Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 227
![]() | 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 220 | ← | Archive 225 | Archive 226 | Archive 227 | Archive 228 | Archive 229 | Archive 230 |
Chivalry of a Failed Knight
![]() | Closed. An RFC is being used to choose which ledes are acceptable. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | |||
---|---|---|---|
Summary of dispute by ThunderPXThe original work has Alice self-identify as "a maiden born in the body of a man". This is reiterated on the anime adaptation's website in Alice's character bio. I see no reasonable interpretation of this other than the character being transgender. This line exists in the Japanese work as well as the English translation. The other characters in the scene then discuss this, with ultimately the conclusion being "Alice wants to be seen as a woman, so we should respect it." External sources also refer to the character as a trans woman and refer to her with she/her pronouns. I see no reason to dispute what is said in the original work, and I do not understand why an explicit statement from the author would be necessary to clarify what is in the literal text of the work, any more than one would need such a statement to clarify a character's hair color or favourite food. Summary of dispute by Knowledgekid87My stance is to look at the sources involved when it comes to gender naming. As pointed out here and [1] the kanji used for said character refers to them as male. There is no doubt though that western media such as Anime UK News, and Anime News Network refer to her as a "she". This leaves the issue of respecting the author's original work, versus citing this fictional character as translated into English. My option would be to include both with something like "Nagi (also known as Alice) is a first year student and Shizuku's roommate who is described as transgender." or something along those lines if possible. If this has blossomed into a larger controversy then it might warrant its own sub-section on the Chivalry of a Failed Knight article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Chivalry of a Failed Knight discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (CFK)I am possibly opening this case for moderated discussion. Please read the ground rules for this moderated discussion. You are expected to have read and understood the rules, and will be expected to follow them. It appears that either the only dispute or a part of the dispute has to do with the gender of a character. I see that some of the editors say that the character is a trans woman, a person who was born male and has transitioned into being female. What is the alternate viewpoint as to the gender of the character? Are there any other content issues? Editors are expected to reply to my questions at least every 48 hours. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator (me) as the representative of the community. I would like each editor, first, to state whether they are willing to discuss in accordance with the rules, and, second, to answer my questions about the scope of the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editorsChecking back in and saw this section that is probably supposed to be for the initial replies discussion, so just copying my above reply: All content issues are indeed related to that. The other viewpoint that I was talking about is that the original source text does not ascribe to their argument as the author uses male or gender neutral language, and they use a secondary source or nigh unrelated outside viewpoints not in the series to try and justify their claim. As for discussion, I believe both Knowledgekid87 as well as Lullabying, who got into the talk page after this dispute was opened, put forth good explanations for ideas. Going off of what they've proposed, I would say a compromise of leaving the page with male language and including either a footnote or end of section text line proclaiming the character has possibly identified themselves that way would be as far as I would go as to not disregard the original. Draco Safarius (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC) First statement by moderator (CFK)Please read the rules for moderated discussion again. It appears that the only question is the gender identity of the character known as Alice or Nagi. The article currently states that Alice/Nagi is a transgender woman. One editor has proposed to say, "Nagi (also known as Alice) is a first year student and Shizuku's roommate who is described as transgender". Is that wording acceptable to other editors? Does any other editor have any other proposed wording? Does their statement that they are a maiden in a man's body appear both in the Japanese and in the English? If so, is that sufficient to establish that they are, in universe, a transgender woman? If not, why not? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (CFK)This is the section referred to in rule 9, correct? I've never done this sort of thing before and it's somewhat confusing and stressful, so my apologies if I put anything in the wrong place. ThunderPX (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (CFK)This question is for User:Draco Safarius. Please provide the exact language that you think is in order to describe Nagi/Alice. Other editors may make a one-paragraph statement explaining why the current language, which describes them as transgender, should be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (CFK)Like ThunderPX above I do find the rules a bit confusing on layout here, as they don't cover much for each individual section, just giving brief overviews so I apologize in advance if using the back/forth comments section isn't supposed to be used this way. If that's the case just mention it and I'll refrain from it further. Regarding the above point(s) that ThunderPX lists, I would argue that even if the scene can be read that way the fact the author then purposely goes on for every volume of the series to not address the character with language that would affirm that defeats the arguing point. To put it another way, when the reader is being told something as directly as possible, barring direct statements outside of the series, by the author, through the impartial narrator, it would not logically make sense to set aside the information they are presenting as it can be considered the most accurate unless the narrator is a character recounting the series. And, for the second point, the series does indeed use the name Nagi. The narrator uses either Nagi or Arisuin. The English release version might not, but that was one of the major points in that one should not ignore the source in favor of a less accurate version just because it supports their view/argument. Draco Safarius (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (CFK)We have a "black-and-white situation". Two editors think that the article should describe the character as transgender female, and one editor thinks that the article should describe the character as male. I see three ways to deal with this:
Each editor is asked to state which of the options are acceptable to them, and we will decide how to proceed. An editor who supports option 3 should write draft language that explains the gender ambiguity of the character. Statements by editors go in the space for statements by editors. I have been ignoring misplacement of statements because it is more important to get the statements in an orderly manner than to insist on where they go. It is also important that the discussion be civil and concise, which it has been, and that back-and-forth discussion be avoided, which it has been. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Third statements by editors (CFK)I would say it's actually two editors one way, one the other, and two in the middle (referring to Knowledgekid87 and Lullabying, though the latter only came in after this was opened and is not taking part in this discussion but warrants mentioning for considering both sides). With regards to the three things laid out, I don't think any of those three options provided are sufficient unless on option three the thing I initially mentioned as a potential resolution of having that be a separate section on the page itself would qualify while retaining the male language in the character section. Should that be the case then I am all in favor of three and would place it either above or below the "Works cited" section of the page, and would phrase it as:
The character of Nagi, or Alice, as has been mentioned as a preferred name, Arisuin has generated debate with regards to gender, and whether or not they should be considered a transgender person. Upon their introduction in the series they mention that they largely prefer to go by the name of Alice and consider themself to be more of a "maiden in a man's body," but this contrasts with how the author uses male and gender neutral language through the narrator when mentioning them in the novels. The conflict between character dialogue and narrator descriptions has sparked debate over what the author was intending them to be and how the character should be classified.
Obviously option 1 would be most preferable to me, given that it is the shortest route to getting what I see as the correct result. I would absolutely be willing to make use of option 2 to get more opinions on the subject, as right now our sample size is very small. Option 3 is the least preferable to me, but I will nonetheless offer up my take on what such a character description would look like to offer an alternative to Draco Safarius' suggestion: Alice is a first year student as well as Shizuku's roommate and close friend. Nicknamed Black Sonia, they have the ability to control shadows with their device, the Darkness Hermit, allowing them to travel through shadows and bind others by pinning their shadows. Alice is a very nice person, though they does sometimes tease others. They are a good friend of Shizuku, who opens up to them. Alice is born male, but describes themself as "a maiden born in a man's body", and their friends agree to treat them as a woman. However, the narration in the Japanese version often uses male pronouns regardless, making it ambiguous how the character is meant to be viewed. Alice is later revealed to be an assassin of the terrorist organization Rebellion as well as a member of Akatsuki, sent to infiltrate Hagun Academy. They had a dark past, being an orphan living on the streets before being taken into Rebellion by Wallenstein. In advance of Akatsuki's attack on Hagun Academy, Alice assaulted Kagami to keep the existence of Akatsuki under wraps, but their friendship with Shizuku prompted them to turn against the group just prior to the attack. ThunderPX (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Fourth Statement by Moderator (CFK)There are four proposed versions of the language about Nagi/Alice:
At this point, I am asking each of the editors which of these versions are acceptable to them. That is, say Yes or say No to each version. You may also write another version. After all of the editors say Yes or No to each of the four versions, we will have a better idea of whether we need to proceed to an RFC. If there is an RFC, it will involve choosing between some of these versions of text. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Fourth Statements by Editors (CFK)I would say A - no, B - No, C - yes, D - no. There is still also the option for the main body of C excluding the sentence separated from the main description, and moving said separation to create its own topic further down the page like was mentioned in my third parent statement. That is probably the most fair as it follows the idea raised in the talk page comment I mentioned with adhering to a set precedent for a different article with a similar situation, and it does not do away with the original language that is the crux of the issue. The goal should not be replacing and rewording that since that's tantamount to just ignoring the author either in favor of personal bias and/or following a purposely changed secondary source, which is the issue in the first place. The goal should, at most, be creating a part in the page somewhere to mention it that does not detract from, or overwrite, the original, be it at the foot of the character section or its own area further down. Draco Safarius (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC) A - yes, B - yes, C - no, D - yes. With a preference for A or B, as D is already a compromise. I do not find using male pronouns to be acceptable, nor using the name "Nagi" as this never happens in the actual body of work and my request for proof to the contrary fell on deaf ears. I would compare doing so to writing the article for Scrubs and incessantly referring to J.D. and Turk as John and Christopher. ThunderPX (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Fifth Statement by Moderator (CFK)In statement 4 I listed four draft versions of paragraphs about the character Nagi or Alice, and asked for comments. Any editors who have not commented should comment Yes or No. Any editors who have not composed a draft should do so. If no one will accept another version so that we have approval by all editors, then we will have to publish an RFC. The RFC, rather than asking editors to choose one out of A, B, C, and D, will ask editors to Vote Yes, this version is acceptable, or No, this version is not acceptable, so that the closer can find the version that has the most general support. I will be composing the RFC within the next 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC) If anyone has any objections to the upcoming RFC, please state the objection and offer an alternate plan. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Fifth Statements by Editors (CFK)No objections to an RFC being opened, I highly doubt we'll ever reach an agreement here and arguing in the back/forth section doesn't really help anyone or this as a whole. However, we can attempt seeing if creating a large section detailing the disagreeing points on the page itself works, a more expanded version of what I suggested before. Break it into three parts, a loose overview, one side, and then the other side. The only caveat I'd be asking for that is that the character section be what I suggested, or near to it by doing ThunderPX's but using Nagi or Nagi/Alice as the name, to leave the actual character overview the base level of what's being plainly written, not what someone reads into, and the end of the character entry mention the disagreement so whoever is reading the page knows to look for it further down instead of going to rage edit the page. Could also protect the page itself, but a decision on that should probably wait. I won't compose the whole entire section being proposed, as both ThunderPX and Cyberweasel89 would probably want input into that for what they feel are any additional relevant mentions, but for the intro and the point I'd be arguing for:
The previously mentioned character of Nagi/Alice Arisuin has drummed controversial disagreements with regard to their gender, the arguments being as to whether the character should be classed and addressed as a transgender woman or a man. The conflict stems from language used in the original Japanese releases of the light novels clashing with a statement given by the character early in the series. (ThunderPX and Cyberweasel's point below, I'll do a rough formatting for it, but they should get input and raise whatever additional points they feel are relevant. I would, however, say to limit argument points to the JP light novels, anime, and their associated websites like the publisher or anime info releases. Attempting to use any outside sourcing just turns it back into using someone else's opinion as fact, and then we're right back to square one.) The argument for why Nagi/Alice should be addressed as a transgender woman, complete with female pronouns and language, deals with a conversation early in the series in which they mention to the main character, Ikki, that they prefer going by Alice instead of Nagi and also feel like "a maiden in a man's body," and then Ikki's younger sister, Shizuku, proclaiming that everyone should use Alice and treat them as a girl. The series goes on with Ikki and other main characters calling them Alice. The anime's associated website also features the same tagline quote of "a maiden in a man's body." The argument for why Nagi/Alice should be addressed as a man, using male pronouns and language, comes from the author opting to instead use male and gender neutral language when writing as the narrator throughout the whole series. Being the narrator, they are assumed to be all knowing, omniscient, unless shown to be an unreliable narrator, an example of an unreliable narrator being a character giving their memory or opinion as narration or even a narrator for a mystery novel that would be giving what the characters are currently aware of. Because they are being presented as an omniscient narrator it can be said that the narration is the author's opinion and intent, and that what is written is the most correct or truthful information for the series unless otherwise contradicted or clarified from a statement given by the author directly. This is further compounded with official character listings for the series using "Nagi Arisuin" for the character entry, instead of Alice, for both the voice actor announcement(s) for the anime and its official character entry on the associated website. Draco Safarius (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC) An RFC is the only option, as only Draco Safarius and myself are responding anymore and it's clear we will not see eye to eye on this. I trust others will make the right decision in the RFC. ThunderPX (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Sixth Statement by Moderator (CFK)I have created a draft RFC for viewing at Talk:Chivalry of a Failed Knight/Draft RFC. This is a draft RFC, not a live RFC; please do not !vote in the draft RFC. I will move it to the talk page after review. It is my opinion that the draft section containing a long discussion of the gender of the character is too long for due weight for a character who is not listed first or second in the list of characters, and who does not have a stand-alone article. Does anyone have any questions or comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Sixth Statements by Editors (CFK)Bit of confusion on what you're meaning with the draft containing a discussion. If you mean the actual RFC draft, then yes I'd agree, direct people to read the talk page and this dispute resolution rather than having it all one huge wall of text. As for the four statements, slight correction. B was the reverted version that prompted this being opened after one user ignored two different editors telling them to stop as their sources used didn't actually defeat the argument being made, that one only features an additional citation that, like the previous version, didn't defeat the argument. It should probably get a note making mention of that in the talk page if it's going to be left in as a vote consideration, though I'd imagine anyone being allowed to vote should have read that entire thing to begin with so it's probably fine. The only other thing I could think of asking is what would be the requisites for editor voting? Like it goes out randomly, yes, but what's the oversight on making sure people are actually considering both sides and not just doing a quick personal bias vote? Draco Safarius (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC) I agree that there should not be a long section discussing the character's gender, as not only is the proposed section overly long but it has no sources and therefore just reads like a tedious summary of the opinions of Wikipedia editors--in other words, OR. If the history of version B is at all relevant, t should be noted that it is essentially the same version that was in the article for years until Draco Safarius began making his edits, which I restored after providing an additional source, which he then not considered good enough. The rest is history. ThunderPX (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Seventh Statement by Moderator (CFK)I have changed the wording of B. If one of the editors has questions about the RFC process, they can ask them at the RFC talk page or Village Pump (policy). The closer will consider strength of arguments as well as a numerical vote count. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Seventh Statements by Editors (CFK)Both good spots to look at, thank you. Draco Safarius (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC) Back-and-forth discussion by editors (CFK)For the sake of clarity, can User:Draco Safarius provide some examples of Alice being referred to as "Nagi" in the text? This obviously discounts use of the full name "Nagi Arisuin". I do not recall in either the official translation or the fan translations that were quite prominent before the series' official availability--which often skewed very literal to a fault--that this ever occurred. Her friends obviously call her Alice, while characters who aren't close to her and the narration seem to use "Arisuin" to my knowledge, so I would like to see examples to the contrary. ThunderPX (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
As noted above in the reply, the text does use the character's name of Nagi, but ThunderPX finds that using a full name somehow defeats the point, which is sidestepping the argument's point. And as for Scrubs, which is a good example, I'll give you that, it has the problem of official name being different from actual name. Both J.D. and Turk are called almost exclusively by their nicknames, and the official names for them in related media or outside references from creators/actors are the nicknames. I would also hazard a guess every script uses those as well. That contrasts with how the text for this does not use Alice save character dialogue, and no using the English version as an example does not get around the issue. The author wasn't writing that as the narrator, and associated official media on the Japanese side, that ThunderPX attempted to use as reference to prove their point, uses Nagi as well. So, like the above reply, if the argument is being considered that the author's intent was what they were choosing to write as the narrator for 10+ volumes, then there should be no consideration given to pick and choose or dance around that to supplement names. Move it as an entire thing to a separate section of the article to cover it in detail and not try to sweep it under the rug with changing the character section. Draco Safarius (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Since I have to keep clarifying, using a source different from the original doesn’t do anything. It ignores the argument as a whole since it is, in the most literal sense per their own words, one person’s opinion on the text. Should never have been used, and trying to use it as a defense for the prior page version that was already incorrect just makes the position look worse. Draco Safarius (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
References
|
T.Rex (band)
![]() | Closed. Two of the editors have made edits to the article that the third editor, who edits intermittently, has not disagreed with because they have not been editing. There was a rough consensus for their edits. If any editor disagrees, they should discuss their disagreement first, before reverting, because there has been rough consensus. If there is a resumption of disagreement, an RFC may be used. Report disruptive editing to WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay, but do not edit disruptively. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Jakarta
![]() | Closed. There has been discussion about the deletion and reinsertion of the photo montage, but the filing party has not taken part in the discussion. The filing party appears to have popped up in order start this DRN thread, and pop-up accounts are part of the problem, not a way to solve the problem. The long-standing accounts are reminded to stop edit-warring. The filing account is told to take part in discussion prior to using noticeboards. An RFC may be the best way to resolve this conflict. Report edit-warring at the edit-warring noticeboard or WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Next Indian general election
![]() | Closed for now. Both editors have been blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring. When they come off block, they are advised to resume discussion on the article talk page for 24 hours, and then file a new request for mediation, one of the rules of which will be no editing of the article while discussion is in progress. They are both reminded that In Wikipedia, there is no deadline, and the election is not expected for a year. DRN is recommended as a good way to try to resolve this dispute, but only if the editors recognize that edit-warring is not a good way to resolve the dispute. Resume discussion when the blocks expire. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg
![]() | Closed as wrong forum. This is a request to delete a file from Commons. Wikimedia Commons and the English Wikipedia are two separate projects of the WMF and have separate governance structures and deletion procedures. The filer has already been given advice both at Commons and at the English Wikipedia Teahouse. The filing party is advised that this inquiry, which ignored the advice at the Teahouse that this is not an English Wikipedia issue, is disruptive. Please address your concerns at Commons, not in the English Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Voivodeship of Maramureș
![]() | Closed due to no response from other editors. Four days have elapsed since the filing party notified the other editors of this dispute, and the moderator has also notified them. Participation at this web site is voluntary, and apparently the other editors are not interested in moderated discussion. Resume normal editing and normal discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Voivodeship of Maramureș. If the other editors edit the document, or revert your edits to the document, and do not discuss their edits, read the discussion failure essay. Otherwise, edit boldly, but not recklessly. Report disruptive education at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay, but do not be disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German
![]() | Closed as resolved. The filing party has posted an inquiry at the biographies of living persons noticeboard, which has been answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Next Indian general election
![]() | Closed as declined. The other party resumed editing the article when the article came off full protection, after having been notified of this discussion and after having been advised that a condition of mediation would be not to edit the article while mediation was in progress. This is a clear indication of a choice not to participate in mediation, which is voluntary. Attempting to resolve this dispute as a content dispute by voluntary means has failed. There has already been administrative action, including blocks, which have expired, and full protection, which has expired. Unfortunately, it appears that administrative action may be needed again. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921)
![]() | Closed as failed. I am closing this DRN case as failed because it may be impossible to resolve by voluntary mediation. The editors had source reliability questions about thirteen sources, and these sources were listed at the reliable source noticeboard. A neutral RSN volunteer, User:Itsmejudith, provided opinions that some of the sources were considered reliable as the work of mainstream academic historians. Another RSN volunteer, User:Levivich, provided opinions on all of the sources, stating that some of them were too old. Editors who are parties to this dispute disagreed with the editors at RSN. I don't know how to resolve a dispute where an editor disagrees with RSN about a book source. Issues about the reliability of periodical sources at RSN are resolved by RFC and are listed in the list of frequently asked questions (FAQ), and an RFC runs for 30 days. There is no apparent way to resolve this dispute without a 30-day hold for the community to provide consensus, and then there might be further disagreements. Successful resolution of a content dispute is difficult or impossible if different editors have irreconcilable ideas as to what is neutral point of view due to differing nationalistic viewpoints.
There is a new Request for Arbitration concerning Azerbaijan and Armenia, and the ArbCom is waiting to see if this DRN will resolve this dispute. It seems less undesirable (all outcomes are undesirable when neutral point of view is clouded by nationalistic conflicts) to let the ArbCom conduct a full inquiry, and then reopen discussion on this article. This case is closed. Discuss any content issues at the article talk page, and wait for the ArbCom to conduct a new case on Armenia and Azerbaijan. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Bryant and Stratton College
![]() | The parties have not had extensive discussion of the issue on a talk page, and the filing is overly focused on conduct over content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Rent regulation
![]() | Closing as premature. It's clear that the opening user and relevant parties have not had extensive discussion on the article talk page. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Added comment: Discussion on a user talk page is not a substitute for discussion on an article talk page. An article talk page sometimes draws the attention of third-party editors who may help to resolve an issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
![]() | Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance with a dispute. While you've taken a shot at fixing the problems raised in the AFD, the sources you've added just still are not adequate to support an independent article. Mentions in passing are not enough to establish notability (which has been the problem with having that as a separate article all along). — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Diwali
![]() | Not a dispute, no other parties listed. DRN is not a place to recruit help in editing an article. It's a place to seek aid in resolving discussion between parties with a view to coming to consensus, such as consensus. If the primary issue is sourcing of MEDRS claims, try the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for assistance of evaluation of sources. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
2022–23 European windstorm season
![]() | Closed as no response from key editor. The issue in this case was edits made by an unregistered editor to the article. The unregistered editor has not made a statement, four days after the filing party notified them on their talk page, and two days after the moderator asked them whether they agreed to moderated discussion. Moderated discussion is voluntary, and it can be assumed that the unregistered editor is choosing not to participate. The filing editor and the other editor are advised to request semi-protection of the article page for a few weeks, and to discuss their edits with each other and with the unregistered editor. The unregistered editor is reminded that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, and that gatekeeping an article is not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Al-Bayan (radio station)
![]() | Closed. Another RFC is being used. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Breitbart News Case
![]() | Not a DRN case. Forwarded users towards Wikipedia: Third opinion. Chefs-kiss (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Statute Law Revision Act 1893
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
![]() | Closed as primarily a conduct dispute. There almost certainly is a content dispute here, but it is concealed in the conduct dispute, including filibustering, claims of personal attacks, allegations of sockpuppetry, allegations of hoaxes, and a request for an interaction ban. The allegation of sockpuppetry is a serious matter, and should be either made at sockpuppet investigations or not made at all. The allegation of a hoax is a serious matter, and should be either made at WP:ANI or WP:AN or not made at all. DRN is not the forum to request an interaction ban, which can be done at WP:ANI. The editors in this request should read the boomerang essay, and then either file conduct reports, or don't file conduct reports. An interaction ban might be a good idea because it might be less restrictive than other sanctions. Any article content issues can probably be addressed by other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Association football
![]() | Closed as premature. As a secondary point, the filing party has not notified the other parties on their user talk pages. As a primary matter, the discussion of the nomenclature has been on the filing party's user talk page, and not on the article talk page. Discussion should be on the article talk page. There has been discussion of two other matters on the article talk page, but it has also not been extensive. Discuss on the article talk page, Talk:Association football, for at least 24 hours with at least two posts by each editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Azores
![]() | Closed as declined. The other editor in this two-person dispute has declined to take part in moderated discussion, which is voluntary. The content dispute should be resolved by normal editing, with discussion at the article talk page, Talk:Azores. A concern about original research may be posted at the original research noticeboard, but the purpose of such a posting should only be to request third-party comments, because that noticeboard is also not a tribunal. Do not edit-war, and do not engage in wikilawyering about what is and is not edit-warring. An RFC may be used, but should only be used after discussion, and is not a substitute for discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|