Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 218
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 215 | Archive 216 | Archive 217 | Archive 218 | Archive 219 | Archive 220 | → | Archive 225 |
Prague Astronomical Clock
![]() | Discussions on individual's talk pages do not constitute a discussion of the issue for the purposes of this board and there has by no means been enough discussion on the article talk page itself. Filing editor has a clear COI, and so should not make any further edits to the page, but may request edits on the talk page. If you believe you are at an impasse, you can request a WP:3O or a WP:RFC, but until there has been quite a bit more discussion on the talk page, no dispute resolution can be handled. The discussion on the other editors talk page was completely inappropriate and remember WP:CIVIL is one of the pillars of editing. I would suggest if you want an engaged conversation- you owe Mr. Ollie (talk · contribs) an apology first. They are not obligated to interact with a hostile editor. You have dug yourself a hole to get out of before a constructive conversation can happen, however- if you are willing to begin again civilly, I'm sure other editors would be happy to work with you to find a solution. If, after a prolonged discussion (and an apology) you still are not able to find a solution, you are welcome to re-open a case here. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2022 (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 There had been an existing link to a simulator of the Prague Astronomical Clock. I added a link to my own simulator. Since that could be considered a conflict of interest, I can sort of see why that one new link would not be allowed, but another editor deleted BOTH links, and is steadfastly against either link being allowed. I think these simulators are a valuable aid to anyone trying to understand how the clock works and how to read it. One other observer of the dispute agrees. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I did talk with Mr. Ollie on his talk page, but (my fault) that conversation got a bit heated. I then discussed it more civilly in the articles talk page. There's not much discussion there, but it just seems like an impasse, and not too many other people are paying attention to this article to add to the discussion. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? We need more input from someone else, or it will just be an edit war if I try to restore one or both links. Summary of dispute by Mr. OlliePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by KraljmatjazPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Prague Astronomical Clock discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Sayre Area School District
![]() | Closed as beyond the scope of this noticeboard. This appears to be a content dispute that has been complicated by a block threat by an involved administrator. If so, it needs to be dealt with at WP:ANI. If it isn't a case of administrator involvement in a content dispute, then what it is should be resolved at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2022 (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 In 2016 Raindrop73 had added excessive information on the majority of Pennsylvania school district pages. I had been making a slow attempt to clean up school district pages, while Graham87 has been going through and deleting the majority of information for school districts in PA. Much of the state level information was inappropriate for the article and I was attempting to consolidate it into pages such as "teacher strikes in the united states" which took an incredible amount of time and effort. I recently replaced half of the information Graham87 deleted as an attempt to compromise and work on making a final fully editorialised page. We have reached a fundamental disagreement onto the level of information which should be on school district pages, specifically the discussion has been over Sayre Area School District, but it applies to most districts in PA. Third parties have acknowledged the wikipedia value of some of the information that has been deleted. I have attempted to reach consensus and/or compromise while being met with threats "I will have to block you" (on my user talk page), and ad hominems. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sayre_Area_School_District https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Delphinium1 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please provide guidance onto what is appropriate for a school district article. Summary of dispute by Graham87Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Sayre Area School District discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
From a disinterested editor: I realize most of the discussion should occur between the two disputants, but it would be very helpful if editors would sign their posts so others can follow the discussion and sort out what's in question. BTW, this is true of other DRN's. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
|
List of largest empires
![]() | Closed. The filing party is topic-banned from this topic area, and has now been partially blocked from the article page and the article talk page. There is discussion at WP:ANI, but there isn't an active content dispute. Editors in good standing can discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2022 (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
(As the main ones, but many more). Dispute overview In the List of largest empires page there is clearly a big mistake regarding the size of portuguese empire and Brazil empire. The brazilian empire is listed has being bigger than the portuguese empire at their peaks. This is however not true, the entire of Brazil once belonged to Portugal. The justification in there is "The reason the Empire of Brazil is listed as having a larger area in 1889 than the Portuguese Empire had in 1820, despite Brazil having been a Portuguese colony, is that the Portuguese settlers had effective control over approximately half of Brazil at the time of Brazilian independence in 1822." Despite the source that states that the portuguese empire had 5,5 million km2 at it's peak being reliable, this is false, as can be seen in the talk page and in the archives plenty of users provided enough evidence to dismiss this figure, including as valauble sources. A consensus has yet not been made because of only one user named "TompaDompa" who doesn't feel like reaching one. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_largest_empires#Regarding_Second_Portuguese_Empire_size There's been many other discussions in the archives. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By taking a look at all the evidence provided by users against the 5,5 million km2 figure in the last couple of years and by doing that reaching a consensus once and for all. Summary of dispute by SpaceEconomist192Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by YgglowPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TompaDompa and othersPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
List of largest empires discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran
![]() | Closed as fizzled out. There has been no response from the parties 28 hours after Nightenbelle gave the parties 24 hours in which to reply or the case would be closed. If the parties have resolved the case, that is good. If not, they should resume discussion on the article talk page, or leave the article alone. Consensus is required to make any changes to the article. Report disruptive editing to Arbitration Enforcement after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2022 (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 I wanted to add to the article that “During the Islamic Revolution, Massoud Rajavi prevented the MEK from using violence against Khomeini’s new government, which raised his status within the MEK”[1] Ghazzzalch reverted saying "Rajavi’s position toward terrorist attacks is also covered in the section "Assassinations". So the article is already too long and no need to repeat its contents all over the article". But this is not repeated in the article. Then Iskandar323 said this quote should be in another article, but the quote is about People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran. So both their reasons for not wanting this in the article don’t seem very reasonable. I asked an admin, and they suggested I should try a dispute resolution.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By checking the reasons that Iskandar323 and Ghazzalch have given for not wanting this information in the article Summary of dispute by User:GhazzalchPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
There has been some kind of consensus in the previous discussions that this article is too long, and should be shortened. Under this pretext, Fad Ariff was removing some important anti-MEK details (such as[1]) from the article, and in the same time was adding some pro-MeK details (such as[2][3]) to it. Per Wikipedia:Tendentious editing I reverted them all. Because I saw them as a whole. But Fad Ariff preferred not to narrate the whole story here. He picked up a single edit and brought it here, arguing that why we should not be able to add a well-sourced material to the article. To show that he is not even sticking to this partial logic, I recently added a well sourced anti-MeK material to the article. He reverted it immediately, arguing that Summary of dispute by User:Iskandar323Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I would not call this a dispute per se. Fad has tried and failed to achieve consensus, and is using this forum as a means of get around their lack of progress on the talk page. If we are talking about the single line mentioned above, its addition would be fairly meaningless, since the article already explains the chronology of the MEK's increasing deployment of political violence in considerably more granular detail. The turning point is in 1980, when Summary of dispute by User:Fad AriffPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Replying to Ghazaalch, the content in this dispute is not "pro" anything, it’s just content by a good publisher and author. About Ghazaalch’s response that I reverted one of his edits, the short answer to that is that I reverted it because cult stuff is already covered in four different sections and in the lead of the article (while the information in this dispute is not in the article). It’s fine if Ghazaalch wants to open a separate dispute about that edit, but they still have not provided a reasonable answer for removing the content in this dispute (neither here nor on the talk page). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC) People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer's First StatementI believe most DRN volunteers have not opened this case because by nature, it is going to be contentious due to the subject matter and editor's passions on the subject. I am willing to attempt to mediate this case, however- I am going to use This set of rules to do so. Please review them before we proceed. Some key things I want to highlight from that set of rules: 1. Be civil. I will issue one warning, then I will end the discussion here if things get uncivil. Comment on content- not editors. 2. Be specific- generalizations do not improve the article. I am not a subject matter expert- so I need specifics and clarification when I ask for it. Assume I have read the article (I have) and the talk page discussion (I have). Do not assume I am aware of external sources or debates on the subject (I am not). 3. Be concise. No single response by an editor should be longer than 2000 words. If you can't say all you want to say in 2000 words or less, pick what is most important to you and we will circle back to the rest later. Finally 4. Talk to me, not to each other. If things go well, I may add a back and forth discussion section in the future, but for now- just talk to me and let me filter and clarify. Now- do all involved editors agree to this and want to continue? If so- please indicate under your section. Once we have a quorum (at least 2 out of 3 willing to proceed) we will begin. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Ghazaalch's sectionIskandar323's sectionFad Ariff's sectionI am pleased to say that I will follow @Nightenbelle's suggestions. I also agree that it would be best to keep to the content of the dispute itself and avoid anything unrelated. Thanks @Nightenbelle: for taking the time, I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have from here onwards. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
|
Immaculate Conception
![]() | Out of scope Nightenbelle (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2022 (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 Articles are supposed to be mainly built upon secondary sources. The issue then, is the debate between these 2 positions: Whether . . . (my opinion) (1) Church Fathers (4th-6th centuries), (2) Magisterial pronouncements (5th-21st centuries), and (3) Large Medieval and Modern Theological Compendia (such as Thomas Aquinas' 13th century Summa Theologiae, and Cornelius Lapide's 17th century Great Commentary on Scripture, should qualify as such secondary sources, when they comment upon what is generally regarded as primary sources within Catholic theology, namely Sacred Scripture (and in exclusively Catholic topics like this one, occasionally also the Fathers Themselves, are regarded as a primary source; especially when evidencing extra-scriptural oral Sacred Tradition; but not, I contend, when they are doing exegesis of even older written Scriptures); or (their opinion) whether all these (#1-3 above) ALSO constitute primary sources, so that no one may cite #1-3, unless they also cite (what they call a "secondary source," namely) a modern (20th century) theological book-or-journal. I contend that Option #2 is entirely against this Wikipedia guideline . . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#How_to_classify_a_source . . . and that the Fathers & Historical Theologians should need no modern contextualization, but are clear enough, and should be able to speak for themselves. At issue is whether we are going to crown Modernity exclusively, or Patrimony, too. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? User_talk:Veverve#Exegesis_by_the_Fathers_of_the_Church_is_legitimate_&_necessary User_talk:Veverve#Octavius2's_Upload_Attempt Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard#Establishing_a_patristics_and_exegesis_standard User_talk:Pbritti#Octavius2's_Premature_Silencing How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Decide once and for all, whether pre-20th century works can be admitted as secondary sources. Summary of dispute by VevervePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Veverve (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC) Summary of dispute by PbrittiPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Octavius2 initially entered substantial additions to the article, which was revert and resulted in several discussions about the edits. Much of their material came from roughly 1,200 to 1,600 year old sources that have been interpreted differently by numerous Christian traditions in the intervening centuries (something the article discusses). However, these sources were directly cited by the editor to formulate a defense of the Catholic doctrine. Instead of citing a reliable source that discussed how Catholics developed this doctrine from the sources, the editor altered the page to be primarily their own apologetics on the subject. While certain aspects are impressive–I believe roughly 2,000 words translated by the editor–they constitute a very obvious example of original research. The editor was told by three other editors that this was the case in discussion and a fourth has said so in their revision of the research by Octavius2 on Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Octavius2 won't accept a consensus that their edits are improper original research, despite cordial explanation of the issue. This is increasingly feeling like a CIR issue. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC) Summary of dispute by JdcompguyWithout speaking for other editors, Octavius2's presentation of the dispute does not at all represent what I see as the fundamental issue, which is original research. (From my perspective, the primary/secondary source distinction is almost completely irrelevant here.) In the disputed edits, Octavius2 makes claims such as "The Catholic Church has long held belief in the Immaculate Conception," but does not cite sources making this assertion. Instead, Octavius2 is the one making the assertion, and backing it up with citations of a few examples of theologians from Church history (whose thought supports the Immaculate Conception even if they themselves don't claim it). The problem (in this and other examples) is that the sources do not make the assertion themselves. This assertion (in this particular example) should be easy to support, however, because there are surely reliable sources that say it, but Octavius2 does not seem to be willing to find such sources. The issue is not so much the sources Octavius2 uses or the assertions Octavius2 is making, but rather that Octavius2 is not matching up assertions with sources that support them. To put it simply: instead of Immaculate Conception discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Shapira Scroll
![]() | Conversation on the article talk page is stale (a month old). Plus the other editor does not seem interested in participating. I would recomend attempting a WP:3o again- in asking, make sure you mention that all IPs are the same editor so you don't get another denial. Or you could try WP:RFC. I also want to second the strong recommendation that IP editor make an account to facilitate conversation and reduce confusion and clear up possible sock concerns. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2022 (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 Disagreement about how much should be included in the article regarding recent scholarly opinion suggesting that the (lost) scrolls were authentic, and whether said position should be characterized as "fringe".
Talk:Shapira Scroll#Vandalism Talk:Shapira Scroll#Fringeness Talk:Shapira Scroll#Physical Appearance and Scriptio Continua and earlier Talk:Shapira Scroll#Missing: section on physical description & content of the text(s)
Guidelines as to what should be labeled fringe and how best to balance the inclusion of a diversity of scholarly opinions.
Summary of dispute by GordonGlottalPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Shapira Scroll discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Maya (given name)
![]() | Closed for two reasons. First, the filing editor may have resolved the matter by creating a second name article. Second, the replying editor has made conduct allegations that will complicate any discussion here. The replying editor is reminded to assume good faith but is told that if they want to make conduct allegations, WP:ANI is the forum. (A better alternative would be to apologize, if the allegation was unintended or mistaken.) Discussion should resume at the article talk page without casting aspersions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2022 (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 There is an ongoing content dispute of over a month’s standing over the addition of the spelling Mya. user:JesseRafe claims said addition is “nonstandard” and not notable. I have provided multiple citations, including from a scholarly source, indicating that it is a spelling variant and also that it is notable because it is among the top 300 most common names for girls in the United States. The editor has persistently reverted the cited addition and refused to engage in a meaningful discussion. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would hope that this editor will be more willing to engage in a productive discussion with a third party involved. Summary of dispute by JesseRafeMy takeaway is the other editor made the same mis-formatted attempts to include "Mya" as an IP, and failed to provide any legitimate sources, or understand the standard of notability or consensus. They used a fake ISBN to pretend to have a book, which I think is egregious (If you google that number string and "ISBN" you only get their contributions to the Maya and Rachel name articles, no booksellers or publishers. If they wanted to write an inline sentence that "Mya is also gaining in popularity" with a cite to SSA or similar, that'd be one thing. But adding it to the lede in bold is, IMO, clearly undue for a variant that is not once mentioned on the page again. It's superfluous and almost silly. If there were Myas mentioned on this page, it'd be a complete non-issue. Given that they're not mentioned as notable people once on Maya, then Mya as a spelling doesn't need to be in the opening sentence. JesseRafe (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC) Maya (given name) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Rui Rio
![]() | Closed as premature. There has been no discussion on the article talk page. That's what article talk pages are for; use it. Discussion on a user talk page is useful, but is not a substitute for discussion on the article talk page, and besides the discussion on the user talk page has not been extensive. Discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2022 (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 Hello, I ahave been trying to edit the english page of Rui Rio, leader of the opposition in Portugal, because there is false and biased information, and my edits keep being reversed. For instance, they say Mr. Rio announced his resignation, but that is not true, he simply announced he wouldn't be running for party again. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CatiaEditsWiki How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Can you advert the other users that they are providing false information? Summary of dispute by CatiaEditsWiki; Volten001; LongLivePortugalPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Rui Rio discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Great Translation Movement
![]() | Closed as very premature. There has been no discussion at the article talk page. There has been one post to an editor's user talk page, which does not constitute discussion, and is not at the article talk page. Discuss at the article talk page to get the additional opinions. That's what the talk page is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2022 (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 I saw thise article earlier and realized that it lacks of the Chinese side of opinions. That's why I added a short sentence mentioning their views. This is the source that I used(https://web.archive.org/web/20220421183159/https://www.guancha.cn/LeiXiYing/2022_03_24_631651_s.shtml) and the author is also not a noboby(https://au.linkedin.com/in/xiying-lei-2b013271). But then User Amigao reverted it said it's not a reliable sources. He also reverbed a lot of my edit which involved China but that's is another story. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Amigao How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Just want more people to give the opinions. Great Translation Movement discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Flavan-3-ol
![]() | The filing editor has started an RFC. There has not been any response to the RFC, but an RFC should run for 30 days. The filing editor may neutrally publicize it by posting links to it at WikiProject talk pages. The RFC will resolve the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2022 (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 There are a number of discussions between @Zefr and me regarding the appropriate content. The two issues are: - I believe a large randomised clinical trial should be mentioned, even though it is a primary source (it meets the 'worth mentioning criteria') the other editor refuses to accept this. An RfC did not result in a conclusion - A revised and tidied up version of the article was reverted by @Zefr without explanation. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have tried to discuss with the other editor and accepted advice regarding encyclopaedic relevance (e.g. more emphasis on secondary sources), but have also explained my reasons. I have initiated an RfC but there was no open discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flavan-3-ol
- a decision whether the large RCT can be included based on Wikipedia rules - a decision whether the revised version meets wikipedia criteria. Flavan-3-ol discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Siege of Oricum
![]() | Closed as pending in another forum. This is a dispute about the content of an article that has been nominated for deletion, and the Articles for Deletion discussion is in progress. The first question to be decided is whether to keep or delete the article, and that is made in the AFD. There is no need to discuss anything else separately until the question of whether to keep the article is resolved. During that discussion, it is best for the full version of the article to be visible to the AFD participants. If anyone thinks that the article should be trimmed, that is a valid input to the AFD. If, as appears likely, the article is kept, the second question is article content. Discussion of article content should be on the article talk page (that's what it's for) after the AFD is resolved, and should take into account what is found by the closer. A second DRN request can be opened after the AFD is closed, but only after there has been new extensive discussion that takes the close into account. Any disruption of the AFD should be reported at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Content dispute on an article up for deletion. Because I'm the nominator, there's the inevitable suspicion that I'm reverting additions of content solely because I want to see the article deleted, though I did of course point out actual problems with these additions as well (SYNTH, not the right place for it, etc). It's clear that whatever I say is going to be interpreted under those lens so there's little point to continuing in the talk page any further. None of the editors insisting on the content additions have done much to explain why their edits are improvements per WP:BRD, but since there's two of them they can in theory team up and push me to the WP:3RR corner, so it's better to have this actually discussed here rather than have it solved on a procedural trick. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Siege of Oricum#Reverted edits, May 8, 2022 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? mediate or help reach a compromise, I guess Summary of dispute by P AculeiusPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Avilich started a PROD on this article. As a member of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, I had a look and decided there was enough content to merit a stand-alone article, and deprodded it. I then made some more edits for clarity, following the original Roman sources and one or two secondary sources I was able to find. I left out some material that wasn't clear to me. Avilich then initiated an AFD on the article. In the course of the deletion discussion, another editor pointed me to another source that helped me make sense of the material I had left out, and I expanded the article, only to have my edits reverted for reasons I thought made no sense in light of what was said in the AFD discussion. I restored the edits, which were reverted a second time, and Avilich insisted that it needed to be discussed on the talk page—apparently expecting me to initiate the discussion, and with the understanding that my edits could not stay unless he agreed with them. Another editor who came into the AFD saw what was happening and restored the material I had added, giving his reasons on the article's talk page, only for Avilich to revert the article for a third time. With neither side willing to budge on the talk page discussion, and the main arguments against including the material being that the changes shouldn't be made during an ongoing AFD, without discussing it on the talk page, or while there was no resolution of the dispute on the talk page, I decided three days later to restore the material I added—and two days later Avilich reverted it for the fourth time, "per talk page", as though there were some sort of consensus against the changes, or a block on the edits as long as he didn't agree with them. There are a host of different explanations on the edit history, talk page, and in the AFD being used to justify the continued reversions, but in my opinion none of them were particularly valid, but simply constituted stonewalling in an attempt to keep the article small and less likely to survive AFD. Arguments included:
and I'm sure I could list some other things here that just aren't worth the effort. Every time I try to explain why the material is relevant and appropriate content for the article, new reasons for keeping it out appear. The justifications keep changing, but I don't think that any of them hold water; to me they seem like nothing more than one attempt after another to prevent any changes to the article that might save it from deletion—or, since it doesn't appear headed for deletion, just to prevent it from being improved. I said that if this continued I would report it at ANI—but faced with that, Avilich brought it here. That may well be the better procedure—I don't usually take disputes further than article talk pages, so I'm not sure whether I should have come here before resorting to ANI. Since the talk page discussion is going nowhere, and Avilich is going to keep blocking the changes unilaterally, simply waiting for a consensus to develop does not seem to be an option. My apologies for the length of this reply. P Aculeius (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Edit: after this was posted, Avilich requested page protection for the article and asked that it be reverted yet again, asserting that editors were improperly editing the article while it was in dispute resolution—which is incorrect, if you look at the article's edit history. An administrator has now locked the page to prevent further editing for two days, leaving the edit summary, "[k]nock it off. Take this to the talk page and seek consensus." However, the editor declined to revert to the version Avilich requested. It's pretty clear from the talk page—and the AFD—that if "consensus" means "agreement among most of the editors that the content belongs in the article", then we already have it; if it means "Avilich must agree to the changes", then we will never get there. P Aculeius (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Summary of dispute by SpinningsparkI'll try to be briefer than the above. First of all, the events being written about; Caesar lands in Illyria in pursuit of his enemy Pompey. He captures the town of Oricum, leaves a garrison and moves on. Pompey's navy then blockade the port, attack, and recapture it. There is no dispute over these historical facts and they are described in numerous sources. Avlich argues the first part (Caesar's initial capture, which was all that was in the article at the time the AFD was launched) is an unimportant event and non-notable. Avlich further claims the second part (Pompey's recapture) is a separate event and does not belong on the same page. Several other editors, including me, disagree and think they can be described by a continuous narrative. Avlich has single-handedly edit warred to keep this material out. It has now been inserted six times by three different editors, most recently by User:Anaxagoras17 who has not been named as a party to this dispute. It is, in fact, only the second part that is described in sources as a siege, so in my view if anything belongs under this title, it is the material that Avlich is striving to keep out. SpinningSpark 08:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Siege of Oricum discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Peet's Coffee
![]() | This has been discussed twice on the article talk page. It has been one editor vs many both times. The other editors have made their position clear, and there is a consensus to not include the information in the article. If the filing editor would like an outsider's opinion- the parent company is linked on the WP article. The controversy is covered in that article. Since the company is based in Germany, and has promised to make reparations, and is not actively supporting Nazi's- I agree that it is not relevant enough to put in the subsidiary's article. Before you bring this up again, there needs to be new information, or more coverage. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Peet's Coffee was acquired in 2012 by a German holding company with a controversial history of profiting from forced labor during the Nazi era. There are at least six reliable sources that have commented on the ethical issues of financing a company with money that derives in part from forced labor. One Boston Globe article is titled, "I found out Nazi money is behind my favorite coffee. Should I keep drinking it?"[1] I have proposed a short, factual section that simply acknowledges this controversy and includes these sources. One year ago, there was consensus against my proposal and I made a newbie mistake of edit warring. I have now addressed some of the concerns raised by those editors and attempted again to add a section about the acquisition and the parent company. One of the editors from one year ago is knee-jerk deleting this section, arguing that ownership by a parent company is irrelevant to the company being owned. This is absurd since just about every company article on WP has information about ownership, and at least six reliable sources have commented on the controversy I am trying to acknowledge. These editors have made little effort to focus on the content (WP:FOC), WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, WP:NEGOTIATE, WP:PRESERVE, WP:DONTBITE or find WP:ATD. A fresh eye on this dispute would be useful. Here is the language I'm proposing: ==Parent company== In 2012, German conglomerate JAB Holding Company acquired Peet's coffee for about $1 billion. Revelations in 2019 about this parent company's support for the Nazi party and profiteering from forced labor in the 1940s sparked commentary in the press about the ethics of supporting companies whose financing derives in part from the historical use of slave labor.[2][3][4][5] JAB Holding also owns Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Panera Bread, Pret a Manger and other businesses. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Peet's Coffee#Nazi history of parent company How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A fresh set of objective eyes would be useful as well as an effort towards compromise rather than wholesale deletion. Summary of dispute by HemiauchaniaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ZaathrasPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by slaterstevenNote I am involved and issued the edit war warning to them over this issue. In essence Peet's Coffee was acquired by the JAB Holding Company in 2012 (some 70 years after WW2 ended) and thus we are arguing it is not relevant to a company (peet's Coffie) what was set up 20 years after WW2 ended. As it tells us nothing about Peet's Coffee. Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Note as well that this is not mentioned on any of this company's other holdings pages. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Peet's Coffee discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Gonzalo Lira
![]() | Closed. The notability tag has been removed by an administrator with instructions not to reapply it. My own opinion is that this tagging dispute has wasted far too many bytes, but that tagging disputes in general waste bytes rather than accomplish anything. Questions about article content can be discussed at the article talk page. Report disruption at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2022 (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 This new/recreated article was recently nominated for deletion by BeŻet, and was closed as no consensus. BeŻet then opened a talk page discussion about adding a cleanup tag. After 4 days and some discussion, BeŻet boldly added it, only to have it immediately removed by GizzyCatBella. BeŻet reinstated it, and then I removed it, citing WP:BRD and WP:GAME. It was subsequently readded by BeŻet, and the discussion continued. 3 days later it was removed by Metro Siberia and reinstated by Ermenrich. I am bringing this dispute here because a. I don't see that there is consensus to add this tag to the article. b. While BeŻet is to be commended for opening a discussion first, I don't see his bold addition as having merit. He has stated that How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Gonzalo Lira#Adding the Notability tag How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I am looking for clarification as to what the true purpose of a cleanup tag is, and whether or not there is a guideline (in addition to essays) governing their inclusion. Summary of dispute by BeŻetThe tag wasn't added boldly as it was discussed first on the talk page. Before adding the tag/template to the page, I wanted to check if there is at least one other person who thinks the tag should be there. There were at least two other people saying they think the tag should go there, therefore I added it. The notability of Lira has proven controversial, as seen in the deletion discussion, and therefore the tag is appropriate. Any controversial content change would require consensus from other editors, however this is not a content change: this is an addition of a tag that describes the status of the article and the surrounding discussion. The tag should stay there until the notability of Lira is confirmed - that is, a consensus is reached regarding his notability. Since there currently is no consensus, the notability of Lira is unknown, as described by the tag ( Summary of dispute by JeppizPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ErmenrichPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by BetsyRMadisonThe deletion discussion finished with no consensus regarding notability and with the Closer suggesting that the article's deletion discussion be revisited after editors wait to see if Lira's alleged 'went missing' stops being talked/blogged about. Given that from the Closer, it makes sense that while we wait, we add the Tag to inform our readers that Lira's notability is still uncertain. The Tag was not added boldly. Several days of discussion took place prior to adding the Tag. Tagging is not a content change. Tags are used to indicate potential problems with an article and in this case, as the Closer noted, the notability of the subject has not been established; hence the need for the Tag. One reason the filer, Havridum, gives for starting this discussion is because Metro Siberia removed the Tag and their Tag removal was reverted. Metro Siberia is an SPA [4] who joined wiki yesterday and their 3rd ever edit was to remove the Tag. Havradim said he/she intentionally didn’t disclose that the editor is an SPA because he/she didn’t feel it was necessary to include that on this discussion board. I disagree, so I’m disclosing it. Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC) Summary of dispute by GizzyCatBellaI pretty much echo everything the filer wrote. An AfD just ended a few days ago (note that the AfD has been filed by the same user who now placed the tag) An alleged lack of notability has not been established by the AfD. The closing editor noted - I highly suggest this be revisited when he's no longer in the news.[5]. This tag is being re-introduced prematurely. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC) Please also note that users Ermenrich and MetroSiberia filer Havradim listed above did not take part in the discussion, they only performed reverts.
Summary of dispute by Metro SiberiaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Gonzalo Lira discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
AvtoVAZ
![]() | Closed. There has been no discussion on the article talk page. Discussion at the article talk page is a prerequisite for almost every form of dispute resolution including DRN and Third Opinion. There hasn't been any discussion, only edit warring. Also, the filing editor has not notified the other editor, which is also a problem, but less basic than the lack of discussion. Use the article talk page. That's why it's there. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2022 (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 The User https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Urbanoc made the 3rd Revert Rule broken, he reverted more than 4 Times, We need a 3rd Opinion about the AvtoVaz Article and its Template. Regards Please Revet back as my better version. Thanks How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? AvtoVaz How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? yes Summary of dispute by UrbanocPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
AvtoVAZ discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
He-Man
![]() | Disputes must have recently been discussed extensively to go to DRN. Might you try getting a third opinion first? You just posted to the talk page today and nobody has replied to you. Give it time.casualdejekyll 15:24, 24 May 2022 (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 I understand that the iconic character of He-Man has garnered appeal from the gay community. However, his creator, Roger Sweet, not one single time ever alluded to anything than he was a Barbarian heroic character, never in his life did he suggest or imply He-Man was gay. This WIKI has about 5000 words, 2300 of them are DEDICATED to making it all about gay interpretation, citing nothing more than snippets from gay writers and gay magazines. There is more discussion about gay than children or the morality of the character. I initially tried to tone it down just in the intro, MULTIPLE people have commented in the TALK section about this, but it keeps getting ignored and any changes reverted back in minutes. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:He-Man How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I believe we need a 3rd party to come in, maybe I am wrong, but I just don't see the context of how one community that represents about 6% of the population, and their interpretation deserves to take over 48% of the WIKI. There is a section to cover the subject matter, and it is HUGE, so that is fine, just leave that subject in that section so if someone wants to read about it they can, but not litter everywhere on the subject that is just a theory. Summary of dispute by ArjayayPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DimadickPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by PanagiotisZoisPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
He-Man discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
- ^ https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/food-dining/2019/06/04/peet-coffee-wake-call/XrJtIiY5MPYCycCGxglaSK/story.html.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) - ^ Staff, Devra First Globe; June 4; 2019; Comments, 12:46 p m Share on Facebook Share on TwitterView. "I found out Nazi money is behind my favorite coffee. Should I keep drinking it? - The Boston Globe". BostonGlobe.com. Retrieved 2022-05-14.
{{cite web}}
:|first4=
has generic name (help);|last3=
has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ Rising • •, David. "Family Who Owns Krispy Kreme, Panera, Peet's Coffee Acknowledges Nazi Past". NBC Bay Area. Retrieved 2022-05-14.
- ^ "Peet's Ownership Must Make Amends for Nazi Past". The Emory Wheel. 2019-04-02. Retrieved 2022-05-14.
- ^ "Wealthy German family, owners of Peet's and Noah's, to make amends for Nazi past". J. 2019-03-25. Retrieved 2022-05-14.