| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Kid Rock |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 00:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Comment | Dispute stale, discussion ended. |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:
What is the dispute?
The user Rockgenre has been repeatedly adding genres based on his own POV, reverting a previous generalization which multiple editors have agreed upon, which covers any subgenre of rock music which RG feels this musician belongs under, including more long-term style choices and styles that the musician in question performed for shorter periods of time. He has attempted to add sources that do not back up the information he has tried to cite.
What would you like to change about this?
Attempts to discuss the issue have proved unsuccessful. Rockgenre refuses to listen to any reason, including suggestions that a generality might be preferable in this particular case to listing specific subgenres, and suggestions that the information he claims is being used to cite the unneeded specific subgenres does not exist within the sources given are met with extreme backlash. RG has responded in a particularly uncivil manner towards suggestions of POV pushing, and has tried to claim that editors who disagree with him are doing the same thing.
How do you think we can help?
Discussions in regard to the applications of Wikipedia guidelines, especially those found here would be needed. What would be good here would to keep RG from editing long enough for him to think the issues involved over and decide whether he should continue heading down the path he is currently on.
Mediator notes
Is this dispute still on-going? Xavexgoem ( talk) 19:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- The talk page of the article is currently blank, the discussion related to this dispute is located in the talk page archive before the most recent one. This seems to be a dead dispute. Both parties mentioned above have moved on. -- Atama 頭 18:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Administrative notes
Discussion
This is completely false, he is the one always removing sourced info pushing opinion. I have used numerous sources all seen on Kid rock's current talk page and in the archives. Sources from Rolling Stone, MTV, Sound of the Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal, and a book called Somebody Scream!: Rap Music's Rise to Prominence in the Aftershock of Black Power by Marcus Reeves. And everytime I even state a source he says something like that's your opinion despite the fact that I use references. RG ( talk) 16:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm fresh to this debate and am aware of no past contact between me and either involved party. For now I'll comment mostly on a specific part of their disagreement: the inclusion or exclusion of the term " nu metal". The book Somebody Scream is one of the sources specifically identifying Kid Rock with "a budding sub-genre called nu metal." Personally, I don't like seeing crowded info boxes and don't see a need to list every genre with which a particular artist has been associated. I'd prefer "nu metal" not be included in the info box but I don't think this preference matters when another Wikipedian wants it there and has produced good sources supporting it's inclusion. This seems to be merely a disagreement over editorial style, lumping versus splitting, etc. User:Ibaranoff24 told User:Rockgenre "Your POV-pushing attempts are astounding" but I do not see how this difference of opinion is POV-pushing by either party except to the extent that any disagreement involves, by definition, opposing viewpoints. I don't see policy-violating incivility at Talk:Kid Rock, at User talk:Rockgenre or at User talk:Ibaranoff24 although some of the messages these two have left for each other on their talk pages have come very close (maybe some more severe stuff has since been removed). In my opinion, and from what I can see, User:Ibaranoff24 has adopted a tone which is at least as hostile and unfriendly as that of User:Rockgenre. I'm a littled puzzled by User:Ibaranoff24's desire "to keep RG from editing long enough for him to think the issues involved". It's true that violation of WP:3RR and such can result in account suspension, but both these users have been warned about edit warring by third parties. -- 208.59.93.238 ( talk) 21:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not hostile at all. I see RG as being accusatory. He makes claims towards me that are untrue, demands that I be prevented from editing against his opinion, and ignores my repeated attempts to point out numerous editing policies which suggest that including information based on a singular source is strongly POV. RG's claim that I "am the one always removing sourced info pushing opinion" is absolutely false on all counts, and I have pointed out that I have made no attempt to push my POV and pointed to sources which contradict RG's opinions and the sources he uses to back up his own POV -- particularly biographies of other musicians, etc. The results of my efforts seem to always be that this particular editor, for one, ignores me, and continues to edit as he pleases despite multiple disagreements with various editors, various policies which are in effect, style guidelines, etc. Writing a musician's bio takes a lot of hard effort which RG doesn't want to put any effort into, despite the fact that he has the time to edit-war on menial issues such as a genre that he thinks a certain musician performed in for one album. We clearly agree on some points, such as that Kid Rock does not perform traditional heavy metal music, and I have attempted to open up discussion of the issues at hand, but his refusal to listen smacks of POV pushing. I have always taken the time to listen to multiple sides in various issues I've encountered in the past, but RG does not seem to be open to even discussing the matter at hand. I hope that I'm wrong about this and that he can discuss the matter here. I'm doubtful, but I hope that this matter can be resolved. I thought that the generalization offered of "rock, hip hop, country" was fine, and corresponds with what is sourced. ( Sugar Bear ( talk) 23:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC))
-
Please click this link to see the many cases this user has had of being a vandal, removing sourced material, pushing POV, and directly insulting me. It also shows that Ibaranoff may have a prejudice against the nu metal label, having tried to pull the plug on the article twice and denouncing it as a "useless". No offense intended. Writing a musician's bio takes a lot of hard effort which RG doesn't want to put any effort into, yet again he attacks me and I still have gotten no simple apology for anything he has done.
RG (
talk) 03:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- "Vandal". That's a funny term for a person who decides that he can dictate what can and cannot appear on my own talk page, as in this instance. That's you editing my talk page, not yours, but my own, because you decided so. Here you go again with ridiculous accusations based on a mere disagreement with the guidelines and my editing choices. It is not vandalism to improve articles, try to get them up to snuff. It is vandalism to repeatedly add statements that conflict with the consensus of sources. I'm sorry, but you are really trying too hard to take me down. I'm not in "competition" with you. I want to work with you to get the articles that you are interested in up to GA and FA quality. That you simply do not want to help me help yourself says a lot about you. What is your mission? Calling other editors vandals, accusing them of pushing POV? How do you constitute 'removing sourced material'? Take the article St. Anger - one review calls it "nu metal", yet it does not appear in the article. Why? Because a consensus agreed that the overwhelming majority of sources state that it is merely heavy metal, even though multiple editors disagreed about this, because they felt that it "is not traditional heavy metal" (which is not what the article heavy metal music is about, but regardless). As repeatedly stated, I don't have a bias against the term "nu metal". You invented this concept with no evidence to back up your theory. I have a bias against all genre terms. I don't believe in or care for them. But I'm not removing genres from every article to have it just called "music". I am clearly working within the sources against my personal opinion, which you, are not. ( Sugar Bear ( talk) 21:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC))
- I am clearly working within the sources against my personal opinion, hilarious. It is vandalism to repeatedly add statements that conflict with the consensus of sources then why do you keep removing nu metal? This is the pot calling the kettle black. There is defintive proof that you dislike this term. Saying it's a useless catch phrase, offending others editors like
User:Blackmetalbaz calling them fools for "pretending it exists", and even trying to get rid of its place in history shows that you have a clear hatred of it.
RG (
talk) 01:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Re-read the above, scrub, rinse, repeat. The fact that I even gave you the benefit of the doubt proves that I am trying to work with you. My edits clearly show that I am working within the sources, which you are not. I removed "nu metal" from articles for which the sources didn't reflect its use. You add it to any article regardless of sources based on your own opinion, against the sources. What you do is called "vandalism". Scrub. Rinse. Repeat. ( Sugar Bear ( talk) 19:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC))
-
Please click this link to see the many cases this user has had of being a vandal, removing sourced material, pushing POV, and directly insulting me. It also shows that Ibaranoff may have a prejudice against the nu metal label, having tried to pull the plug on the article twice and denouncing it as a "useless". No offense intended. Writing a musician's bio takes a lot of hard effort which RG doesn't want to put any effort into, yet again he attacks me and I still have gotten no simple apology for anything he has done.
RG (
talk) 03:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Edits like this clearly show that you fail to distinguish between the concept that what is stated by one source does not account for the overwhelming consensus by all sources. Please take a while to re-read the guidelines, read the sources, scrub, rinse, repeat. ( Sugar Bear ( talk) 19:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC))
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Article | Kid Rock |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 00:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Comment | Dispute stale, discussion ended. |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:
What is the dispute?
The user Rockgenre has been repeatedly adding genres based on his own POV, reverting a previous generalization which multiple editors have agreed upon, which covers any subgenre of rock music which RG feels this musician belongs under, including more long-term style choices and styles that the musician in question performed for shorter periods of time. He has attempted to add sources that do not back up the information he has tried to cite.
What would you like to change about this?
Attempts to discuss the issue have proved unsuccessful. Rockgenre refuses to listen to any reason, including suggestions that a generality might be preferable in this particular case to listing specific subgenres, and suggestions that the information he claims is being used to cite the unneeded specific subgenres does not exist within the sources given are met with extreme backlash. RG has responded in a particularly uncivil manner towards suggestions of POV pushing, and has tried to claim that editors who disagree with him are doing the same thing.
How do you think we can help?
Discussions in regard to the applications of Wikipedia guidelines, especially those found here would be needed. What would be good here would to keep RG from editing long enough for him to think the issues involved over and decide whether he should continue heading down the path he is currently on.
Mediator notes
Is this dispute still on-going? Xavexgoem ( talk) 19:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- The talk page of the article is currently blank, the discussion related to this dispute is located in the talk page archive before the most recent one. This seems to be a dead dispute. Both parties mentioned above have moved on. -- Atama 頭 18:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Administrative notes
Discussion
This is completely false, he is the one always removing sourced info pushing opinion. I have used numerous sources all seen on Kid rock's current talk page and in the archives. Sources from Rolling Stone, MTV, Sound of the Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal, and a book called Somebody Scream!: Rap Music's Rise to Prominence in the Aftershock of Black Power by Marcus Reeves. And everytime I even state a source he says something like that's your opinion despite the fact that I use references. RG ( talk) 16:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm fresh to this debate and am aware of no past contact between me and either involved party. For now I'll comment mostly on a specific part of their disagreement: the inclusion or exclusion of the term " nu metal". The book Somebody Scream is one of the sources specifically identifying Kid Rock with "a budding sub-genre called nu metal." Personally, I don't like seeing crowded info boxes and don't see a need to list every genre with which a particular artist has been associated. I'd prefer "nu metal" not be included in the info box but I don't think this preference matters when another Wikipedian wants it there and has produced good sources supporting it's inclusion. This seems to be merely a disagreement over editorial style, lumping versus splitting, etc. User:Ibaranoff24 told User:Rockgenre "Your POV-pushing attempts are astounding" but I do not see how this difference of opinion is POV-pushing by either party except to the extent that any disagreement involves, by definition, opposing viewpoints. I don't see policy-violating incivility at Talk:Kid Rock, at User talk:Rockgenre or at User talk:Ibaranoff24 although some of the messages these two have left for each other on their talk pages have come very close (maybe some more severe stuff has since been removed). In my opinion, and from what I can see, User:Ibaranoff24 has adopted a tone which is at least as hostile and unfriendly as that of User:Rockgenre. I'm a littled puzzled by User:Ibaranoff24's desire "to keep RG from editing long enough for him to think the issues involved". It's true that violation of WP:3RR and such can result in account suspension, but both these users have been warned about edit warring by third parties. -- 208.59.93.238 ( talk) 21:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not hostile at all. I see RG as being accusatory. He makes claims towards me that are untrue, demands that I be prevented from editing against his opinion, and ignores my repeated attempts to point out numerous editing policies which suggest that including information based on a singular source is strongly POV. RG's claim that I "am the one always removing sourced info pushing opinion" is absolutely false on all counts, and I have pointed out that I have made no attempt to push my POV and pointed to sources which contradict RG's opinions and the sources he uses to back up his own POV -- particularly biographies of other musicians, etc. The results of my efforts seem to always be that this particular editor, for one, ignores me, and continues to edit as he pleases despite multiple disagreements with various editors, various policies which are in effect, style guidelines, etc. Writing a musician's bio takes a lot of hard effort which RG doesn't want to put any effort into, despite the fact that he has the time to edit-war on menial issues such as a genre that he thinks a certain musician performed in for one album. We clearly agree on some points, such as that Kid Rock does not perform traditional heavy metal music, and I have attempted to open up discussion of the issues at hand, but his refusal to listen smacks of POV pushing. I have always taken the time to listen to multiple sides in various issues I've encountered in the past, but RG does not seem to be open to even discussing the matter at hand. I hope that I'm wrong about this and that he can discuss the matter here. I'm doubtful, but I hope that this matter can be resolved. I thought that the generalization offered of "rock, hip hop, country" was fine, and corresponds with what is sourced. ( Sugar Bear ( talk) 23:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC))
-
Please click this link to see the many cases this user has had of being a vandal, removing sourced material, pushing POV, and directly insulting me. It also shows that Ibaranoff may have a prejudice against the nu metal label, having tried to pull the plug on the article twice and denouncing it as a "useless". No offense intended. Writing a musician's bio takes a lot of hard effort which RG doesn't want to put any effort into, yet again he attacks me and I still have gotten no simple apology for anything he has done.
RG (
talk) 03:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- "Vandal". That's a funny term for a person who decides that he can dictate what can and cannot appear on my own talk page, as in this instance. That's you editing my talk page, not yours, but my own, because you decided so. Here you go again with ridiculous accusations based on a mere disagreement with the guidelines and my editing choices. It is not vandalism to improve articles, try to get them up to snuff. It is vandalism to repeatedly add statements that conflict with the consensus of sources. I'm sorry, but you are really trying too hard to take me down. I'm not in "competition" with you. I want to work with you to get the articles that you are interested in up to GA and FA quality. That you simply do not want to help me help yourself says a lot about you. What is your mission? Calling other editors vandals, accusing them of pushing POV? How do you constitute 'removing sourced material'? Take the article St. Anger - one review calls it "nu metal", yet it does not appear in the article. Why? Because a consensus agreed that the overwhelming majority of sources state that it is merely heavy metal, even though multiple editors disagreed about this, because they felt that it "is not traditional heavy metal" (which is not what the article heavy metal music is about, but regardless). As repeatedly stated, I don't have a bias against the term "nu metal". You invented this concept with no evidence to back up your theory. I have a bias against all genre terms. I don't believe in or care for them. But I'm not removing genres from every article to have it just called "music". I am clearly working within the sources against my personal opinion, which you, are not. ( Sugar Bear ( talk) 21:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC))
- I am clearly working within the sources against my personal opinion, hilarious. It is vandalism to repeatedly add statements that conflict with the consensus of sources then why do you keep removing nu metal? This is the pot calling the kettle black. There is defintive proof that you dislike this term. Saying it's a useless catch phrase, offending others editors like
User:Blackmetalbaz calling them fools for "pretending it exists", and even trying to get rid of its place in history shows that you have a clear hatred of it.
RG (
talk) 01:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Re-read the above, scrub, rinse, repeat. The fact that I even gave you the benefit of the doubt proves that I am trying to work with you. My edits clearly show that I am working within the sources, which you are not. I removed "nu metal" from articles for which the sources didn't reflect its use. You add it to any article regardless of sources based on your own opinion, against the sources. What you do is called "vandalism". Scrub. Rinse. Repeat. ( Sugar Bear ( talk) 19:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC))
-
Please click this link to see the many cases this user has had of being a vandal, removing sourced material, pushing POV, and directly insulting me. It also shows that Ibaranoff may have a prejudice against the nu metal label, having tried to pull the plug on the article twice and denouncing it as a "useless". No offense intended. Writing a musician's bio takes a lot of hard effort which RG doesn't want to put any effort into, yet again he attacks me and I still have gotten no simple apology for anything he has done.
RG (
talk) 03:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Edits like this clearly show that you fail to distinguish between the concept that what is stated by one source does not account for the overwhelming consensus by all sources. Please take a while to re-read the guidelines, read the sources, scrub, rinse, repeat. ( Sugar Bear ( talk) 19:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC))