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 talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 |
Requests for dispute resolution are not made through this talk page. If you wish to use DRN, please go to the DRN main page and click the "Request Dispute Resolution" button at the top of the page, then carefully follow the instructions which come up. If you want a choice of other DR procedures, see the
dispute resolution policy for a list. —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 19:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
Hi, I've had my edits on Raw Foodism article reverted numerous times and two users have insulted and threatened to report or block me, even though I've been following wikipedia's policies and haven't insulted anyone in the process. I wonder which dispute resolution venue would be more effective on this case. The disputes have happened on the articles Raw Foodism, its talk page, my talk page and another user's talk page. /info/en/?search=Talk:Raw_foodism, /info/en/?search=User_talk:Psychologist_Guy, /info/en/?search=Raw_foodism, /info/en/?search=User_talk:Wikieditor1377. It refers to a couple of edits which I intended to do on the page since it is missing many reference and science backed information on the subject of raw food diet and effects of cooking on nutrients. One of edits I've tried to add was about the effect of cooking on vitamin A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B9, B12, C, D, E and K, as well as minerals potassium, calcium, magnesium and sodium. I've used references from Harvard, Oxford and Healthline for that edit. I've also added to the talk page updated information on acrylamide and its links to human cancer published last year on Genome Project and the International Reseach on Cancer and was immediately threatened for no particular reason. Many thanks. Wikieditor1377 ( talk) 16:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions explicitly forbids IPs and non-ECP editors from participating in these, yet most editors don't realise this. What can we do to make sure that this is clear? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Requests for dispute resolution are not made through this talk page. If you wish to use DRN, please go to the DRN main page and click the "Request Dispute Resolution" button at the top of the page, then carefully follow the instructions which come up. If you want a choice of other DR procedures, see the
dispute resolution policy for a list. —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 20:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
Me and User:Vaselineeeeeee have been discussing on the talk pages of Vito Rizzuto, John "Sonny Franzese and James Vincenzo Capone. Primarily on Vito Rizzuto. We've had discussions about the meanings, and the user had a misconception about the true meaning. I got to an extent of explaining based on the Wikipedia's policy about the meaning, the starting anecdotal page and yet the user is reprimanding and trying to bury the topic telling me to drop the stick. He presumed nationality had to do with POB. Nationality. but it's from a global classification to one's nation. A nationality is attained by 'birth' or 'naturalization' is stated clearly. And he's coming up with his own meaning based on 'National perception'. Citizenship. Responsibilities mandated internally on a citizen of a country, stretching down to state, city. The rights, taxes and such. This is going nowhere with the two of us. So I urge you to please tell the user to concur as this is not about an altercation, but about the need of correction. You can review the talk page. Jack Morales Garcia ( talk) 10:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC) JMG.
Is that right? And where did you attained those factual information from? Jack Morales Garcia ( talk) 17:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
Hello. Could I please make a request to stop the practice of hatting closed threads? It makes it impossible to locate specific discussions by keyword using either an external or internal search. Such a search would return the keyword and the DR page, but since the discussions are all hatted, it's impossible to find the correct one without un-hatting all the discussions on a single page. Viriditas ( talk) 23:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Please see the discussion in the last section above. Due to the ARBPIA decision in that case certain editors, specifically IP editors, editors who have fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure cannot file for or participate in dispute resolution here at DRN (or engage in other forms of DR such as RFC or 3O). DRN is built around a model of having all editors involved in a dispute participate here so that a consensus can be reached that will "hold" when taken back to the article. This restriction substantially interferes with that model. Off the top of my head, I see the following possible solutions:
What's everyone's thoughts about this? Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 20:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
First, I apologize for not having read this talk page for a month, mainly because the project page has been busy. I will reply to User:TransporterMan and User:Doug Weller. Without having read the detailed ArbCom ruling, my first thought is that a restriction on less-than-EC editors is stupid. However, I think that certain changes to the rules of DRN to exclude certain cases are a good idea, and cases involving read battlegrounds tend to lead to battleground editing that our volunteers should not get dragged into. I don't object to an exclusion of all Palestine-Israel cases. If we are excluding certain types of disputes, I would also like to exclude all disputes filed by paid editors. We haven't had any such cases in recent months, but in recent years we have had cases in which paid editors who had used Edit Requests to request non-neutral edits were then using DRN to re-argue their requests. I would also like to exclude cases with more than 6?10??12? editors, which are better suited to RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
A volunteer moderator describing a user's contribution to a Talk page as "trolling", when it clearly engages the topic, is not showing good faith. Dismissing the user's contributing as being too combative, when other editors made direct attacks on other users, without any sanction or comment from those involved, shows that this is a biased and partisan one-way standard to censor critiques. As for not using the Talk page, it's kinda hard to use when your comments keep being reverted in one-sided fashion. Please don't volunteer for dispute resolutions unless you are will to show consideration to all sides. 73.159.229.5 ( talk) 17:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Having had the dispute resolution closed for going on for too long, I am wondering whether there is any formal way to request further steps be taken, re Drag Race UK S2? Spa-Franks ( talk) 14:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@ DRN volunteers: - There are three cases that appear to be ready for volunteers at least to look into neutrally. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I have written an essay which is intended to address editors who have vague or unfocused complaints about an article. Any volunteer is welcome to tweak it. Any volunteer is welcome to use it if they have an editor who has complaints of a nature such as "all points of view must be presented" or "the article is non-neutral". See Wikipedia:Be Specific at DRN. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
DRN policy states:
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page...Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
I believe this policy is fully appropriate for matters such as AE and ANI, but not for DRN, where a ping of involved editors on the article Talk page is more appropriate, as such a ping also serves to advise other editors who were not involved in the dispute, or were not previous Talk participants, but might later choose to participate, so they can see that the DRN topic was opened, which they would not be aware of if only individual editors involved in a dispute were notified on their user Talk pages. Article Talk ping notification is more transparent and efficient. soibangla ( talk) 19:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Some of you may have noticed that the table that displays the status of disputes is not being updated. The table is being maintained by a bot, and it seems that the bot has stopped performing that task (but is performing other tasks). I am in the process of asking the bot maintainer to get the bot working, and also of finding another bot maintainer to get another bot to run the existing code if the first maintainer is on extended wikibreak. In the meantime, ignore the table, because it is being ignored by the bot. Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Robert McClenon: Hello - what is the next steps? 1) the challenges on the sources 2) I need someone to oversee the pages related to Our Lady of Medjugorje that have been listed. 3) There is no response from Slp1 and it is looking like we need to find one expert, neutral editor to help us with this controversial page. Any suggestions? Red Rose 13 ( talk) 18:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
This is about the 'Sri Lanka Easter bombings' dispute. Correctly closed, as the other involved editor simply did not fill in his/her part; but also when I informed him on his/her talk page (s)he reverted that request for input, with explanation 'stop spamming me'.
BUT, I am pretty certain that if I once again apply the changes I that think are essential to the original story (s)he will revert again. And we don't want rollback wars in Wikipedia. I think I've done all within my power to come to a dialogue, but it seems to fail. Shall I simply do the change to the text and see what happens? But what in case of a rollback war? Thanks in advance, Erikdr ( talk) 18:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I'll do my best. As it's only 1 revised section, probably first publish that on my own User page and refer to it from the talk page for this real item so that everyone can read in 'sandbox' form. And again invite comments, with putting on the talk page of the other editor (his/her choice to revert again). Then publish for-real after 1 week of time for commenting. And if that results in an edit war, time to escalate sadly. Tnx, Erikdr ( talk) 11:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
DRN does not accept requests on its talk page. But this is really an edit request, not a dispute resolution request. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and anyone means you. If you feel that changes should be made, and can cite
reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia, then go ahead and make those changes yourself, citing those sources. If you have a
conflict of interest and feel that you should not do that, follow the instructions
here. —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 18:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
BabyWeems ( talk) 14:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC) If you look up Hamilton Luske and Snow White Wikipedia says that Hamilton Luske was chosen by Walt as the supervising animator and was the first animator hired for the film. If you look up Snow White wikipedia does not even recognize that Hamilton Luske worked on the film. Hamilton Luske was selected by Walt Disney to create the character Snow White. |
Require mediator on “Adirondack Railroad” page, with specific reference to Edit History page and my Subject is page entitled “Adirondack Railroad”, with specific reference to my site-updating/correcting edits of 6/3/21. (See “Edit History” page for 6/3/21.) The site is very out-of-date, and my corrections over the past two months have all been swiftly removed by unknown editors I cannot locate to speak to. (I am NOT computer-literate for a site like Wikipedia). Would a willing mediator please call ASAP me at (redacted) (after 11AM EDT) or email me (redacted) Thank you.
Donald L. Pevsner Attorney-at-Law (pro bono publico) 16ConcordeSSC ( talk) 22:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I created a new dispute Bret Weinstein. I used Request dispute resolution button and followed the steps in there.
However, the dispute, on the page, is showing up inside of an already closed dispute Conor McGregor
Is it just me? Is this some kind of a visual bug? Or is something wrong with the code or the Request dispute resolution wizard for creating a dispute? Dylath Leen ( talk) 11:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Requests for dispute resolution are not accepted on this page. If you wish dispute resolution go to the main page, click the button labeled "Request Dispute Resolution" at the top of the page and follow the instructions that come up. Note that
opinions given as Third Opinions do not "count" towards consensus, so this is still just a dispute between the two original parties at this point unless one of the 3O-givers wants to specifically include themself as a disputant. If you list this here at DRN be sure to include them, however. —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 19:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
I'm uncertain if further discussion or a mediator is needed on this content dispute: Boundaries between categories. It mostly involves two editors, myself and another. Two editors from WP:3O and another editor got involved. Dispute is over the range of numbers that identify each BMI category, whether the upper limits should be rounded up to account for 29.999 gap ("25-30", "30-35") or not to avoid confusion with inaccurate and overlapping 30 ("25.0-29.9", "30.0-34.9"). The reliable source ( The SuRF Report 2, p. 22) has ("25.00-29.99", "30.00-34.99"). As far as I see, the two 3O editors and I agree that rounding isn't necessary and that we should stick with RS and one decimal precision is good enough (29.9). The other two editors say no wide consensus reached and want rounding (30). Jroberson108 ( talk) 18:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC) |
Dispute Resolution August 2 and 3 2021 re: Cullen328. I am in the dangerous heat wave in western Canada when I returned to my mail the discussion had been closed I did not have the chance to reply and was not aware of any specific end time for discussion. I'm grateful to most of you who responded but not the users NarkyBlert, Ymblanter, and in fact I prefer August 1, 2021 user Valjean comment removed from the conversation including latest assault by user 78.26 on August 3, 2021. My concern was fairly simple I do not appreciate attaching false information regarding myself. There has been an uncertainty where feedback received welcomed and me others do not, if I edit an article for improvement at some point in future it should be feasible. Two issues here are delete the offensive and inaccurate user comments I mentioned above and to confirm that I am welcomed as a Wikipedia user or not.-- Longel ( talk) 03:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello admins, is this case Talk:Yin Yin Oo#Notabality eligible for Dispute resolution noticeboard? Taung Tan ( talk) 19:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Requests for dispute resolution are not accepted on this page. If you wish dispute resolution go to the main page, read and follow all the instructions, then click the button labeled "Request Dispute Resolution" at the top of the page and follow the instructions that come up. Be forewarned, however, that there's almost no chance the case will be accepted since there has not been extensive talk page discussion regarding the matter in dispute, which is a prerequisite for this noticeboard. This noticeboard only provides dispute resolution services; it is not a generalized help service. For that your best choice would probably be
Wikipedia Teahouse. —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 19:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
Hello. I hope this is right place to put this message.Could you please do me a favor and tell your ideas about [1]Thanks-- Namaka ( talk) 18:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC) |
I think that I will be adding a provision to WP:DRN Rule A stating that no editor may file a conduct report at WP:ANI or at Arbitration Enforcement while a dispute is being mediated, and that the dispute will be failed if a conduct report is filed. I just had to fail the Shusha dispute because the two principal editors both reported each other at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Template:DRN archive bottom has been nominated for merging with Template:Archive bottom. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 18:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
As a new contributor I'm not sure if this is the right place for a dispute about my contribution in Dutch. My apologies if it is not.
My contribution to the article about the Esnoga regarding a worldwide known controversy has been removed by another contributor. After an extensive discussion this contributor is not responding anymore.
You can find the discussion here: https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg:Portugees-Isra%C3%ABlietische_Synagoge
I like my contribution to be published again because I don't see in anyway how it would be in conflict with the Wikipedia policy.
I appreciate your help. Ielatfan ( talk) 07:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing dispute regarding album track listings on Live! Blueswailing July '64 since 2017, which has recently escalated. I was hoping DRN might be able to help, but none of the IPs involved have discussed the issue as required on the relevant talk pages (see Talk:Live! Blueswailing July '64#Long-term disruptive editor). Advice on how to proceed would be appreciated. — Ojorojo ( talk) 15:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
When closing a DRN case with a general close, either as poorly filed, or as a general close after discussion, please, at least for now, enter 'closed' rather than 'Closed' on the DRN status line, as in: {{DR case status|closed}}
There is a limitation to the bot that displays the summary of cases, and it seems to be case-sensitive. It isn't a serious problem, but it is just a minor issue. Let's keep the bot happy while the bot is acting like a bot. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Why are active discussions collapsed into the closed discussion text? — C.Fred ( talk) 01:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I've asked at Template talk:Archive bottom, since it appears that that is the template missing the necessary code. — C.Fred ( talk) 01:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I just did my first action by closing the latest request. I'd appreciate any and all feedback on that, whether on my justification or wording for my general close. Excited to learn! :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Since 13 February 2020, there have been a series of disruptive edits and edit wars on Opera (company). Please see the talk page for more details.
My concern is that once the semi-protection is lifted, the disruptive edits will resurface. Should increased or extended protection then be requested if the behavior resurfaces in a months' time? Can you please help with this? Heartmusic678 ( talk) 11:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi! An editor has recently made a request for a case here after being recommended to do so by El C at the relevant article ( LGBT in Islam). Should the request be closed, or how can the page be edited to account for adding the other party? I'm unsure how to do so since requests are created by a bot (or some automated process) from what I understand. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I made a general close here. Like @ A. C. Santacruz did earlier, I am going to say I appreciate all feedback on whether that was appropriate. casualdejekyll 16:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I, uh, accidentally dipped my toes into Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan and the water I found turned out to be burning acid. Can, uh, somebody (other then Robert McClenon since he appears to refuse to touch it as well).. deal with that? casualdejekyll 23:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello Casualdejekyll. A question before I get back to this tomorrow. According to this process, should I answer Allreet's "Cancel as many founders as we can and let God sort them out" second response directly or just respond to yours and your questions? Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 20:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
|}
Hi! The bot archived the armenian dispute but I wanted to ping Zani one last time before failing due to time. How may I do this? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
casualdejekyll you should create a back-and-forth section for comments between editors, as there are currently a number of editor.s replying within Robert's section which goes against the ruleset you established for the dispute. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I just closed the Anti-Armenian sentiment DRN, it being my first one I actually moderated. I was wondering if y'all had any advice on how I moderated it or feedback for how to improve for next time. Thanks! A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
@ DRN volunteers: - There is a history of various sorts of disruption including sockpuppetry about this article, and at least one editor has been topic-banned. If another dispute resolution request is filed, please either verify that the parties are all in good standing before opening a case, or just ignore the request. (There is no real harm done in opening a case with a sockpuppet or topic-banned editor, but it wastes everybody's time, including the volunteer mediator and the admins.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Is there a tool analogous to {{ ping}} to create the required user page DRN notices for each of a list of users? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 10:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
My DRN on Peet's Coffee is my first. Would it have been better to do a RFC first? Is it too late to do that now? Anaxagoras17 ( talk) 19:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Robert McClenon: I'm struggling to understand why you closed the WP:DRN#Siege of Oricum discussion. You said "it is best for the full version of the article to be visible to the AFD participants", but the 'full version' was not the one being being discussed in the AfD (that was the reason I filed for DR to begin with), so the AfD has pretty much nothing to do with the content dispute save for the fact that the other parties automatically assumed bad faith because I was the nominator. The AfD will have no bearing whatsoever on the content dispute. Avilich ( talk) 18:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Nightenbelle:I must respond to your justification for closing this dispute without any attempt to mediate:
This has been discussed twice on the article talk page.
It has been one editor vs many both times.
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.
[2] why? Or is it pending? Do you know the answer? @ Robert McClenon: Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 04:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello User:Robert_McClenon,
I humbly ask that the dispute resolution for Lavender Oil is re-opened by either you or another volunteer. It seems a bit unfair that someone actively involved in the dispute can shutdown the entire moderated process by going outside of the process. For your consideration, I wrote a response to the three paragraphs you originally requested of me below:
>The first paragraph should state what they either want changed in the article or what they want left the same.
I would like the article to have an encyclopedic summary the findings of all relevant sources. And by "relevant" I of course mean the MEDRS guidelines, namely (A) published in a peer-reviewed journal (B) a meta-analysis (C) recent (five years old or less) and (D) related to the particular claim at hand (effectiveness of Silexan capsules). The article as I found it a few days ago had only a single source, the source was not (A) nor (B) at all, it was 90% not (C) nor (D) either. And of course way the Wikipedia article summarized the source is also pretty much the exact opposite way I would summarize the sources that meet (A) (B) (C) and (D). So I would like the changes I have made to stand as they do now and also add other relevant sources like possibly this and this and this.
>The second paragraph should state any questions about the reliability of sources.
These inquires are perhaps better for RSN, but in summary:
>The third paragraph should ask any other questions.
Is it okay to post these inquires to RSN now while the mediation is on-going?
Can I revert edits that were made to the article during mediation?
Assuming that RSN agrees that a journal is reliable, and a paper published in the journal meets criteria (A)(B)(C), and (D), what place does a wikipedia editor have to debate the paper's conclusions or the methodology they used to reach those conclusions? Does removing such sources for those reasons not fall under original research? I ask this because it seems to be a recurring theme during this dispute, an example of which you can read above in Zefr's dispute summary (whom prefers drugs.com for some reason? where the methodology isn't even stated.) and my response to it.
Thank you everyone that took the time to read this or help with this issue. 50.45.170.185 ( talk) 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey, Robert McClenon I am sorry to disturb you. I have something to state in reply to the second editor here. I am confused about how to reply and if there is any specific format for that? Thanks. Regards Satnam2408 ( talk) 02:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
This page is not for requesting dispute resolution. See banner at top of page if you become unblocked and if the article in question survives the deletion listing. —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 17:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
My article called Andres Velaz de Medrano is under attack by sockpuppets and people who are voting in bad faith. They have clearly proven that they have not taken a look at my sources and citations, and instead insist that no one will read it. My sources are readily available, the books and pages and citations are there. Please, History is at stake here. I am requesting for actual historians to chime in on the matter. These editors are clearly biased, opinion based and ignoring the facts and sources. I am urging all true and honorable scholars and people to support me, they attacked my page hours after posting a rough draft, they reviewed it without me requesting, I was given no time to prepare my work and had to immediately go into defense of my work. I will file a complaint but I'm not sure what else to do. These biased and opinion based editors just don't quit. Please help. Thank you. Geronimo Virula Medrano El ( talk) 14:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC) |
@ DRN volunteers: : Can someone please explain to me where, if anywhere, the detailed rules for the archival of DRN cases are documented? It appears that there is certain housekeeping that is done automagically by bots. This inquiry arises because an editor has requested that I reopen a closed dispute, and I realize that I don't know how. In the past, cases had a line that contained a command to the bot Do Not Archive Until, and that date was in a format that could be understood by a human. However, now the Do Not Archive date has a lengthy numeric date that isn't in date format but in some numeric form. Then when a case is closed by a volunteer, User:DannyS712 bot removes the Do Not Archive line. So if a case is closed, it is subject to archiving, and to prevent archiving, I would need to put that line back, but I don't know what the numbers mean. So where is the behavior of the bots documented, and where is the detailed behavior of the template that creates a case in the first place, with a Do Not Archive date, documented? Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Medhekp ( talk) 14:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the revert of my publicizing of my RFC here, I started a thread in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment titled, "Removal of my rfc publicizing from noticeboard". Per WP:SEETALK, I'm only providing notice about the existence of said discussion, because it is relevant to this noticeboard. I post it there because it affects publicizing of RFCs at large. Also per the RFC page that said doubts about requests for comment should be discussed in the talk page. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
@ DRN volunteers: - I have started an essay listing some of the types of cases that I have seen that are filed at DRN that are not appropriate cases for DRN. Please see Wikipedia:Types of DRN Filings. So far, it seems that I have listed 16 types of cases that DRN does not handle. Please discuss this list, either here, or at Wikipedia talk:Types of DRN Filings. Feel free to add types of disputes that don't belong here. Since this is cases that don't belong at DRN, I am also willing to consider renaming the essay. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Greetings,
Requesting some systematic mediation help from some experienced mediator from WP:DRN; @ Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault#Re–insertion of WP:BLP violation by dif 1109434561
Thanks
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 13:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard page is far too bureaucratic for my comfort, I have no idea where I'm supposed to post not how to format it. At least Arbcom tells you to put all your posts in your own personal section, which nobody else is permitted to post in. Anyway, I'm being asked to clarify something that I thought that I had already clarified. I shall quote from the W3C's HTML 5.2 specifications for the four tags concerned:
s
element: represents contents that are no longer accurate or no longer relevant. The s element is not appropriate when indicating document edits; to mark a span of text as having been removed from a document, use the del element.
u
element: represents a span of text with an unarticulated, though explicitly rendered, non-textual annotation, such as labeling the text as being a proper name in Chinese text (a Chinese proper name mark), or labeling the text as being misspelt. In most cases, another element is likely to be more appropriate: for marking stress emphasis, the em element should be used; for marking key words or phrases either the b element or the mark element should be used, depending on the context; for marking book titles, the cite element should be used; for labeling text with explicit textual annotations, the ruby element should be used; for technical terms, taxonomic designation, transliteration, a thought, or for labeling ship names in Western texts, the i element should be used.
ins
element: represents an addition to the document.
del
element: represents a removal from the document.
In all four cases, exactly the same text is given by WhatWG (although the section numbers differ):
4.5.5 The s element;
4.5.22 The u element;
4.7.1 The ins element;
4.7.2 The del element. Neither of these authorities refer to any of the four elements as either "deprecated" or "obsolete". The <strike>...</strike>
element, however, is shown as obsolete by both bodies (
W3C;
WhatWG), with the recommendation to use <del>...</del>
or <s>...</s>
instead. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 22:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Robert McClenon, per your instructions here, I have a right to instate the edits as seen fit due to my timely participation in this discussion. After this, it would be I who has the right to file an RfC, with your assistance to ensure neutral wording.
After first stalling and stonewalling this DRN process, Srijanx22 has now directly undermined the RfC process by disregarding your instruction and rushing to start an RfC himself, which is clearly not neutrally worded, omitting the contradicting statement and sources presented here and in the lead. As I see it, this illegitimate RfC needs to be halted and nullified ASAP, and I think ANI is the immediate next step instead, after this procedural disruption. What do you think? As I see it, these are back-to-back breaches of procedure. Sapedder ( talk) 01:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Sources not presented
|
---|
|
Greetings. Robert McClenon may have closed our dispute prematurely same day (perhaps listening too hard to Magnolia677 who said he hasn't posted to our talk page since September). The Owamni dispute began in February 2022, on the article talk page when Magnolia677 originated the dispute. These links were included in the current dispute, and are re-pasted below:
Robert, what say you? I don't want to waste your valuable time but nearly eight months have passed. Thanks. - SusanLesch ( talk) 03:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
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 talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 |
Requests for dispute resolution are not made through this talk page. If you wish to use DRN, please go to the DRN main page and click the "Request Dispute Resolution" button at the top of the page, then carefully follow the instructions which come up. If you want a choice of other DR procedures, see the
dispute resolution policy for a list. —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 19:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
Hi, I've had my edits on Raw Foodism article reverted numerous times and two users have insulted and threatened to report or block me, even though I've been following wikipedia's policies and haven't insulted anyone in the process. I wonder which dispute resolution venue would be more effective on this case. The disputes have happened on the articles Raw Foodism, its talk page, my talk page and another user's talk page. /info/en/?search=Talk:Raw_foodism, /info/en/?search=User_talk:Psychologist_Guy, /info/en/?search=Raw_foodism, /info/en/?search=User_talk:Wikieditor1377. It refers to a couple of edits which I intended to do on the page since it is missing many reference and science backed information on the subject of raw food diet and effects of cooking on nutrients. One of edits I've tried to add was about the effect of cooking on vitamin A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B9, B12, C, D, E and K, as well as minerals potassium, calcium, magnesium and sodium. I've used references from Harvard, Oxford and Healthline for that edit. I've also added to the talk page updated information on acrylamide and its links to human cancer published last year on Genome Project and the International Reseach on Cancer and was immediately threatened for no particular reason. Many thanks. Wikieditor1377 ( talk) 16:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions explicitly forbids IPs and non-ECP editors from participating in these, yet most editors don't realise this. What can we do to make sure that this is clear? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Requests for dispute resolution are not made through this talk page. If you wish to use DRN, please go to the DRN main page and click the "Request Dispute Resolution" button at the top of the page, then carefully follow the instructions which come up. If you want a choice of other DR procedures, see the
dispute resolution policy for a list. —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 20:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
Me and User:Vaselineeeeeee have been discussing on the talk pages of Vito Rizzuto, John "Sonny Franzese and James Vincenzo Capone. Primarily on Vito Rizzuto. We've had discussions about the meanings, and the user had a misconception about the true meaning. I got to an extent of explaining based on the Wikipedia's policy about the meaning, the starting anecdotal page and yet the user is reprimanding and trying to bury the topic telling me to drop the stick. He presumed nationality had to do with POB. Nationality. but it's from a global classification to one's nation. A nationality is attained by 'birth' or 'naturalization' is stated clearly. And he's coming up with his own meaning based on 'National perception'. Citizenship. Responsibilities mandated internally on a citizen of a country, stretching down to state, city. The rights, taxes and such. This is going nowhere with the two of us. So I urge you to please tell the user to concur as this is not about an altercation, but about the need of correction. You can review the talk page. Jack Morales Garcia ( talk) 10:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC) JMG.
Is that right? And where did you attained those factual information from? Jack Morales Garcia ( talk) 17:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
Hello. Could I please make a request to stop the practice of hatting closed threads? It makes it impossible to locate specific discussions by keyword using either an external or internal search. Such a search would return the keyword and the DR page, but since the discussions are all hatted, it's impossible to find the correct one without un-hatting all the discussions on a single page. Viriditas ( talk) 23:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Please see the discussion in the last section above. Due to the ARBPIA decision in that case certain editors, specifically IP editors, editors who have fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure cannot file for or participate in dispute resolution here at DRN (or engage in other forms of DR such as RFC or 3O). DRN is built around a model of having all editors involved in a dispute participate here so that a consensus can be reached that will "hold" when taken back to the article. This restriction substantially interferes with that model. Off the top of my head, I see the following possible solutions:
What's everyone's thoughts about this? Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 20:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
First, I apologize for not having read this talk page for a month, mainly because the project page has been busy. I will reply to User:TransporterMan and User:Doug Weller. Without having read the detailed ArbCom ruling, my first thought is that a restriction on less-than-EC editors is stupid. However, I think that certain changes to the rules of DRN to exclude certain cases are a good idea, and cases involving read battlegrounds tend to lead to battleground editing that our volunteers should not get dragged into. I don't object to an exclusion of all Palestine-Israel cases. If we are excluding certain types of disputes, I would also like to exclude all disputes filed by paid editors. We haven't had any such cases in recent months, but in recent years we have had cases in which paid editors who had used Edit Requests to request non-neutral edits were then using DRN to re-argue their requests. I would also like to exclude cases with more than 6?10??12? editors, which are better suited to RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
A volunteer moderator describing a user's contribution to a Talk page as "trolling", when it clearly engages the topic, is not showing good faith. Dismissing the user's contributing as being too combative, when other editors made direct attacks on other users, without any sanction or comment from those involved, shows that this is a biased and partisan one-way standard to censor critiques. As for not using the Talk page, it's kinda hard to use when your comments keep being reverted in one-sided fashion. Please don't volunteer for dispute resolutions unless you are will to show consideration to all sides. 73.159.229.5 ( talk) 17:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Having had the dispute resolution closed for going on for too long, I am wondering whether there is any formal way to request further steps be taken, re Drag Race UK S2? Spa-Franks ( talk) 14:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@ DRN volunteers: - There are three cases that appear to be ready for volunteers at least to look into neutrally. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I have written an essay which is intended to address editors who have vague or unfocused complaints about an article. Any volunteer is welcome to tweak it. Any volunteer is welcome to use it if they have an editor who has complaints of a nature such as "all points of view must be presented" or "the article is non-neutral". See Wikipedia:Be Specific at DRN. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
DRN policy states:
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page...Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
I believe this policy is fully appropriate for matters such as AE and ANI, but not for DRN, where a ping of involved editors on the article Talk page is more appropriate, as such a ping also serves to advise other editors who were not involved in the dispute, or were not previous Talk participants, but might later choose to participate, so they can see that the DRN topic was opened, which they would not be aware of if only individual editors involved in a dispute were notified on their user Talk pages. Article Talk ping notification is more transparent and efficient. soibangla ( talk) 19:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Some of you may have noticed that the table that displays the status of disputes is not being updated. The table is being maintained by a bot, and it seems that the bot has stopped performing that task (but is performing other tasks). I am in the process of asking the bot maintainer to get the bot working, and also of finding another bot maintainer to get another bot to run the existing code if the first maintainer is on extended wikibreak. In the meantime, ignore the table, because it is being ignored by the bot. Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Robert McClenon: Hello - what is the next steps? 1) the challenges on the sources 2) I need someone to oversee the pages related to Our Lady of Medjugorje that have been listed. 3) There is no response from Slp1 and it is looking like we need to find one expert, neutral editor to help us with this controversial page. Any suggestions? Red Rose 13 ( talk) 18:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
This is about the 'Sri Lanka Easter bombings' dispute. Correctly closed, as the other involved editor simply did not fill in his/her part; but also when I informed him on his/her talk page (s)he reverted that request for input, with explanation 'stop spamming me'.
BUT, I am pretty certain that if I once again apply the changes I that think are essential to the original story (s)he will revert again. And we don't want rollback wars in Wikipedia. I think I've done all within my power to come to a dialogue, but it seems to fail. Shall I simply do the change to the text and see what happens? But what in case of a rollback war? Thanks in advance, Erikdr ( talk) 18:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I'll do my best. As it's only 1 revised section, probably first publish that on my own User page and refer to it from the talk page for this real item so that everyone can read in 'sandbox' form. And again invite comments, with putting on the talk page of the other editor (his/her choice to revert again). Then publish for-real after 1 week of time for commenting. And if that results in an edit war, time to escalate sadly. Tnx, Erikdr ( talk) 11:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
DRN does not accept requests on its talk page. But this is really an edit request, not a dispute resolution request. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and anyone means you. If you feel that changes should be made, and can cite
reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia, then go ahead and make those changes yourself, citing those sources. If you have a
conflict of interest and feel that you should not do that, follow the instructions
here. —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 18:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
BabyWeems ( talk) 14:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC) If you look up Hamilton Luske and Snow White Wikipedia says that Hamilton Luske was chosen by Walt as the supervising animator and was the first animator hired for the film. If you look up Snow White wikipedia does not even recognize that Hamilton Luske worked on the film. Hamilton Luske was selected by Walt Disney to create the character Snow White. |
Require mediator on “Adirondack Railroad” page, with specific reference to Edit History page and my Subject is page entitled “Adirondack Railroad”, with specific reference to my site-updating/correcting edits of 6/3/21. (See “Edit History” page for 6/3/21.) The site is very out-of-date, and my corrections over the past two months have all been swiftly removed by unknown editors I cannot locate to speak to. (I am NOT computer-literate for a site like Wikipedia). Would a willing mediator please call ASAP me at (redacted) (after 11AM EDT) or email me (redacted) Thank you.
Donald L. Pevsner Attorney-at-Law (pro bono publico) 16ConcordeSSC ( talk) 22:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I created a new dispute Bret Weinstein. I used Request dispute resolution button and followed the steps in there.
However, the dispute, on the page, is showing up inside of an already closed dispute Conor McGregor
Is it just me? Is this some kind of a visual bug? Or is something wrong with the code or the Request dispute resolution wizard for creating a dispute? Dylath Leen ( talk) 11:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Requests for dispute resolution are not accepted on this page. If you wish dispute resolution go to the main page, click the button labeled "Request Dispute Resolution" at the top of the page and follow the instructions that come up. Note that
opinions given as Third Opinions do not "count" towards consensus, so this is still just a dispute between the two original parties at this point unless one of the 3O-givers wants to specifically include themself as a disputant. If you list this here at DRN be sure to include them, however. —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 19:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
I'm uncertain if further discussion or a mediator is needed on this content dispute: Boundaries between categories. It mostly involves two editors, myself and another. Two editors from WP:3O and another editor got involved. Dispute is over the range of numbers that identify each BMI category, whether the upper limits should be rounded up to account for 29.999 gap ("25-30", "30-35") or not to avoid confusion with inaccurate and overlapping 30 ("25.0-29.9", "30.0-34.9"). The reliable source ( The SuRF Report 2, p. 22) has ("25.00-29.99", "30.00-34.99"). As far as I see, the two 3O editors and I agree that rounding isn't necessary and that we should stick with RS and one decimal precision is good enough (29.9). The other two editors say no wide consensus reached and want rounding (30). Jroberson108 ( talk) 18:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC) |
Dispute Resolution August 2 and 3 2021 re: Cullen328. I am in the dangerous heat wave in western Canada when I returned to my mail the discussion had been closed I did not have the chance to reply and was not aware of any specific end time for discussion. I'm grateful to most of you who responded but not the users NarkyBlert, Ymblanter, and in fact I prefer August 1, 2021 user Valjean comment removed from the conversation including latest assault by user 78.26 on August 3, 2021. My concern was fairly simple I do not appreciate attaching false information regarding myself. There has been an uncertainty where feedback received welcomed and me others do not, if I edit an article for improvement at some point in future it should be feasible. Two issues here are delete the offensive and inaccurate user comments I mentioned above and to confirm that I am welcomed as a Wikipedia user or not.-- Longel ( talk) 03:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello admins, is this case Talk:Yin Yin Oo#Notabality eligible for Dispute resolution noticeboard? Taung Tan ( talk) 19:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Requests for dispute resolution are not accepted on this page. If you wish dispute resolution go to the main page, read and follow all the instructions, then click the button labeled "Request Dispute Resolution" at the top of the page and follow the instructions that come up. Be forewarned, however, that there's almost no chance the case will be accepted since there has not been extensive talk page discussion regarding the matter in dispute, which is a prerequisite for this noticeboard. This noticeboard only provides dispute resolution services; it is not a generalized help service. For that your best choice would probably be
Wikipedia Teahouse. —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 19:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
Hello. I hope this is right place to put this message.Could you please do me a favor and tell your ideas about [1]Thanks-- Namaka ( talk) 18:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC) |
I think that I will be adding a provision to WP:DRN Rule A stating that no editor may file a conduct report at WP:ANI or at Arbitration Enforcement while a dispute is being mediated, and that the dispute will be failed if a conduct report is filed. I just had to fail the Shusha dispute because the two principal editors both reported each other at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Template:DRN archive bottom has been nominated for merging with Template:Archive bottom. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 18:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
As a new contributor I'm not sure if this is the right place for a dispute about my contribution in Dutch. My apologies if it is not.
My contribution to the article about the Esnoga regarding a worldwide known controversy has been removed by another contributor. After an extensive discussion this contributor is not responding anymore.
You can find the discussion here: https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg:Portugees-Isra%C3%ABlietische_Synagoge
I like my contribution to be published again because I don't see in anyway how it would be in conflict with the Wikipedia policy.
I appreciate your help. Ielatfan ( talk) 07:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing dispute regarding album track listings on Live! Blueswailing July '64 since 2017, which has recently escalated. I was hoping DRN might be able to help, but none of the IPs involved have discussed the issue as required on the relevant talk pages (see Talk:Live! Blueswailing July '64#Long-term disruptive editor). Advice on how to proceed would be appreciated. — Ojorojo ( talk) 15:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
When closing a DRN case with a general close, either as poorly filed, or as a general close after discussion, please, at least for now, enter 'closed' rather than 'Closed' on the DRN status line, as in: {{DR case status|closed}}
There is a limitation to the bot that displays the summary of cases, and it seems to be case-sensitive. It isn't a serious problem, but it is just a minor issue. Let's keep the bot happy while the bot is acting like a bot. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Why are active discussions collapsed into the closed discussion text? — C.Fred ( talk) 01:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I've asked at Template talk:Archive bottom, since it appears that that is the template missing the necessary code. — C.Fred ( talk) 01:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I just did my first action by closing the latest request. I'd appreciate any and all feedback on that, whether on my justification or wording for my general close. Excited to learn! :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Since 13 February 2020, there have been a series of disruptive edits and edit wars on Opera (company). Please see the talk page for more details.
My concern is that once the semi-protection is lifted, the disruptive edits will resurface. Should increased or extended protection then be requested if the behavior resurfaces in a months' time? Can you please help with this? Heartmusic678 ( talk) 11:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi! An editor has recently made a request for a case here after being recommended to do so by El C at the relevant article ( LGBT in Islam). Should the request be closed, or how can the page be edited to account for adding the other party? I'm unsure how to do so since requests are created by a bot (or some automated process) from what I understand. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I made a general close here. Like @ A. C. Santacruz did earlier, I am going to say I appreciate all feedback on whether that was appropriate. casualdejekyll 16:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I, uh, accidentally dipped my toes into Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan and the water I found turned out to be burning acid. Can, uh, somebody (other then Robert McClenon since he appears to refuse to touch it as well).. deal with that? casualdejekyll 23:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello Casualdejekyll. A question before I get back to this tomorrow. According to this process, should I answer Allreet's "Cancel as many founders as we can and let God sort them out" second response directly or just respond to yours and your questions? Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 20:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
|}
Hi! The bot archived the armenian dispute but I wanted to ping Zani one last time before failing due to time. How may I do this? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
casualdejekyll you should create a back-and-forth section for comments between editors, as there are currently a number of editor.s replying within Robert's section which goes against the ruleset you established for the dispute. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I just closed the Anti-Armenian sentiment DRN, it being my first one I actually moderated. I was wondering if y'all had any advice on how I moderated it or feedback for how to improve for next time. Thanks! A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
@ DRN volunteers: - There is a history of various sorts of disruption including sockpuppetry about this article, and at least one editor has been topic-banned. If another dispute resolution request is filed, please either verify that the parties are all in good standing before opening a case, or just ignore the request. (There is no real harm done in opening a case with a sockpuppet or topic-banned editor, but it wastes everybody's time, including the volunteer mediator and the admins.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Is there a tool analogous to {{ ping}} to create the required user page DRN notices for each of a list of users? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 10:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
My DRN on Peet's Coffee is my first. Would it have been better to do a RFC first? Is it too late to do that now? Anaxagoras17 ( talk) 19:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Robert McClenon: I'm struggling to understand why you closed the WP:DRN#Siege of Oricum discussion. You said "it is best for the full version of the article to be visible to the AFD participants", but the 'full version' was not the one being being discussed in the AfD (that was the reason I filed for DR to begin with), so the AfD has pretty much nothing to do with the content dispute save for the fact that the other parties automatically assumed bad faith because I was the nominator. The AfD will have no bearing whatsoever on the content dispute. Avilich ( talk) 18:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Nightenbelle:I must respond to your justification for closing this dispute without any attempt to mediate:
This has been discussed twice on the article talk page.
It has been one editor vs many both times.
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.
[2] why? Or is it pending? Do you know the answer? @ Robert McClenon: Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 04:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello User:Robert_McClenon,
I humbly ask that the dispute resolution for Lavender Oil is re-opened by either you or another volunteer. It seems a bit unfair that someone actively involved in the dispute can shutdown the entire moderated process by going outside of the process. For your consideration, I wrote a response to the three paragraphs you originally requested of me below:
>The first paragraph should state what they either want changed in the article or what they want left the same.
I would like the article to have an encyclopedic summary the findings of all relevant sources. And by "relevant" I of course mean the MEDRS guidelines, namely (A) published in a peer-reviewed journal (B) a meta-analysis (C) recent (five years old or less) and (D) related to the particular claim at hand (effectiveness of Silexan capsules). The article as I found it a few days ago had only a single source, the source was not (A) nor (B) at all, it was 90% not (C) nor (D) either. And of course way the Wikipedia article summarized the source is also pretty much the exact opposite way I would summarize the sources that meet (A) (B) (C) and (D). So I would like the changes I have made to stand as they do now and also add other relevant sources like possibly this and this and this.
>The second paragraph should state any questions about the reliability of sources.
These inquires are perhaps better for RSN, but in summary:
>The third paragraph should ask any other questions.
Is it okay to post these inquires to RSN now while the mediation is on-going?
Can I revert edits that were made to the article during mediation?
Assuming that RSN agrees that a journal is reliable, and a paper published in the journal meets criteria (A)(B)(C), and (D), what place does a wikipedia editor have to debate the paper's conclusions or the methodology they used to reach those conclusions? Does removing such sources for those reasons not fall under original research? I ask this because it seems to be a recurring theme during this dispute, an example of which you can read above in Zefr's dispute summary (whom prefers drugs.com for some reason? where the methodology isn't even stated.) and my response to it.
Thank you everyone that took the time to read this or help with this issue. 50.45.170.185 ( talk) 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey, Robert McClenon I am sorry to disturb you. I have something to state in reply to the second editor here. I am confused about how to reply and if there is any specific format for that? Thanks. Regards Satnam2408 ( talk) 02:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
This page is not for requesting dispute resolution. See banner at top of page if you become unblocked and if the article in question survives the deletion listing. —
TransporterMan (
TALK) 17:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
My article called Andres Velaz de Medrano is under attack by sockpuppets and people who are voting in bad faith. They have clearly proven that they have not taken a look at my sources and citations, and instead insist that no one will read it. My sources are readily available, the books and pages and citations are there. Please, History is at stake here. I am requesting for actual historians to chime in on the matter. These editors are clearly biased, opinion based and ignoring the facts and sources. I am urging all true and honorable scholars and people to support me, they attacked my page hours after posting a rough draft, they reviewed it without me requesting, I was given no time to prepare my work and had to immediately go into defense of my work. I will file a complaint but I'm not sure what else to do. These biased and opinion based editors just don't quit. Please help. Thank you. Geronimo Virula Medrano El ( talk) 14:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC) |
@ DRN volunteers: : Can someone please explain to me where, if anywhere, the detailed rules for the archival of DRN cases are documented? It appears that there is certain housekeeping that is done automagically by bots. This inquiry arises because an editor has requested that I reopen a closed dispute, and I realize that I don't know how. In the past, cases had a line that contained a command to the bot Do Not Archive Until, and that date was in a format that could be understood by a human. However, now the Do Not Archive date has a lengthy numeric date that isn't in date format but in some numeric form. Then when a case is closed by a volunteer, User:DannyS712 bot removes the Do Not Archive line. So if a case is closed, it is subject to archiving, and to prevent archiving, I would need to put that line back, but I don't know what the numbers mean. So where is the behavior of the bots documented, and where is the detailed behavior of the template that creates a case in the first place, with a Do Not Archive date, documented? Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Medhekp ( talk) 14:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the revert of my publicizing of my RFC here, I started a thread in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment titled, "Removal of my rfc publicizing from noticeboard". Per WP:SEETALK, I'm only providing notice about the existence of said discussion, because it is relevant to this noticeboard. I post it there because it affects publicizing of RFCs at large. Also per the RFC page that said doubts about requests for comment should be discussed in the talk page. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
@ DRN volunteers: - I have started an essay listing some of the types of cases that I have seen that are filed at DRN that are not appropriate cases for DRN. Please see Wikipedia:Types of DRN Filings. So far, it seems that I have listed 16 types of cases that DRN does not handle. Please discuss this list, either here, or at Wikipedia talk:Types of DRN Filings. Feel free to add types of disputes that don't belong here. Since this is cases that don't belong at DRN, I am also willing to consider renaming the essay. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Greetings,
Requesting some systematic mediation help from some experienced mediator from WP:DRN; @ Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault#Re–insertion of WP:BLP violation by dif 1109434561
Thanks
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 13:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard page is far too bureaucratic for my comfort, I have no idea where I'm supposed to post not how to format it. At least Arbcom tells you to put all your posts in your own personal section, which nobody else is permitted to post in. Anyway, I'm being asked to clarify something that I thought that I had already clarified. I shall quote from the W3C's HTML 5.2 specifications for the four tags concerned:
s
element: represents contents that are no longer accurate or no longer relevant. The s element is not appropriate when indicating document edits; to mark a span of text as having been removed from a document, use the del element.
u
element: represents a span of text with an unarticulated, though explicitly rendered, non-textual annotation, such as labeling the text as being a proper name in Chinese text (a Chinese proper name mark), or labeling the text as being misspelt. In most cases, another element is likely to be more appropriate: for marking stress emphasis, the em element should be used; for marking key words or phrases either the b element or the mark element should be used, depending on the context; for marking book titles, the cite element should be used; for labeling text with explicit textual annotations, the ruby element should be used; for technical terms, taxonomic designation, transliteration, a thought, or for labeling ship names in Western texts, the i element should be used.
ins
element: represents an addition to the document.
del
element: represents a removal from the document.
In all four cases, exactly the same text is given by WhatWG (although the section numbers differ):
4.5.5 The s element;
4.5.22 The u element;
4.7.1 The ins element;
4.7.2 The del element. Neither of these authorities refer to any of the four elements as either "deprecated" or "obsolete". The <strike>...</strike>
element, however, is shown as obsolete by both bodies (
W3C;
WhatWG), with the recommendation to use <del>...</del>
or <s>...</s>
instead. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 22:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Robert McClenon, per your instructions here, I have a right to instate the edits as seen fit due to my timely participation in this discussion. After this, it would be I who has the right to file an RfC, with your assistance to ensure neutral wording.
After first stalling and stonewalling this DRN process, Srijanx22 has now directly undermined the RfC process by disregarding your instruction and rushing to start an RfC himself, which is clearly not neutrally worded, omitting the contradicting statement and sources presented here and in the lead. As I see it, this illegitimate RfC needs to be halted and nullified ASAP, and I think ANI is the immediate next step instead, after this procedural disruption. What do you think? As I see it, these are back-to-back breaches of procedure. Sapedder ( talk) 01:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Sources not presented
|
---|
|
Greetings. Robert McClenon may have closed our dispute prematurely same day (perhaps listening too hard to Magnolia677 who said he hasn't posted to our talk page since September). The Owamni dispute began in February 2022, on the article talk page when Magnolia677 originated the dispute. These links were included in the current dispute, and are re-pasted below:
Robert, what say you? I don't want to waste your valuable time but nearly eight months have passed. Thanks. - SusanLesch ( talk) 03:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)