marketing Plan is not a pyramid plan","Specifically, we have determined that the Amway Sales and Marketing Plan is not an illegal 'pyramid scheme'","Amway plan is significantly different from the pyramid plans condemned in Koscot, GerRoMar, and Holiday Magic"[34]. Unfortunately some 40 years on misinformation is still prevalent, particularly on the internet, however the vast vast vast majority of WP:RS sources are extremely clear on this. It's unfortunate that some people don't wish to accept it. In my experience it's often because they simply don't understand how the model works, and believe it operates the same way as pyramid schemes, and then attribute the very real flaws of pyramid schemes to legitimate MLM companies like Amway. It's that misunderstanding that has led to the "close connection" Grayfell talks about. Wikipedia should be helping to dispel misinformation and enhance clarity, not the opposite. Nobody is suggesting allegations of Amway being a pyramid scheme should be ignored in the article, but if the article is going to reflect reality, and the vast majority of RS it needs to clearly point out that Amway is not a pyramid scheme. --Icerat (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Just to add, Robert. The two "opposing" users here are reverting virtually every edit I do, no matter how well sourced or "balanced". I replaced a section that was using a Sri Lanken newspaper opinion column with one using a published trade magazine and a John Wiley book, and it was all reverted. I think we have to go to formal mediation. This constant battling to make any contribution done with tag team reversions (clearly to avoid 3RR) by users who don't like the edits is why I quit editing Wikipedia for nearly 2 years. --Icerat (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Third statement by moderatorFirst, as noted above, please do not indent your posts. That appears to be threaded discussion. If you want to set off your statement, you may precede with Statement by Editor A or whatever. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC) An editor asks how many inputs I am allowing per round of statements. That is one with possible expansion. However, you are not permitted to respond to statements by other editors in a given round, because that will result in back-and-forth, which doesn't help. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC) It appears that there is not likely to be any compromise, so this will probably have to be resolved by RFC. I invite each editor to provide their own draft of how to word the lede paragraph. In the fourth round, each editor may comment on which of the other editors' drafts would and would not be acceptable. Then we will narrow the number of versions of the lede down to three or four and then publish the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC) There is one more rule that I forgot to state. Do not edit the article while this discussion is in progress. Also, do not discuss on the article talk page, because this is the centralized place for discussion of questions about the article. Since there is edit-warring on the article, I will make it easier for you to avoid the need to edit the article by requesting full page protect. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Also, DO NOT refer in edit summaries or elsewhere to edits with which you disagree as "vandalism". This is a good-faith content dispute with strong feelings. No one is engaging in vandalism, and the use of the word "vandalism" in order to "win" a content dispute is a personal attack and may even result in sanctions. Do not label good-faith edits that you disagree with strongly as "vandalism". Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC) . Third statements by editorsStatement by IceratWith regard the immediate issue of the Lede, I've seen no reason not to continue to support my original edit - "Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme in the United States, the United Kingdom, and two states in India. Court cases involving the FTC in the United States and the High Court in the United Kingdom cleared the company of the charges." --Icerat (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC) A quick addendum - Robert, can we add the related article Network TwentyOne to this too please? I've been trying to correct an error there and it keeps getting reverted and the editor is refusing to explain his objection and simple accuses me of WP:DE The same issue exists on both articles and is arguably WP:BLP related--Icerat (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Rhode Island Red
Statement by Rhode Island Red
Statement by Historik75After the discussion with other editors and considering the relevancy of arguments of all parties involved I am suggesting the following modified version for the lead: Amway has been subject to several investigations whether it runs a pyramid scheme. The investigations took place in the United States[40], the United Kingdom[41], and two states in India.[42][43][44]. Court cases involving the FTC in the United States and the High Court in the United Kingdom[45] cleared the company of the charges. An alternative version could be like this: Amway has been examined by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States,[46] the High Court in United Kingdom,[47] and governments of two states in India[48][49][50] for possible violations of the national and local laws against pyramid schemes. An investigation by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States[51] and by the High Court in the United Kingdom[52] cleared the company of charges. Still don't know whether to include India or not. If so it should be explained that the court said the Act did not prima facie apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historik75 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC) However, after checking up the arguments of another editor I took a quick look at the body of the article and revealed another misleading (and unsourced) statement that had originally been put in the Pyramid scheme accusation section by an anonymous user (IP: 118.92.38.244 13 November 2013, 10:37). It has since been edited by another anonymous user (IP: 66.215.89.177, 28 November 2013, 23:00). Unfortunately, the current version of this unsourced statement got spread all over the Internet (apparently copied from Wikipedia and now undermining the credibility of Wikipedia articles). It goes like this: Amway utilizes a tiered distribution and remuneration model (the Amway Sales and Marketing Plan) that promises to reward participants who grow Amway's market share through a combination of sales and recruitment. This tiered distribution model relies on Independent Business Owners (IBOs) acquiring and training further Independent Business Owners, which is the principal characteristic of a pyramid scheme. Though the original statement was different and had a different meaning, neither this one was backed up with any reliable source. Moreover, it contained inaccurate parts (such as "reward participants who grow Amway's market share" or "Independent Business Owners (IBOs) acquiring and training further Independent Business Owners, which is the principal characteristic of a pyramid scheme"). Does anybody know where this statement came from? If not, I suggest we either remove it or go into formal mediation as some sections of the article seem to be everything but NPOV. Any objections against removing this unsourced statement?--Historik75 (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Rhode Island RedWP:LEAD states: “The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should… summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies…As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate…includes mention of significant criticism or controversies… According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources.” The current version of the lead to Amway is only one paragraph in length and despite the fact that the body text of the article contains a significant amount of material covering controversies and criticism, the lead reflects none of it. The simple fact is that Amway is a highly controversial company and has been now for several decades; this is not a personal opinion but rather an inarguable fact established overwhelmingly in coverage by the news media. Such criticism and controversies represent a significant proportion of the media coverage that the company has received over the years and are thus reflected in the body text of the article as per WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV. To make the lead conform to WP policy, it should be amended to include a summary of the key criticisms and controversies covered in the body text, which are by no means limited to just the pyramid scheme issue. Given the amount of criticism and controversy covered in the article, which reflects coverage of these issues in the press, the lead should contain an entire paragraph summarizing these details. The amendments being proposed by the WP:SPAs are clearly inadequate in that regard. I previously proposed the following text to summarize some of the controversies and criticism covered in the body text:[53] Amway has been described as a pyramid scheme and has been the target of several lawsuits for unfair and deceptive business practices. A 1979 FTC case concluded that while Amway was not a pyramid scheme, the company was guilty of price-fixing, making exaggerated income claims, and selling overpriced products and business support materials to their distributors.[54][55][56][57] In 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against Amway claiming that the company was running an illegal pyramid scheme.[58][59] Amway settled the case, paying out $150 million for restitution to consumers and reform costs. The company has faced similar claims in the Indian provinces of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. In 2013, Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala for violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act.[60] In 2014, Pickney was arrested by Andhra Pradesh police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway. Pickney was jailed for two months until being released on bail.[61][62] Other controversies/criticisms prominently covered in the press and included in the body text of the article, and which therefore should probably be summarized in the lead, include political campaign contributions,[63] religious/cult-like overtones,[64][65] the Canadian tax fraud case,[66] and low distributor earnings.[67][68][69] As for details like the 1979 FTC case and UK case, where Amway scored partial victories, coverage in the lead should provide a balanced account of the outcomes. For example, in the 1979 FTC case, Amway was cleared of the pyramid scheme charges but the FTC found Amway "guilty of price-fixing and making exaggerated income claims" and ordered the company to end various deceptive sales practices (an order which Amway later violated and was fined $100K as a result).[70] In the UK case, the government’s charges against Amway were dismissed but only after Amway had, in the year subsequent to the charges and prior to the ruling, instituted various changes to their marketing system to address the deceptive practices outlined in the charges. And ultimately the judge concluded that Amway had in fact “allowed misrepresentations of its business by independent sellers in years past and failed to act decisively against the misrepresentations”.[71] Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Historik75An alternative version added (different wording but same meaning).--Historik75 (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Fourth statement by volunteer moderatorWill each editor please comment on the above proposed versions of the lede? Please comment on content (the proposed versions) and not on contributors. Please be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Statement 4.5 by volunteer moderatorIt appears that editors either think that version 4 is the best version and that version 1, 2, and 3 are biased, or that versions 3, 2, and 1, in declining order, are good, and that version 4 is biased. I will be formulating an RFC with versions 2, 3, and 4 as the choices to consider, but will be redesignating them with letters. Please continue the discussion until I provide statement 5. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Fourth statements by editorsStatement by Historik75Let's first summarize - there are now four proposals:
I find any of the first three versions (Proposal #1-3) acceptable in the following order: Proposal #3 > Proposal #2 > Proposal #1. They sum up the most important controversy, i.e. pyramid scheme accusation, and provide the results of investigations that took place regarding this issue. I regret to say it, but I find the fourth version (Proposal #4) highly inaccurate, biased and therefore unacceptable. Following are the reasons pointing out the basic flaws in this version:
P.S.: A question to the moderator: Given there was no objection, I assume I can delete the unsourced paragraph mentioned in my previous (Third) statement. May I consider it a consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historik75 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Rhode Island RedProposals 1-3 above fail to meet the requirements outlined in WP:LEAD because they fail to adequately summarize "significant criticism or controversies" from the body text of the article. I therefore suggest focusing on version #4 as a starting point. I also suggest keeping comments concise and focused on specific text proposals rather than long meandering esoteric tangents. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Regarding comment 3 above: "3) As per the statement "A 1979 FTC case concluded that... the company was guilty of selling overpriced products and business support materials to their distributors," this is completely false misinformation which cannot be found in any of the cited sources and allowing this kind of misinterpretation would result in a biased lead." This text should be amended to read: "guilty of price fixing and making exaggerated income claims", as supported by these two sources.[114][115] A very simple fix. It was in fact the subsequent class action lawsuit that accused the company of "selling overpriced products and business support materials to their distributors",[116] so this detail should be included in that context instead. Also a simple fix. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Regarding this query: "A question to the moderator: Given there was no objection, I assume I can delete the unsourced paragraph mentioned in my previous (Third) statement. May I consider it a consensus?" To which paragraph are you referring? Don't rush to assume consensus. Just because a statement is unsourced doesn't mean it should be immediately deleted; rather an effort should be made to find whether there are sources that support the text in question. In all likelihood, sources exist that back up the statement, or something close to it anyway. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Arthur RubinProposals 1-3 are clearly deceptive. Charges were settled (dropped when the company promised to change some practices) in the US and UK. (It's possible that Amway was cleared of being an illegal pyramid scheme, but other matters under investigation were settled.) Neither the FTC nor the UK investigation was limited to it being a "pyramid scheme". (The fact that Amway failed to obey their promises may be too much detail for the lead.) I was going to say that proposal 4 had too much detail, but controversies about Amway should have more space in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by PlantiumI am in the other part of the world right now and have a limited access to the Internet, so I will be brief: I suggest to continue with the first three versions. They summarize the most important points regarding the prominent controversy that should be in WP:LEAD. Unfortunatelly, the 4th version is definitely biased and non-NPOV and I cannot recommend it.--Plantium (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Rhode Island Red (re: Amway India)The following comment was made about the proposed text concerning Amway India:[117] “In fact, none of the sources cited ever said that ‘Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala for violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act’ or ‘Pickney was arrested by Andhra Pradesh police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway’." The basis for the objection to the text above was unspecified. The text appears to be well supported by multiple media reports, as follows:
Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Historik75Question to the moderator: Are we supposed to react to each other now? Or, were we supposed to react to the proposed versions only? If we are supposed to react to each other, I will be glad to show the editor where he can find the basis for my objection to his text regarding India. Thank you.--Historik75 (talk) 07:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderatorI've posted the RFC. At this point, discussion should be in the Survey and Threaded Discussion sections of the RFC. Any procedural comments may be made here for the next 24 hours until I close this thread. The RFC will run for 30 days. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Fifth round for editorsstatement by IceratWas that 48hrs for the 4th round? :) I'd already half written my response, so I'll post it here. Statement #4 is not only not remotely balanced nor reflective of the proportionality of RS coverage, it is factually incorrect, as Historik75 has pointed out. The significant issue from the FTC case was the pyramiding allegations, and these were categorically rejected by the Administrative law judge. This finding has been cited in every MLM/Pyramid related case since and is clearly of high notability, in fact it has it's own Wikipedia article - In re Amway Corp.. In reality, and contrary to the apparent beliefs of some other editors, the fact Amway was categorically cleared of the charges is significantly more important than the fact they were charged in the first place. Putting only the investigations/allegations in the lede would be akin to having "Amanda Knox was charged with murdering Meredith Kercher" in the lead of the article on her and not mentioning her acquittal! Regarding the other findings, The Direct Selling Revolution, by Prof Dominique Xardel[1], a 1993 book describing the author's (a business academic) multi-year research in to Amway, devotes 2.5 pages to the FTC case and doesn't even mention the price fixing and income disclosure issues. Smith's book Multi-Level Marketing[2] similiarly devotes 2 pages to the Amway case, doesn't mention them. Neither does Clothier's 1990 book Multi-level Marketing[3]. The most recent independently published book on Amway, Amway Forever by Kathryn Jones (2011)[4] , devotes 11 pages to the FTC investigation - of which 2 sentences refer to the price fixing and income disclosure issues. Clearly that's patently absurd. The claim the company was found guilty of selling over-priced products is 100% contrary to what the court actually found, and the claim about business support materials has apparently been generated out of thin air as it's not mentioned in the case at all. The fine for advertising was for failing to put in a clear disclosure and is a relatively minor issue. A minor mention in the article is appropriate. Regarding the Californian class action, the information in proposal #4 is somewhat misleading and unbalanced - particularly given that virtually the same case was pursued in Canada and Amway elected not to settle there - and won the case with costs awarded to them. I added a note about this, however it was deleted challenging the sources. There is a case on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard covering this - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Law_firm_publications. Historik75 has well covered the flaws in the commentary of the Indian case, but I'd again emphasise it's a relatively minor issue. It's two states in one country of something like 100 countries and territories in which Amway operates, none of the accusations have ever gone to a full hearing, and the police and others involved in the case have been criticised by government officials and others. Discuss it in the article, sure, but over the 56 yr history of this company, it's not a "prominent controversy". It's interesting to note that virtually exactly the same thing happened in Korea not long after Amway launched there and this has zero coverage in the body of the article (let alone the lede!). South Korea is now one of Amway's biggest and most successful markets. --Icerat (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC) References
|
Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971#Inclusion of The Agartala Conspiracy Case and correct number of POWs
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | General close. No volunteer editor has taken this case, and this case is not likely, in view of the number of editors, to be successfully resolved here. Any party may either request formal mediation or may file an RFC. If the number of prisoners is the only issue, an RFC is appropriate. If there are multiple issues, formal mediation is appropriate. Please note that the publication of an RFC will block formal mediation, so that the editors should decide whether they want formal mediation or an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview It started with a lot of content but now the dispute is reduced to one point which is whether to include General Sam Manekshaw's statement recognizing difficulties Pakistan Army faced during the war and what led to their surrender which includes his positive comments about Pakistan Army. General Sam Manekshaw was head of Indian Army during Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We just talked it out at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971#Inclusion of The Agartala Conspiracy Case and correct number of POWs but dispute is still outstanding. How do you think we can help? It would be very helpful If a volunteer or an unrelated editor can look at that discussion and guide the editors involved towards a resolution and decide based on Wikipedia policies whether that information warrants inclusion or not. Summary of dispute by TalhaZubairButtPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MBlaze Lightning Oppose The users who are insisted to add it have failed to provide any reliable source, let alone WP:BESTSOURCES. This edit is based on a WP:PRIMARY source and as Kautilya3 said, if we go by policy, which says that we should not interpret WP:PRIMARY sources. And all interviews are PRIMARY sources. Picking a statement out of an interview, itself is a form of interpretation, indeed. Beside, this, if added will give undue weight, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and will indeed violate WP:NPOV. So, In accordance with WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:BALASPS and WP:RS, I am against the inclusion of an cropped part of an interview taken from an random YouTube link. However, i have no objection with Kautilya3 version: Manekshaw had the highest respect for the fighting prowess of the Pakistan Army and refused to accept the theory that they did not fight the Bangladesh war vigorously enough. It seems quite neutral and balanced to me, Beside it is back by a secondary source.[1] The extended quote based on an primary source is unnecessary and undue. Beside, i failed to see any biasness and one-sidedness in the article as one of the user claimed. I think he is not familiar with the result/How it started/Who was the aggressor/and who attacked the other country first, etc of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 -MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
References
Summary of dispute by Capitals00Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Kautilya3It should be possible to find multiple reliable sources that document the difficulties that the Pakistan army faced. It should not be necessary to rely exclusively on one statement by Sam Manekshaw, which is a WP:PRIMARY source. I think the `yay' side hasn't done enough home work. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Volunteer MarekPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by GhatusPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TripWirePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Apart from the fact that Mblazelightening has missed just a few wiki policies that he claims will be broken if Gen Maneksahw's statement is included in the article, I would like ask him what exactly is wrong in adding General's words as a quote in the article? Just for consumption, wiki do allow inculsion of WP:PRIMARY sources provided the added info mentions it as such as the policy says: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Especially when there is nothing to analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize from General Manekshaw's (direct) quote/statement. As regards the suggestion that there are other sources saying what Gen Manekshaw had said, well in the General's case, it is the context, credibility and authenticity his words provide to the statement. Or else there are various secondary and tertiary sources that praises Pakistan Army in 1971 war context but have been previously rebuffed by Indian editors on one pretext or the other, so let's not run in circles. Sure, if additional info is to be added to General's remarks about Pakistan Army's performance, it should be done in the interest of WP:BALANCE as the article in its current version is heavily biased and one-sided. I wonder why did MBL missed this out? In short having a direct quote from the Indian COAS at the time of 1971 war or alternatively paraphrasing the info while attributing the same to him will only make the article neutral.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 19:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971#Inclusion of The Agartala Conspiracy Case and correct number of POWs discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Koreatown, Los_Angeles
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | As stated this is primarily a conduct dispute and DRN does not handle conduct disputes. Contact an administrator or file a complaint at ANI for conduct disputes. If this had been stated as a content dispute, however, it still would have been closed due to lack of sufficient discussion. DRN, like all moderated content dispute resolution venues will not accept a case unless there has been extensive recent talk page discussion and there's only been one post by each editor on the article talk page. If other editors will not discuss, consider the advice given here — TransporterMan (TALK) 04:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Wilshire Park is a small historic district ½ mile from Koreatown. Recently the KT editor redirected our page. Our page consisted of perfectly valid links and references, but the excuse KT used for hi-jacking it was that it was improperly cited. However, the content and the citations appeared on the KT page. When this was discovered, we tried to remove the erroneous material and rebuild our Wiki page. However, the editor persisted in warring, threatening, bullying, and finally lying in order to keep me from reconstructing our page, making the false claim that I was somehow in conflict because I had connections with the City Council – this was a lie driven by revenge, and resulted in a “speedy deletion” before I could protest, while it was incomplete and in a sandbox state, waiting for review. This is completely unfair and unethical. KT’s commitment to robbing Wilshire Park of its identity and Wikipedia presence is a clear violation of Wikipedia’s policy. We had a lot of useful information that has been literally stolen and used to mislead Wiki users. Talk doesn’t work. We had been through this with them before in 2010, when the boundaries were set – warring, defacing our page, other malicious activity, politically motivated to infringe our free speech and the right to have a separate identity. Just read the history – this is completely unacceptable behavior on their part. Please restore my page and protect WP from KT’s attacks. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk, emails requesting that the editor of KT be prevented from warring and vandalism. Wikipedia's response was less than helpful, considering the level of malicious activity. How do you think we can help? Censure Koreatown Los Angeles for their unethical behavior, restore the Wilshire Park wiki page, and ban Koreatown from any further harm to Wilshire Park. Summary of dispute by Koreatown Los AngelesPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Koreatown, Los_Angeles discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
User talk:Earflaps#Too_much_to_clean_up
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | General close. This was a request for "preemptive mediation", which is something that Wikipedia doesn't have. This is therefore considered a premature content dispute. Discuss on the article talk page, Jane Blalock cheating controversy. If discussion fails, follow a dispute resolution procedure such as refiling here. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Hello! This may be out of place, but if possible, I would like to request preemptive mediation between myself and User:WilliamJE (assuming he is willing to take part). On the Jane Blalock cheating controversy page, my recent efforts to expand, source clearly, and add context have unfortunately met with repeat reversions. I would assume I'm doing something wrong, but I made careful efforts to follow all the primary style, sourcing, and relevancy guidelines, and I've noticed WilliamJE has a penchant for wielding reversions in inexplicable ways. I normally try and avoid disputes by staying calm and friendly, but these reversions frankly have me all riled up, and I doubt I could handle them in a mature way from here on my own. Based on WilliamJE's prior behavior (he posted the page), I would assume he is simply possessive, not biased or pushing a POV, so I'd much rather have a neutral third party help keep it calm and productive between us, rather than go to arbitration over disruptive editing. Thank you in advance. The conflict is laid out in the page's edit log, and also in two parts on our talk pages. Earflaps (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried explaining my point of view, and know I should try further. But the last three interactions have all ended the same, and my cool has unfortunately evaporated. How do you think we can help? A cool head I would say is necessary for solving every dispute. I can't provide one myself, right now, though. Summary of dispute by WilliamJEPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:Earflaps#Too_much_to_clean_up discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
User talk:Stikipikiwiki
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | As currently stated, this is primarily a conduct dispute. DRN does not handle disputes which are primarily conduct disputes (see instructions at top of page). To complain about the conduct of an editor, file at ANI or speak to an administrator. (And let me note, just for the record, that Jytdog is not an administrator; editors need not be administrators in order to leave warning messages such has those which have been left on the filing editor's talk page.) — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Hello, I am new to editing on Wikipedia, so I am coming to you for guidance, as a purported Administrator is warning me that they will permanently ban me if I continue editing the pages about "Jobs in Dubai.com" and "Nofel Izz". I have not conflict of interest in either pages. I came across the pages when I was doing research about Jobs in Dubai. There were a lot of warnings about the websites on numerous forums, however the Wikipedia pages had limited or no information about the potential scam. I understand that my first few edits may have not been ideal as I am new to coding on here, but I have tried to improve and I do not understand what is the problem with my last edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nofel_Izz&type=revision&diff=711133509&oldid=711125455). It is correctly sourced and cited. However, Jytdog keeps removing all information about any concerns numerous people have about Jobs in Dubai, including a news articles. This is not how an Administrator of Wikipedia should behave, it will lead to biased articles and put Wikipedia's reputation at risk. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to talk to them, but their viewpoint seems to be biased. They have not confirmed if they are conflicted, despite my request to do so. They have removed all criticism/concerns on both pages. This leads to biased information being spread by Wikipedia. How do you think we can help? I would like to know why criticism of Jobs in Dubai is continually removed. It is factually relevant to both pages and should be there to help people get full information needed about the topic. I have cited independent sources, and asked for help from the users if they disagree with it. If you deem that the criticism is beneficial, I would like you to prevent users from removing it and warn them not to. If it is not relevant, then I shall not have any further input on the pages. Thank you. Summary of dispute by JytdogPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The OP is an editor with some beef with Nofel Izz who is adding unsourced or badly sourced content about how Jobs in Dubai is a scam, to the article about Izz and Jobs in Dubai. Several editors have done in this in the past as well. The OP is new and passionate, and isignoring WP:BLP and WP:VERIFY. There is no content dispute, there is a behavior dispute that is going to lead to the OP being blocked if they do not stop. User:Andy Dingley the Izz article was AfDed in 2012 here and the Jobs in Dubai article has never been; I agree that it could well be. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC) User talk:Stikipikiwiki discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|