Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 158
![]() | 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 155 | Archive 156 | Archive 157 | Archive 158 | Archive 159 | Archive 160 | → | Archive 165 |
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 November
![]() | Closed. This appears to be a move discussion that is under review at Move Review, which is the proper forum for a move review. This noticeboard does not accept a topic that is also being discussed in another forum, especially in the specific forum for such a topic. Please continue discussion at Move Review. Disruptive editing involving a contested move may be reported at WP:ANI, but it is better to keep the discussion at Move Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Jesus
![]() | Closed as withdrawn in favor of RFC. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Made World_Tour
![]() | Closed as apparently abandoned. There has been no further discussion in the past 48 hours since the two editors came off their block for edit-warring. Please resume discussion on the article talk page. Avoid edit-warring. Request page-protection at Requests for Page Protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Unite the_Right_rally#Deliberate_deletion_of_counter-opinions_re:_Unite_The_Right_Rally
![]() | I fail to see a "dispute" among the editors here. I see one user who is not adhering to the established consensus on the talk page or listening to the opinions of other users. Nihlus 22:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
iOS 11
![]() | The filing editor has no plans on accepting compromise in this situation and thought that the DRN could be used to force his position through against the consensus of other editors. Both positions are troublesome, and I will not waste the other's or my own time any further. If you want to discuss this more, please open an RfC. Nihlus 17:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
User talk:VickAmaze#November_2017
![]() | Closed for multiple reasons. The filer has also filed a thread at the neutral point of view noticeboard, so that this filing here is taking place while another thread is in progress in another forum, and the filer is forumshopping. Also, it appears that the real issue is that the filer is trying to insert link spam, and is being reverted; in other words, this is a conduct dispute, but about the conduct of the filer, not another party. The filing part is advised either to stop inserting the links, or to discuss them in accordance with appropriate guidelines. The other editor, User:GermanJoe, is thanked. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
David Stove
![]() | The parties have not had extensive discussion of the issue on a talk page. Nihlus 14:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Ghalib bin_Ali
![]() | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Special:Contributions/2601:47:4101:58D1:69E4:E062:E3C8:393C
![]() | No dispute between editors, no other parties stated. The editor's general complaint is hard to parse out, but the editor is advised that they might get more help at the Wikipedia Teahouse which exists to help newcomers. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Arab Brazilians
![]() | Closed. The filing editor hasn't edited in a week since filing. I'm not going to put this case on hold, but simply to close it without prejudice, that is, so that it can be opened again later if this dispute recurs. In the meantime, the editors should discuss any disagreements on the article talk page. There is a request for another editor to offer an opinion at WikiProject Brazil. Do not edit-war. Be civil. If discussion on the article talk page is inconclusive, a new thread can be opened here, or a Request for Comments can be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Batman (1989_film)
![]() | Closed, apparently abandoned. The filing editor has not notified the other editors a week after filing the case, and has not asked what the next step is. Please take any further discussion to the article talk page. Do not edit-war. Another thread may be opened here if necessary with proper notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Operation Searchlight
![]() | Closed. A request for a Third Opinion is being used in place of the request here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:2017 FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship#Order_of_Toro_Rosso_drivers
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:2017 FIA Formula One World Championship#Order of Toro Rosso drivers (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Abdotorg (talk · contribs)
- Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs)
- Corvus tristis (talk · contribs)
- Deaþe gecweald (talk · contribs)
- Joseph2302 (talk · contribs)
- Bbb2007 (talk · contribs)
- DH85868993 (talk · contribs)
- Sketchmoose (talk · contribs)
- WikiEditorAU (talk · contribs)
- Waysiders (talk · contribs)
- Wikipediaeditperson (talk · contribs)
- FactualCollector7d1 (talk · contribs)
- Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs)
- QueenCake (talk · contribs)
- cherkash (talk · contribs)
- Tvx1 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
There has been quite a few editors who have shown displeasure to the current format of the 'Teams and Drivers' table in the article.
Much of the opposition towards it has stemmed from the fact that it was confusing to us as editors, and therefore is also likely to be confusing to readers as well.
We have extensively discussed this on the talk page, with several proposals being put forward, but no concensus has formed in support of 1 single proposal. However, proposals by QueenCake and Tvx1 have proven to be 2 of the more popular proposals.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Several editors, including myself, have put forward proposals with the aim being to achieve a compramise. However, we have failed to agree on which proposal should be taken forward.
Also, we have discussed this in great detail on the talk page, trying to explain our opposing viewpoints. However, most editors have not changed from their original viewpoint.
How do you think we can help?
I fear that most editors in this discussion have been backing their preferred proposal and there has been a divide between the editors, based on their preferred proposal. This divide has made it difficult to work collaboratively with other editors, so I feel an external viewpoint may be needed to help us decide which route is best to take forward.
Summary of dispute by Abdotorg
Summary of dispute by Zwerg Nase
Summary of dispute by Corvus tristis
Summary of dispute by deaþe/gecweald
Summary of dispute by Joseph2302
This is a long dispute caused by Toro Rosso messing around a lot with their drivers. It's a unique situation, but I don't feel strongly enough about this to be involved in this DRN discussion. Frankly we should spend less time having recursive arguments like this, and more time spent building the encyclopedia. This will be my only contribution to this DRN. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Bbb2007
Summary of dispute by DH85868993
Summary of dispute by Sketchmoose
Summary of dispute by WikiEditorAU
Summary of dispute by Waysiders
Summary of dispute by FactualCollector7d1
The issue arises from the fact that Toro Rosso has used four drivers over the course of the year. However, instead of directly replacing one driver with another in a straightforward fashion, some drivers have come back to the team and replaced the driver of the other car, and not the one they had driven before. Additionally, for the first time since 1994, Toro Rosso has fielded two completely different driver lineups in consecutive races. While in the past when such situations were more common teams were assigned numbers to their cars, making such situations relatively straightforward to discern as the replacement driver would carry the same number as the original driver, since 2014 drivers have been able to select their own number, meaning that this is no longer the case. Additionally, one driver (Hartley) has raced with two distinct numbers as he was originally given the team's reserve driver number for his first race before picking his own.
As this is the first time such a situation like this has occurred since 2014, their is no real precedent for how to format the teams and drivers table, and given the complexity of the matter, two popular proposals along different schools of thought have emerged for the organisation of the table. QueenCake's proposal calls for the drivers to be listed such that each driver number is listed once, and the table is ordered in such a way that a replacement driver is listed directly under the driver that they replaced in the first instance. The perceived downsides to this proposal is that the drivers are not listed chronologically by round and that there is a lack of clarity on which driver was being replaced by whom in some circumstances. This second point is important as the replacement driver maintains the original drivers allocation of power unit components, gearboxes, and tyres, all aspects of the sport that are fundamentally important as they can affect reliability, performance, strategy, and starting position (through grid penalties). Tvx1's proposal makes this clear by sorting the two allocations chronologically, one after another, and putting a line in between them, solving both of the issues that the first proposal faced. However, it necessarily includes some drivers twice, as some have raced at some point using both allocations. Some editors have been opposed to this proposal for this reason, claiming that it creates confusion as to why drivers are listed twice, specifically among those who don't understand the concepts of parts allocations. This proposal would also require some modifications to the all existing season tables between 2014 and 2017 for continuity.
While originally in support of QueenCake's proposal, I now support Tvx1's proposal due to how the chronological sorting by rounds it provides, the belief that any issues of confusion arising from drivers being listed twice could be eliminated though a brief explanation above the table, and because in my opinion it is simply a more elegant solution for all instances. As such, I would also be willing to help make the modifications to the existing tables should it be selected. I would also like to point out that the format currently in is nearly universally unpopular, with little support. Thank you and apologies for the length. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Prisonermonkeys
I promise I'll be brief:
Prior to 2014, Formula 1 used a system where numbers were assigned to cars based on the team's championship position the previous year. Starting in 2014, drivers were allowed to adopt their own personalised number. This necessitated a change in the way the entry table was organised. Where previously it was organised by number, now it is organised alphabetically by constructor name. Drivers within each team are organised by number when they contest the same rounds. In the event of a mid-season change, the rounds column takes priority. This was to prevent a situation where a driver who raced mid-season was listed before a driver (or drivers) who started the championship. Hence in 2016, Ocon (#31) is listed after Haryanto (#88).
Now to the 2017 article:
Daniil Kvyat contested the first 14 rounds, then left the team. He returned for round 17. However, he did not resume his position in the team. Instead, he replaced Carlos Sainz, Jr. We can prove this through reliable sources: the rules governing engine use assign engines to cars, not to drivers (to stop teams swapping drivers to get fresh engines). When he returned to the team, Kvyat inherited Sainz's engine allocation. The same goes for Pierre Gasly, who replaced Kvyat in his original car, then later replavcd Kvyat in Sainz's original car. Compare that to Fernando Alonso, who missed one race but returned to his original car. The question that is up for debate is to how best represent this in the table given that the rounds column takes priority.
One final note:
This is a very unusual situation. I have been following the sport for over 20 years, and I cannot recall the last time a team rotated drivers between seats like this. I am concerned that the outcome of the discussion will have negative effects on other championship articles. If a perfect solution cannot be found, I would prefer to settle for an imperfect solution here if it meant preserving the integrity of other championship articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by QueenCake
Summary of dispute by cherkash
Summary of dispute by Tvx1
Talk:2017 FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship#Order_of_Toro_Rosso_drivers discussion
Volunteer's notes: I'm neither taking this nor opening it for discussion, but I am informing the filing party Wikipediaeditperson that it is his/her obligation to notify all the other listed participants by leaving a notice on their user talk pages. This tag can be used for that purpose: {{drn-notice|Talk:2017 FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship#Order_of_Toro_Rosso_drivers}} A notice on the article talk page will not suffice to fulfill this obligation. If all other listed participants have not been notified by 16 November 2017, 18:00 UTC then this listing will likely be closed as abandoned. The discussion on the article talk page appears to be sufficient to satisfy our requirements. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- @TransporterMan, It's all done now - I have left a message on each of the users' talk pages. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- To quote Eric Cartman, kewl. But let me ask you this: Do you really feel that moderated discussion can achieve consensus on this problem? We don't here at DRN just pass judgments, we attempt to "grease" the discussion process to help editors come to consensus by avoidance of incivility and structuring discussion to focus on the real issue and avoid rabbit trails and side issues. Is that what this dispute needs, or does it really need something closer to (gasp) voting? If it really needs the latter, then the best route might be a RFC filed at the article talk page (which would result in this DRN filing being closed). Just 'sayin and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- @TransporterMan Weighing in here as one of the participants, albeit not the main three or four, I am not sure DRN is the correct process. The discussion has become bloated and repetitive, but there is a consensus that the current table is inadequate, and all participating editors have expressed their own opinions as to how to improve it. What is needed is an ending, perhaps the oft-maligned vote that simply picks an option and then everyone moves on. RFC is probably the correct venue. QueenCake (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- As another irregular participant, I'd just like to concur with this. Happy to help the proceedings along, but I'm holding back until the DRN/RFC wrangling is concluded. Waysiders (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- If I am being honest, I would also agree with @QueenCake - I think it may have been a mistake taking this discussion to DRN, as I fear the discussion will merely continue here. This probably will mean we continue to make little or no progress. Perhaps RFC will give us a more conclusive outcome. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- As another irregular participant, I'd just like to concur with this. Happy to help the proceedings along, but I'm holding back until the DRN/RFC wrangling is concluded. Waysiders (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- @TransporterMan Weighing in here as one of the participants, albeit not the main three or four, I am not sure DRN is the correct process. The discussion has become bloated and repetitive, but there is a consensus that the current table is inadequate, and all participating editors have expressed their own opinions as to how to improve it. What is needed is an ending, perhaps the oft-maligned vote that simply picks an option and then everyone moves on. RFC is probably the correct venue. QueenCake (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- To quote Eric Cartman, kewl. But let me ask you this: Do you really feel that moderated discussion can achieve consensus on this problem? We don't here at DRN just pass judgments, we attempt to "grease" the discussion process to help editors come to consensus by avoidance of incivility and structuring discussion to focus on the real issue and avoid rabbit trails and side issues. Is that what this dispute needs, or does it really need something closer to (gasp) voting? If it really needs the latter, then the best route might be a RFC filed at the article talk page (which would result in this DRN filing being closed). Just 'sayin and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer note - I don't speak for other volunteers, but I know that I don't intend to try to moderate a discussion with such a large number of editors. I think that some other volunteers feel the same way, that trying to moderate a discussion with so many participants would be like trying to herd half a dozen cats and half a dozen dogs and three rabbits. I would suggest that the editors follow the advice of User:TransporterMan, although if someone wants to try to lead a discussion, I will stay out of the way (rather than get run over by the cats and dogs). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- @TransporterMan, I felt that the talk page was just going round in circles, with many of us editors simply regurgitating arguments brought up several comments ago and no real progress being made. I am hoping that this DRN will help us all converge on a single proposal, whether this be one of the current proposals or something in between. I am a little bit fearful that even with this DRN, we may still continue to make no progress, and an RFC would then be the only option. However, I feel a moderated discussion may help us all to work together. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- @TransporterMan — although there are a large number of editors involved, not all of them are particularly active in the discussion. Only about half of them have been regularly contributing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- As @Prisonermonkeys has said, not all of the editors have been regularly active in the discussion. However, I fear that some of them may have stopped contributing, as they may have felt a bit fed up that their contributions were going unnoticed, as the discussion was not making any progress. This is why I have included all the editors from the discussion in this list - clearly they all had their reasons to make a contribution, and I wanted to give everyone who had an opinion the opportunity to contribute at DRN. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- @TransporterMan — although there are a large number of editors involved, not all of them are particularly active in the discussion. Only about half of them have been regularly contributing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- @TransporterMan, I felt that the talk page was just going round in circles, with many of us editors simply regurgitating arguments brought up several comments ago and no real progress being made. I am hoping that this DRN will help us all converge on a single proposal, whether this be one of the current proposals or something in between. I am a little bit fearful that even with this DRN, we may still continue to make no progress, and an RFC would then be the only option. However, I feel a moderated discussion may help us all to work together. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer note - I have re-opened this case. DRN doesn't seem like an effective way to resolve this dispute, but if the editors want moderated discussion and a volunteer is willing to moderate, there can be moderated discussion. (I still think that it may be like herding half a dozen cats, half a dozen dogs, and three rabbits.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Nyheter Idag
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 have inserted a POV tag to the page, as I think that it uses several highly unreliable sources in order to unfairly character-assassinate the news website.
I and Liftarn have a long history of arguments, and they always result in that I feel like I am talking with a fact-resistant stonewall, which turns me increasingly angry, as I am overworked in general, and do not have the time and energy to properly deal with this. I need an uninvolved party to attempt to mediate between us so we can reach some conclusions.
We also have another discussion here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crime_in_Sweden
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
We talked about this at length at the reliable sources noticeboard, but did not get satisfactory input.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=797834788#Source_for_calling_Nyheter_Idag_xenophobic — Preceding unsigned comment added by David A (talk • contribs)
How do you think we can help?
It would be very helpful if you could evaluate whether or not the sources in question are reliable, or should be removed for a NPOV encyclopaedic overview.
Summary of dispute by Liftarn
I have on multiple occasions tried to educate David A (talk · contribs) about the use of reliable sources, but the problem appears to be that if a source says something he disagrees with it's an "opinion" that can be deleted at will. He demands to use primary sources ("proof" he calls it) instead. // Liftarn (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Nyheter Idag discussion
- Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page, and the filing editor has notified the other editor. I will again remind both editors that they should focus their comments on article content, not on each other. The next step is to wait for a response from the other editor, since participation is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- As the other editor has responded, I'm going togo ahead and open this. Please provide your answers to the following questions, as I think it could be a good starting point.
- What information should or should not be in this article?
- What sources demonstrate this information is accurate and notable?
- Is there anything else you believe the other editor fails to acknowledge or understand?
ProgrammingGeek talktome 21:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
First round response by David A
- Preferably only the ones that treat Nyheter Idag as a primary subject of analysis, and offer examples supporting the claims, not the ones that simply mention it in passing with an unproven accusation.
- Resumé, Expressen, Expo
- Liftarn keeps inserting extremely slanted references in order to character-assassinate the news site, to further his political agenda. He has shown no compunctions from using 1-sentence offhanded mentions as somehow being encyclopaedic, while elsewhere repeatedly berating reliable statistics from official institutions and cited by reliable newspapers, if the facts of reality contradict his personal ideology.
David A (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
First round response by Liftarn
- The core issue is regarding the description of Nyheter Idag as a racist site. I think it should be described using WP:RS and avoid WP:ALLEGED. We have several reliable sources from two different countries supporting it. As it's the defining characteristic of the site it should be next to their own description, not downplayed or hidden away.
- Expressen, Nöjesguiden, Omni, YLE, Nöjesguiden, Dagens Arena
- I think the main problem is that he wants to use primary sources (what he calls "proof") and not what reliable sources say (what he calls "opinions").
// Liftarn (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Second Statement by Moderator
David A, please do not comment on Liftarn's personal "philosophy". While POV-pushing is a problem, this is a fairly loaded accusation, and it does not belong on DRN because we do not deal with editor behaviour, only content disputes.
Also: I don't really like the term character-assassinate either. It implies some form of wrongdoing, whereas this issue is over whether or not it should be included -- a content dispute.
So, the key issue is to whether reliable sources describe the website as racist. I am not familiar with the Swedish press, and I'm unsure which news sources are considered reliable. So, here are the questions I think need to be answered:
David A: are the sources that Liftarn provided in his response reliable, in your opinion?
(All editors:) Is the website's defining characteristic racism, is it a significant part of it/is it well known for being racist, or is it a minor issue[a]?
How much weight do you feel should be given to the allegations of racism?
Thanks, ProgrammingGeek talktome 17:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- ^ Of course, racism is always a major issue. What I mean is, was it in some controversy where it published one racist article, had a racist editor resign, etc
Second round response by David A
Understood. I will try to keep my irritation and autistic lack of mental filters in check.
I do not mind most of the sources as such, as long as they are used to reference news, or contain columns that treat Nyheter Idag as a primary focus of examination. As I mentioned earlier, what I mind is that the cited sources only feature subjective accusations of the variety "the racist site Nyheter Idag interviewed a certain person". This is an offhanded subjective mention very unbefitting of an encyclopaedia.
I am not overly familiar with the website, but the articles that I have read have not contained any outright racist material, no, and there have been no such incidents mentioned in major newspapers that I know of. They generally seem to attempt to hold a high journalistic standard in their reporting, and handle a variety of topics.
David A (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Second round response by Liftarn
David A did give a rather good summary. We have reliable sources saying the site is racist, but since David A have done some WP:OR (he read some texts on the site) he don't want to include it in the article. // Liftarn (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Second round discussion
Please stop this kind of back-and-forth snapping at one another. Nihlus 13:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As I have mentioned earlier, my main concern is that including offhanded unproven accusations into an encyclopaedia is not remotely reliable. I am fine with including articles that genuinely examine Nyheter Idag indepth as proof. David A (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
|
Third Statement by Moderator
David A has posted this at WP:3O. If he could remove that request or respond saying he'd rather go the 3O route, that'd be great. In the meantime:
- How much coverage of the alleged racism is appropriate, in your opinion, for this article?
- Are the sources provided by the editors conflicting? Is there competing sources as to whether or not the site is racist?
Sorry I was awol over the weekend, I do other things then. ProgrammingGeek talktome 16:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Third round response by David A
I have removed the third opinion and request for comments requests. They can wait until later, if this option does not reach a solution.
- I do not mind coverage, if the articles in question actually analyse Nyheter Idag as a main subject. I just find it insane for an encyclopaedia to include offhanded unfounded 1-sentence accusations that come from articles that are mainly about other topics.
- I do not think that the site is mentioned much in regular newspapers, other than when they break a news story, and regular media later pick it up and occasionally give them credit. Regardless, mindless slander does not sit well with me.
No problem, we can continue from here. However, what I really need is a judgement regarding Wikipedia policy for these types of situations. David A (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Third round response by Liftarn
- It's main claim to fame is that the site it's a part of the far right web milieu so I'd say that racism is quite central. It was founded by a member of the far right party Sverigedemokraterna who also have worked on Avpixlat and Politiskt Inkorrekt. The site was registered by Kent Ekeroth in 2011.
- It has also been described as "right-wing populist and far right alternative media", but not as not being racist. So I'd say the only conflict is between the sources and David A and how the site describes themselves. When mentioned in mainstream media it's usually as far-right, right populist or racist.
// Liftarn (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Third Statement by Moderator
Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation)
![]() | This really isn't suitable for DRN, consensus has already been established against the filing editor on the article's talk page, and having a discussion here is unnecessary. If the filing editor is still unhappy, I ask that he discuss it further or open an RfC. ProgrammingGeek talktome 15:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Judenhut
![]() | There has not been extensive discussion on the article talk page. Even they filing party admits that, saying "None of them are discussing anything in talk". Editors should discuss on the article talk page. If no one is willing to discuss, see WP:DISCFAIL. The filing party is strongly advised that registering an account is helpful if one wishes to engage in dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Carleton Knights football
![]() | Closed for several reasons. This case is already pending at the External Links Noticeboard, and this noticeboard does not handle disputes that are pending in another forum, and trying to transfer this dispute from another noticeboard is forum shopping. Also, a discussion of a general policy issue should be taken to Village Pump (policy). Resume discussion at the External Links Noticeboard or at the Village Pump. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI. The article talk page itself is also a reasonable place to discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Pythagoras
![]() | Pending in other dispute resolution forum (Third Opinion). - TransporterMan (TALK) 22:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Jesse L. Brown#Addition of second book by obvious COI account
![]() | Closed for at least two reasons. First, there has been no discussion on the article talk page, only a statement by the filing editor that they are not satisfied. Second, this is not being formulated as a content dispute, but as a complaint about an editor, and that is not what this noticeboard is for. The filing party may wait for an answer at the article talk page, or may report a conflict of interest at the conflict of interest noticeboard. If the other editor does not discuss at the article talk page, see WP:DISCFAIL. If there is a content dispute, consider Third Opinion or Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Awdal
![]() | The parties have not had extensive discussion of the issue on a talk page. Dispute resolution is not appropriate at this time. Additionally, this has been taken to AN3 by the other party. Nihlus 01:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Im Tirtzu#Changing_the_Intro
![]() | Closed for two related reasons. First, when a dispute involves more than two editors, consciously listing less than all of the editors, and so stating, is not helpful, because it tries to treat a content dispute like a conduct dispute. If this is a content dispute, all of the editors should be involved. Second, if an editor states that mediation will not be helpful, as User:Nishidani did, mediation is not worth trying. Nishidani has the right to decline mediation and has declined mediation. All editors should reread the dispute resolution policy and read WP:DISCFAIL. They may choose to use a Request for Comments. Resume discussion on the article talk page. Comment on content, not contributors. If there is disruptive editing, it may be reported at Arbitration Enforcement, but read the boomerang essay first. Robert McClenon (talk) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Hallam FM
![]() | Closed as not getting anywhere because only one editor is participating. Participation here is voluntary. Since only one editor is participating, we will reduce the number of participants to zero. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If there are any questions, a Request for Comments may be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Somaliland#Clans sub-section
![]() | Closed as failed. This discussion is indeed going around in circles and is getting nowhere, and we are back to whether to say "almost exclusively", when I had already advised against saying that. This won't be resolved in the two weeks that we normally take to deal with cases at DRN. The editors may consider formal mediation, with a more experienced mediator who will get them to narrow their differences, or a Request for Comments. Please do not edit-war, and try to resolve the issue by a dispute resolution mechanism rather than by reverting. Disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
User talk:ScrapIronIV#League_of_gentlemen
![]() | The proper place for discussion is the article talk page, Talk:The League of Gentlemen. There has been no article talk page discussion, and little discussion on the specified user talk page. Discussions of article content should be on article talk pages, because they may be watched by other editors who are interested in the article. Discussions on user talk pages are often useful, but not as good as article talk page discussions when article content is the subject. Please discuss on the article talk page. Also, the filing unregistered editor is strongly advised that it is helpful to create an account if one wishes to engage in content dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:White privilege#Critique-_-white_privilege_as_white_guilt_etc
![]() | Closed as declined by a majority of the editors. Participation in this noticeboard is voluntary, and the non-filing editors have both stated that they do not think that further discussion is needed. There was already a Request for Comments in August 2017. The filing editor is advised that bludgeoning the dispute resolution process is not useful, and has been cautioned that Arbitration Enforcement may be requested as a last resort if necessary. It appears that consensus is that the filing editor should drop the subject. They are permitted to continue discussion on the article talk page (although not to edit-war the article page), and the other editors are permitted to ignore them. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|