I'm relatively new to wikipedia, and new here. If I make any mistakes, please let me know. I've taken on the case about online encyclopedia's as it looks pretty straight forward (although when people are involved, there's often no such thing). I'm excited to be volunteering and look forward to helping out. SpoonLuv (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Welcome! Just take things easy, don't be afraid to ask for volunteers for support when you need it, and always refer back to the policies and guidelines involved. StevenCrossin06:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
So I already have a question lol. When the other side just simply doesn't respond, what do I do? I'm going to take a look through some prior cases to find similiar situations, but I know things often change so don't want to go based on old data. I've seen from the policies that this information is non-binding, and we're not here in any way to pass judgement. I volunteered in the wikipedia list of encyclopedias case, and the other party isn't responding at all. Just wondering if the pro's can weigh in on what should happen next. Should I give the requestor information on where they can get more binding mediation? Is there a template for that kind of thing? It also appears that on the talk page for the subject there is no more activity in that discussion either. SpoonLuv (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
If there was discussion, I obviously have an opinion on this case based on pretty clear information (I'm only human). Would I ever offer that information (not my opinion, but the information that led to said opinion) in order to further the case, or is this purely blind mediation? I asked my wife about this who went to mediation with my ex, and they did point out when one side really didn't have much of an argument, but we're not really professional mediators so not sure how that applies. I can post here what my feelings are and based on what information it was on, but obviously don't want to do so while the case is open. I find things slightly muddy on the degree in which we should involve ourselves. SpoonLuv (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I should also note that though I have an opinion, I'm still able to be non-partial, and would have no issue if the result of consensus was different then my own viewpoint, and would be happy with the consensus. SpoonLuv (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'm bit of an old hand here to dispute resolution, as I've been doing it since 2008, not long after I started. We don't really have a manual of how to do these things, but here's the best response I can give for your questions.
If parties don't respond to the dispute resolution request, I'd normally ping them with {{ping|TheirUsername}} on the DRN thread. If that fails after 24 hours, I'll send them a message on their talk page. If they don't respond, then there's really nothing that can be done from there. We can't force people to participate unfortunately.
As a dispute resolution volunteer - and I differentiate between that and the role of a mediator, as people here can serve as mediators, however not always is the role a volunteer serves a mediator. Sometimes their role is, in clear cut cases, to point out the best outcome. When doing so, one should always cite the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that led you to that conclusion. But it honestly takes some experience to judge this. Personally, I don't see a problem with posting your assessment of the dispute, as you are an uninvolved editor in the matter, but I would suggest that it be based on policy.
There isn't really any further dispute resolution content like binding mediation. We have requests for comment that can seek more outside input from the community. My take is that it has mixed success, but its another way to get more feedback. Hope this helps. StevenCrossin15:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Copyright Dispute
I closed a copyright issue because I do not think that this noticeboard is the place to resolve a copyright dispute. If this noticeboard does handle copyright, please advise me that I was mistaken. This hasn't happened often enough that I know a standard answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I think that I may need to find another moderator for the dispute about the Pallava dynasty, one who is willing to review the sources and make a decision. Can one of the other volunteers advise me as to how I can find a moderator who will review sources on history of India and make a decision? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I've had a look at it but I'm not experienced enough in the topic area to help make a decision (and I have another complex one on the go). Perhaps we can recommend they do a neutrally worded RFC and get other's opinions on the sources for this one? StevenCrossinHelp resolve disputes!20:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Moderator vs mediator vs volunteer
Hi all,
Wondering why we categorise ourselves (or some do) as "moderators" - since our role is really that of a volunteer in dispute resolution, I think it is more appropriate to call ourselves purely volunteers or mediators, and what we do here as purely "dispute resolution". StevenCrossinHelp resolve disputes!20:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
We are all volunteer editors (except for a few paid editors whom we presumably all detest). To describe ourselves as volunteers is to say nothing. The volunteer who is handling a particular case is conducting moderated discussion or is mediating. I don't see much difference between the two. If the distinction matters to you, then you can refer to yourself as what you want. If it matters to you, you can try to persuade us that it matters which we are. I'm ready to listen. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out how hard it would be for any paid editor to take any sort of resolution as a neutral thing if they were to see that the person helping detested them. Just saying, it undermines any efforts you make before you make them. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
To me, and most, "moderator" has certain connotations - e.g. Internet_forum#Moderators - moderators in online communities normally have privileges to enforce rules, and are normally involved in just ensuring people follow those rules, rather than necessarily guiding discussions and helping editors form a consensus. It's for this reason I don't think the term moderator is an accurate description of what we do, where mediator fits the bill more - people bring disputes they have on content that exist between editors, they've generally failed to resolve the issue themselves, and need our assistance, so we try to help work the issue out between the editors - which is basically the definition of a mediator. It might not apply to all instances, but it feels to be a more accurate term of what the aim is here at DRN, hence my suggestion. StevenCrossinHelp resolve disputes!03:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
On the flip side, I'm not crazy about "mediator" as a general description, either (and have generally avoided using it) because every volunteer can conduct a case as they see fit. Sometimes that's mediation, sometimes it's opinion giving (3O on steroids), and I wouldn't want to give the impression to new volunteers that mediation is the only technique that they can use here. Heck, I even gave a binding-opinion-by-agreement once (and it worked! — mostly). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Mediators are simply users acting as a go-between. They can give opinions. (You may be thinking of the old formal mediation system, under which they were required to never do so.) I think that the volunteers staffing this noticeboard are best described as mediators. AGK ■11:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
(A) THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE and apologies for not making time to help here.
(B) I used to do this work in real life. The program called us "volunteer community mediators" but I always thought of myself as a meaningful discussion facilitator. There was always "discussion" before real life cases got to us, often with lots of yelling involved. Hence the word "meaningful". It was common at the start for participants to talk to us rather than to each other, and the vibe was talking to the teacher on the playground. Hence the open compound word "discussion facilitator". The idea was to convey, from the moment the process is first suggested, that we weren't some sort of authority, and the idea from the get-go was for participants to talk to each other, just in a different way.
the other editor and I have carried out the necessary discussion on the Talk page, but cannot reach a resolution.
I am seeking to get my DR post revived since I have (now) followed the rules and seek mediation/resolution from impartial volunteers/observers. StorchBaby (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Mentoring
A mentor is different to a mediator. A mentor can be a mediator, and someone can be one and never the other. One will not be both at the same time in the same case.
I’m a bit puzzled by this? Can you clarify the relevance here? The only thing I can that comes to mind is I’ve volunteered to act as a mentor for an editor at AN, but I would not relinquish my participation in dispute resolution to to do so. StevenCrossinHelp resolve disputes!08:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I was looking around, and remembered WikiProject Rehab, and wondered whether it was forgotten and redundant to mediation. But no, Rehab was about offering mentors, not mediation. I was wondering whether you or others had thoughts about the old WikiProject Rehab. And then I rambled in a bit about mentor vs mediator. Like I said, a mentor for one person and be a mediator for a separate case, but yes, I did have you in mind, maybe playing a dual role as someone’s potential mentor, and negotiating with his prosecutors. Thoughts ... not fully considered ... not necessarily important. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. I dunno about the Wikiproject - for me, mentorship is a rare thing, I've not seen it happen often. Perhaps it's been successful for me in the past because I watch them like a hawk, and am quite tough when I need to be. After all, it's a poor reflection on me too if they screw up. I do think when done well, a user can possibly do both, counsel and guide problematic editors while trying to sort out disputes, however in my experience, problems that mentees cause are normally pretty clear cut and one can normally determine with some skill whether to side in their mentees corner or come down on them like a ton of bricks. Takes some finesse, though. StevenCrossinHelp resolve disputes!11:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Italian language
As recommended to me (here) I have a question in order to resolve a dispute. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages protects the Italian language in Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina as a minority language; however, few people actually speak it in these countries. So the question is: should they be included in the infobox as countries where Italian is recognized as a minority language or not? According to some, Romania and Bosnia-Herzegovina must not be entered in the infobox as only this card says that, but the Template:Infobox language says the parameter minority is for "countries in which it is a recognised/protected minority language" and that is "intended for legal protection and de jure recognition". DavideVeloria88 (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2019
To my knowledge there are no ethnic Italians, both in Romania and in Bosnia-Herzegovina (except maybe in the very short dalmatian coastline?). So, unless there are other sources which confirm this presence, I would not include this information in the infobox, since it is misleading. Moreover, it would be interesting to understand the inclusion criteria for this charter: for example, Switzerland protects Italian, which is an official language of the confederation. Due to that, I think that this charter should be considered a suspect source for what concerns the languages of ethnic minorities in Europe. Alex2006 (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
There are Italians in Romania and Bosnia, including historical communities. For example, there is a village in Bosnia, Štivor, which was entirely populated by Italians from Trento. Italian is in fact spoken by a minority of about 4,000 people in Bosnia according to Ethnologue, WorldAtlas, and GraphicMaps. Also, according to Eurostat, in 2015 there were 38,580 people born in Italy living in Romania. I think we can insert Romania and Bosnia in the infobox, as the language is protected according to the Charter DavideVeloria88 (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Here we are talking about ethnic Italians, not Italian immigrants (also if immigrated in 19th century: btw, there are much older Italian communities abroad), which are everywhere. Question: do you know the difference between an ethnic X and an immigrant from country X? Alex2006 (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I think I don’t known that. In any case, what do ethnic Italians have to do with it? In other languages they are not based on this. In Brazil, German is a minority language and is spoken by German IMMIGRANTS. — DavideVeloria88 (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
This is exactly the point: ethnic Italians are Italians indigenous in a territory (i.e. Italians in Istria); Italian immigrants are Italians which moved from Italy to some territory. The former are a minority (in Croatia and Slovenia), the latter not. Now, it is clear that neither in Romania nor in Bosnia there is an Italian minority (although there are Italian immigrants), so these two countries cannot go in the infobox: if it were so, you should put there also tens of countries (for example Germany and Switzerland) where there are Italian language and culture courses for Italian immigrants because of bilateral agreements between Italy and the residence country of these immigrants. The fact that in Romania and Bosnia these immigrants have a protected status does not change the fact that they remain immigrants. Alex2006 (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
But German is recognized as a minority language in 9 municipalities in Brazil, where it is spoken by German immigrants, and not ethnic Germans. Also, these are the minority languages in Romania according to that charter:
Albanian
Armenian
Bulgarian
Czech
German
Greek
(Italian)
Yiddish
Macedonian
Hungarian
Polish
Romani
Russian
Ruthenian
Serbian
Slovak
Tatar
Turkish
Ukrainian
In all their page they are recognised as minority language in those countries. Italian should not be excluded. We are speaking about the "Recognised" languages (de jure) as the template says. —DavideVeloria88 (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Ashleigh Barty
I have a two-part question about this dispute. First, where are the various possible values of the case status documented? I want to assign one that says that we need a volunteer to handle the case. Second, we need a volunteer to handle the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Steven Crossin. The one I was looking for is Review. I will in the future use Reject on cases that aren't appropriate for handling here. The Barty case seems to have been resolved. I think that there are two cases that need a volunteer mediator. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Steven Crossin - I am not exactly sure how this happened, but your test and a case filed by a now-blocked sockpuppet account appear to have conflicted with each other. I think that I have it taken care of by closing the sockpuppet case. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Cases that are incorrectly filed are enough of a problem if the errors are only by the filing editor. It gets really messy if both the filing editor and the script mess up, which appears to have happened with the tariff dispute. However, the solution to the tariff dispute is to semi-protect the page to stop the unregistered editor from edit-warring, and I requested that. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Rejecting a Case
I have Rejected two case filings today. However, they show up in the summary as New discussion. Is this an issue with the template or the bot, or is there some magic way that I am supposed to close the rejected case? 21:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Adding Broad Definition of "Textus Receptus" to Lede Paragraph
There is currently a dispute as to whether or not we should add a broader description to the term "Textus Receptus," based on a number of reverted edits in Textus Receptus:Talk-Page, as shown here. Please advise.Davidbena (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
How to cancel a Dispute Resolution request (if desired) and other question
I have decided that I do wish to cancel the Dispute Resolution request, I have informed the other editor (pinging them on the Talk page) and removed the edit from the article to which they objected. Skllagyook (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Submission link not working: "Error: API returned error code "badtoken": Invalid CSRF token."
Could you please advise me on how to handle the following evidence of disruptive editing?
1. On November 16, User:Drmies made multiple edits that go against precedents, guidelines/policy, and communal consensus.[1] This includes deleting sources that are on the Reliable Sources list. They also wrote uncivil Edit Summaries.[2]
2. User:Drmies wikihounded[3] me on an administrator's Talk Page.[4] There, they posted an uncivil and sarcastic message where they disregarded the topic of music genres and tried to deflect attention from the topic of concerts/tours by switching focus to inline sourcing for them (which was not the reason for deletion written in their Edit Summary, and is not required according to the precedent set by featured articles).
3. User:Drmies responded to my attempt at discussion on their own Talk Page with another uncivil message.[5] In it, they disregarded my explanation justifying the inclusion of concerts/tours and my request for explanation concerning their deletion of that section. They made the unsupported argument that even if a source is on the list of Reliable Sources, if the article is via Yahoo, then they consider it unreliable. (Note that Yahoo is not on the list of unreliable sources, and a Senior Editor even wrote, “I don't think Yahoo should go on the unreliable list because much of their content is from Reuters, AP, etc. It really depends on the source.” --Random86 (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC) [6]) Their inappropiately aggressive message even included a profanity in abbreviation (gd = goddamn).
4. On December 24, User:Drmies / User:Dr.K. * rejected/ignored community input by reverting edits supported by RfC and the communal consensus documented in guidelines/policy.[7][8][9]
5. When User:Drmies / User:Dr.K. * later joined one RfC after my invitation [10], they weren't honest in making it clear that they are not an uninvolved editor. After a compromise was proposed, they changed stories and are now unnecessarily delaying resolution. Given their unsupported insistence on formal closure and their behavior in the RfC, I also have concerns that the user who closes the RfC may be related to them, and therefore not truly an uninvolved editor.
(* Not sure if those are two unrelated users. They both wrote exactly the same phrase in two different communications, which seems like a curious coincidence.)
Collectively, disruptive editors harm Wikipedia by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity.
It is essential to recognize patterns of disruptive editing. Our edit warring policy already acknowledges that one act, by itself, may not violate policy, but when part of a series of acts they constitute a pattern that does violate policy.
Disruptive editors may seek to disguise their behavior as productive editing, yet distinctive traits separate them from productive editors. When discussion fails to resolve the problem and when an impartial consensus of editors from outside a disputed page agree (through requests for comment or similar means), further disruption is grounds for blocking, and may lead to more serious disciplinary action through the dispute resolution process. In extreme cases this could include a site ban, either through the Arbitration Committee or by a consensus.
A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following:
Is tendentious: ...editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.
Does not engage in consensus building:
a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
Rejects or ignores community input: resists...requests for comment
Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility...
Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed.
Please be careful to spell the names of templates correctly if you want them to be templates. Someone, probably User:Rosguill, put one too many letters 't' in an archive botttom template. This caused it to swallow everything under it because it didn't close the archive. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Giles Corey did not refuse to the allegation that he was a witch
Dear Sirs,
Giles Corey was a resident of Salem Township and was accused,along with his wife of being a a witch. Giles did plead not guilty but he refused to answer a required question by the English courts of that time. This question was "how do you wish to be tried"asked by the judges. The routine answer to that question was "by God and country (or by this court)" Giles refused to answer this question and was therefore put to an old English torture for such occasions. This was the torture of "pressing", this meant that increasingly heavy weight were placed on his chest until the accused would agree to be tried by God and the court or country. Because he refused to agree to this routine question he was eventually pressed with heavy weights until he died. His last words were supposed to have been, when asked if he would answer the question, was "more weight" and so he died. His reason for refusing to answer the question was an excellent one. Giles was a man of considerable property and he had a large number of sons and he knew that if he were tried and convicted he would have all his property confiscated by the local government. He knew he would be convicted because the Salem Witch Trials of 1692 convicted all the accused who did not confess and being innocent he much prefered to die than to confess to a lie. He knew that once convicted, he was as good as dead but by refusing to be tried he cheated the town officials of his property which was then inherited by his sons as he wished. Giles Corey was a good, God fearing man who is and of rights should be the patron saint of all people of courage who would spit in the face of avaricious and dishonest officials trying to rob the just. He is one of my heros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.216.58 (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I think you may have posted this in the wrong location. Thank you for the information, it was interesting- but does it relate to a dispute that you need help with? If so, please open a case on the DRN main page. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
My edit to a page is not being taken seriously.
On the Anonymous For The Voiceless page, I want to make an edit, it says non profit organization. That isn’t true, and I shared the article that proves this, but when I make the change and share the article in a footnote. It is not being considered and reverted back to its original form. Please let me know why. Thephantom24 (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Does any volunteer have a suggestion on how to deal with the most recent filing about this act?
I have a concern about the filing party that I have had occasionally in the past about case requests here, and that is what to do if it appears that the filing party does not have enough of a command of written English to be able to present their dispute clearly. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
DR: Legality of bestiality by country
Wait, this is how dispute resolution at Wikipedia works? One users says clearly WP:OR and that's it?
Did you actually look at the edit history of the article? I provided six sources in the article itself and I even included quotations from five of them within the references that literally say what I claim: [14][15][16][17][18][19] Among these sources is a press release of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany itself, the Legal Tribune Online and a daily newspaper. How would this be original research by me?
Of course the other party in this dispute conveniently deleted these sources and then claimed that I had none … Should I have participated in an edit war to keep these sources more visible? Was I wrong to think that DRN would have experience with how disputes go and not just buy what one party says without looking into it?
I've re-opened the case. To be honest, I was distracted by the OR claims made in the opening statement about what the federal law does or does not say, saw that the other participants claimed that no secondary sources had been provided, and assumed that that was the end of the case, which appears to have been a mistake. signed, Rosguilltalk18:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
This project talk page is for the discussion of the functioning of the noticeboard. The article content dispute should be conducted on the noticeboard itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2020 (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.
No Ocolon, hasn't provided a single major news source that backs his claims. It's been over 4 years now, yet no news sources have reported anything about how the Federal constitutional court clarified the law to mean that only "forced" sex was prohibited. There isn't a single shred of verifiable evidence for Ocolon's clams. this. Personal interpretations isn't fact. His link to the "JaraForum" is a perfect example. The authors "opinion" is just that, his interpretation. "The Federal Constitutional Court further emphasized that the law does not generally prohibit sexual acts with animals" That statement. has no basis in fact, and is just the authors own interpretation. (Forum and blogs is not an acceptable source.) But regardless, Ocelon or other has to show some well known (major) news sources that support is claims that the 2013 law only prohibited "forced" sex, thus consensual sex was legal. Which would be the total opposite of the parliament's intent. The widely accepted, majority consensus is that the 2013 law banned outlawed sex with with animals.
The law was unsuccessfully challenged in 2015. Again no news sources in the last 4 years have reported that consensual beastily is still legal, as it was since 1969. So again, until Ocelon can provide a reputable news agency that backs his assertions. My edit, should continue to be the accepted one.
In closing, the courts own press release summed up the complaint and why it was rejected. "Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the criminal offense of sexual acts with animals."
it doesn't get any clearer than that. So again, until Ocelon can provide a reputable news agency that backs his assertions. My edit, should continue to be the accepted one. Shiloh6555 (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Shiloh6555, the TAZ is a major nation-wide distributed newspaper in Germany as you would know, if you had any connection to Germany. Furthermore, Legal Tribune Online is a major news source for legal matters. The link to JuraForum may not have the same weight as these major publications, but you make it sound as if this was some bulletin board post, which is incorrect. It is a news article and it itself names www.juragentur.de, a news agency specializing in legal matters, as their source. This is not just someone's opinion.
Please don't say there would not be "a single shred of verifiable evidence" for the claim. This makes you look insincere, since I have provided six sources [20][21][22][23][24][25] (actually, one of these was provided by yourself) and even quoted the relevant parts in five cases:
Jedoch greift der Tatbestand des § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG nur, wenn das Tier zu einem artwidrigen Verhalten gezwungen wird.
Jedoch greift der Tatbestand nur, wenn das Tier zu einem artwidrigen Verhalten gezwungen wird.
Der Tatbestand greife jedoch nur, wenn das Tier zu einem artwidrigen Verhalten gezwungen wird.
Die Richter klärten die Kläger also auf, dass gar nicht jeder Sex mit Tieren verboten ist, sondern nur der erzwungene.
Werden Tiere hingegen nicht zu den sexuellen Handlungen gezwungen, sondern ist davon auszugehen, dass sie sich der Situation jederzeit entziehen können, keine Schmerzen erleiden und nicht zu "artwidrigem Verhalten" genötigt werden, so ist Zoophilie laut Gesetzesformulierung nicht strafbar.
All of these say that the ban only applies to forced sex. This can't be mistaken by anyone who understands German, it is not a personal interpretation of mine.
You come back repeatedly to the point that the law in question has been challenged unsuccessfully. Please stop this – it is a needless distraction, because we all agree on this. I suspect that your focus on this one point clouds your judgement of the real question: what exactly is forbidden?
However, I do agree that the press release you speak of is indeed a relevant source! However, the relevant part for the Wikipedia article is not in the headline of the press release. The relevant part is where the court explains that:
Zwar greift § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG in die sexuelle Selbstbestimmung der Beschwerdeführer ein. Jedoch greift der Tatbestand nur, wenn das Tier zu einem artwidrigen Verhalten gezwungen wird.
The very same press release that you use to defend your opinion literally says that the ban only applies, if the animal is forced. I do not understand how you can miss this important fact except that you do not understand the language. How can you say that I have no credible source, if your own favorite source says exactly what I say? The very same press release also says this:
die Bedeutung etwa des Begriffs des „Zwingens“ ergibt sich im Zusammenhang des Gesetzes in Abgrenzung zu einem bloßen „Abverlangen“ und setzt ein Verhalten voraus, welches mit der Anwendung von körperlicher Gewalt vergleichbar ist.
explaining further what forcing means: something on par with physical force, but not just demanding the behaviour from the animal. This is not some weird interpretation of mine. Your own source literally says this.
---
Finally I want to point out something about the TAZ webpage I linked to in one of the sources ([26]), because it may give you an idea why other newspapers fail to report that the law only applies to forced behaviour. At the top, the TAZ webpage contains an article like you will find many, saying that a complaint against the bestiality law has been unsuccessful and that bestiality would stay prohibited. That's exactly the kind of article you use to back up your stance. Dozens of these articles appeared after the court rejected the appeal (again, there is no dispute about the rejection). However, the editors of the TAZ website added an official comment by their legal reporter below said article later on the same day. This comment includes the full text of the printed newspaper article they would publish on the following morning. This printed newspaper article reads quite differently. Where the online article's heading was "Sex mit Tieren bleibt verboten", the printed newspaper article of the following day received the heading "Kein Zwangs-Sex mit Tieren". The online article's heading didn't mention the restriction of force yet, but the heading of the printed article from the following day includes it. Furthermore, the printed article is very explicit that the law really applies to forced sex only and what that means:
Jedenfalls sei es nur verboten, das Tier zu etwas zu "zwingen". Erforderlich sei dabei, so die Richter, körperliche Gewalt oder ähnliches. Die Richter klärten die Kläger also auf, dass gar nicht jeder Sex mit Tieren verboten ist, sondern nur der erzwungene.
Why do the quick TAZ online article and their printed article from the next day differ so much? Well, their online article is based on a short note by the biggest German news agency dpa (not my theory, the article says this). And their printed article was authored later by a reporter for legal matters Christian Rath (not my theory, the official comment says this) who had both the knowledge of the dpa release, but also the time to investigate the issue himself, read what the court actually wrote etc.
So from what's documented on the TAZ page (you can get around the pop-up by saying that you don't want to pay "GERADE NICHT") we learn that the newspaper changed its story within half a day from something that would seemingly back up your position to what I am saying.
This may give you an explanation why you will find many other newspaper articles that seemingly back up your stance. Like any note by the biggest German news agency dpa, this superficial note about an unseccessful complaint against the law spread world-wide. Based on it, any newspaper in the world that doesn't task a reporter to investigate the issue further itself like the TAZ did, ended up with an equally superficial article.
I hope this helps you understand why you will find many article that fail to mention that the ban is limited to forced sex. My position, however, is not based on claiming that a dpa note was superficial. You don't have to agree with this. My stance is based on reliable sources, secondary ones and in particular also the court's own publication, which you yourself brought into the discussion and which literally says what I say, and what you would also see if you read past the heading and would understand the language. – Ocolon (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
---
Shiloh6555, in your description of the dispute you ask about zoophiles' response. I do not think that they are an unbiased source. But there is actually a zoophiles' association in Germany and, since you asked, they also say about the legal situation in Germany in broken English that the Federal Constitutional Court
… made clear that anchored in the Animal Welfare Act prohibition grab only if the animal is forced to species-contrary behavior. Thus, the sex with animals is not in principle prohibited.
Here is one more source lawblog.de by the way, which says:
Vielmehr sind sexuelle Kontakte mit Tieren, bei denen kein Zwang ausgeübt wird, nach wie vor erlaubt. Und das auch dann, wenn die Handlung „artwidrig“ ist.
I suppose the blog format makes this source inacceptable according to Wikipedia's standard. Note, however, that the website has been awarded the most prestigous Grimme Online Award for its quality online journalism on legal matters [27]. – Ocolon (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Bot proposal
Hi. Currently, the instructions say that when a discussion is closed the do not archive code should be removed. However, many times this is forgotten. Are opposition to a bot removing it from closed discussions? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
As a side note, as an editor participating in the dispute I am not supposed to reply in the ongoing discussion until the volunteering moderator asks me to respond, am I right? – Ocolon (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon:: Appreciate the role of moderation you've held throughout, but taking note to your comment, I can't help but object to the closure as I was really quite hoping this dispute could be resolved without escalation. AN/I isn't really appropriate as I would like to still view this as a content dispute apart from the flagrant disregard to follow DRNA in refraining from editing the article from the status quo. I think it's clear that the discussion is stonewalled, as you've said, but I think I can say for both participants that we were hoping that the moderator would weigh in to either provide a compromise suggestion or if that seems unattainable, to at least provide a third opinion on whether the citations of guideline concerns by both side had merit. I certainly opened the DRN with the hope that a 3O would just simply weigh into the matter. I've directly opened a DDR/3 previous to this but that went unadopted. All I would really just like is an 3O to weigh in if the concerns I hold have merit, if they don't, I'd be perfectly willing to close my end of the dispute. I was under the impression the 5th statement I've provided was concise enough to state my position considering how tediously long the back-and-forth became. Sleath56 (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Review on 'Francesco Sidoti' and possibly on 'Pedro Scuro'
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To the Administrator. Dear Madam/Sir. I edited a page on Francesco Sidoti and, exclusively by my mistake I clicked on an old entry [Pedro Scuro] the subject of a bitter discussion with one or two editors, on account of the entry having an alleged "promotional content under criterion G11". The facts occurred years ago and the editors' allegations were so outlandish that I simply gave up publishing the text altogether. There was absolutely no "promotional content" whatsoever, as the subject of the entry is an internationally respected intellectual with relevant contributions to his fields of knowledge. He was also my former mentor, so I wouldn't dare to place him/his work in any embarrassing circumstance. Nevertheless, as I concede that one might always be in the wrong, it would be much more profitable if my fault-finders disclose where exactly my text was "promotional". On the other hand, over and above all that unpleasant hugger-mugger, I'm now trying to publish a new entry, on Francesco Sidoti, so I'm awaiting your kind reply. Yours, Peiris Fox (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Failure to provide notice
User:Rosguill and anyone else: I don't think that we need to be as procedurally stubborn about the details of notice as WP:ANI, let alone Arbitration, in terms of enforcing how notice is given. My choice is not to make an issue about notice if the other party has replied to the case. In the Arabic Culture dispute, the other party has replied, so that they know that this case has been requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, noted, although I will point out that as of when I made that comment the other editor had not replied. I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually because of my ping in that comment that they became aware of the issue. signed, Rosguilltalk17:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Xaosflux, If you are looking at the technical stuff, could you also look at the list of cases that displays at the top of the noticeboard? Why is it displaying all of the cases always as New? Thank you to anyone who can fix that. It has been doing that for several months, and I complain about it, but I don't want to complain too often because that would get annoying (and the bug is already annoying). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: from what I can tell it is not any sort of display issue, assuming that table you are referring to is the one from Template:DRN case status. That sheet is normally updated by a bot, DRN clerk bot operated by @Hasteur: so the options would either be for him to adjust the bot, or for someone else to take over the task and do it differently. — xaosfluxTalk15:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
DRN does not accept case requests through the talk page. However, note that DRN does not accept cases about user conduct at all, but only cases about article content. If a case had been filed with the allegations first set out here, it would almost certainly have been rejected for that reason. This venue also requires extensive talk page discussion about content disputes before filing a case and none has occurred, so no case is available through DRN at this time. If you wish to make a complaint about user conduct, the proper venue is WP:ANI but be sure to carefully read and follow the instructions there before filing. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
User:Pestick and User talk:14.231.64.162 who I believe are the same, has recently been removing large amounts of content from this article using the disguise of Recentism. Upon inspecting his/her edits, this person is maliciously removing encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view to suit their bias opinion.
When I undid one of their edits and clearly stated that it was referenced and their edits was leading to systemic bias and lack of neutral point of view. I was confronted with this on the China national football team: Revision history page
"There is a discuss in the talk page, made by another editor. You are up against two editors including me. I'm trying to condense the article per TP:Overly detailed. Please don't disrupt the article's renovation process. This is not mainly about dead links, it's about condensing the article and getting rid of excessive intricate details." (16:09, 25 April 2020)
I looked this up at the Talk:China national football team and all I could find was David Tornheim wrote, "I hope editors can review the sourcing and fix broken links." (10:04, 21 April 2020) Further research lead me to User talk:14.231.64.162 where Materialscientist suggested this person use Sandbox. David Tornheim came in and was encouraging to the new editor, suggested a more neutral tone, replace sources that were lacking and read up carefully on any rules that editors say you have broken. Unfortunately when he wrote,
"If you start getting more warnings and anyone gets testy with you, please let me know, and can see what is going on." (10:03, 21 April 2020)
this person has selectively read that they have carte blanche to do whatever they want. This has lead to further numerous instances of maliciously removing encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view to suit their bias opinion under what they believe is condensing, poor English, only English cited sources and dead links to name a few. When I confronted this person I was met with ownership of content and bullying language as this person now believes they have to administrators backing him/her and the perception of power. I wrote to David Tornheim about my concerns, but he has not responded and Materialscientist has a "busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries." sign on their talk page.
I went to Teahouse looking for a third opinion with ColinFine stating that he has not looked at the edits and this is a content dispute.
So I am asking for help to stop this maliciously removing encyclopedic content from this page and several others, they are not improving this page at all because if they were they wouldn't be deleting the same passages and references used in the Nederlands Featured article of the same name. Kai Lau (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not editing in "Nederlands Featured article of the same name". I'm only curtailing content in the English article to make stuff more concise. Not that much information were removed and they're just the non-vital ones.Pestick (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I took a look. I believe I returned article to "status quo ante". I have encouraged you to both discuss your edits on the talk page of the article. Per WP:BRD, when a WP:BOLD change is reverted, one should not revert again, but instead discuss on the talk page. I am not taking a side in this dispute. I will try to look at the talk page & I might state my preference of keep vs. remove. It would probably be better if you found others who are more interested in this subject to break ties when you can't agree. I do agree with ColinFine that it is a content dispute, and that Pestick is not vandalizing the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Xaosflux - Thank you. If you are looking at the technical stuff, could you also look at the list of cases that displays at the top of the noticeboard? Why is it displaying all of the cases always as New? Thank you to anyone who can fix that. It has been doing that for several months, and I complain about it, but I don't want to complain too often because that would get annoying (and the bug is already annoying).
The link has been converted to a direct link and gadget removed, side affect is it should actually load quicker now and avoid FOUC for users. — xaosfluxTalk14:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Wjrz nj forecast, I just posted a test case and can confirm that it is, in fact, working. If you still can't post, it's a problem at your end, not ours. Consider trying a different browser or different computer. There is no way to post a case request except through the button because the process adds code that allows the maintenance bot to work correctly. If you cannot post at all, consider some other form of dispute resolution, such as a Request for Comments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC) PS:@Wjrz nj forecast: If the dispute that you're seeking to file is about Talk:Kim_Jong-un#When_are_we_going_back_to_Wikipedia_values?, then don't bother. No case would be accepted here about that dispute. Depending on how you characterize it, it could (a) be about whether the extended protection policy should exist and policy discussions are not within the scope of this noticeboard, (b) be about whether the administrator who applied that policy to that article acted incorrectly and, being about user conduct, that's also not within the scope of this noticeboard, or (c) whether the protection at that particular article should be lifted by community consensus and there is already a clear consensus against that position, so no dispute to be resolved here. If you want to discuss (a) start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, if (b) then file a complaint at WP:AN after carefully reading and following the instructions, if (c) about your only shot at this point is a request for comments but it would almost certainly fail, so the best advice is to drop the stick and get in the edits needed to have extended confirmed status. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Paid Editors
@DRN volunteers: - Do we need to revise or clarify the guidelines about paid editors? Sometimes, including in the past 24 hours, we get requests from paid editors who are either polite or demanding and want moderated discussion of their requests to revise articles on their clients. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Robert - I was thinking about maybe making a few changes to the front page, but have not quite outlined it. CIO is definitely on my list and I think why is it not publicly advertised on any edit pages as a header and I think it should state something about the COI and I think we need to EMPHASIZEWikipedia:Be civil. I am also thinking of some back end changes that I was going to open a discussion on with the DRNV and see if we can come to a consensus.
DoneRight now, I am seeing if I can find out as to why the bot is not playing nice. Looks like the owner abandoned, so I have all the code and am running a test to see what happens. If anyone has any ideas, let me know.
Here is what I have thought of right now:
When case is opened, it will automatically push out notifications to the parties listed by the filers
When case is opened, it will automatically push out the article notification about a DRN discussion
When we get our emails or notifications, have it provide a direct link to the DRN discussion and the sub-heading so we don't have to search through the entire discussion especially when we are involved in more than one case.
Automate responses when we make an action (i.e. close, decline, etc.) that will post to all user talk pages and update the article notice that the discussion was closed with the reason
When we make edits, comments, etc. our signature will automatically append with DRN Volunteer (only on the DRN notice board) V/R Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up08:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
DRN Clerkbot remedied
Thanks to @Galendalia: for finally providing a detailed report other than "It's broken" to help me understand that the Bot was not updating the case status portion of the template and marking everything as "new" even when it wasn't. A change on Wikimedia Tools required converting from Python 2 to Python 3 which had the unfortunate side effect of removing a programming construct. Once I figured out that problem I put in a quick patch that will be updating the color status. Hasteur (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure who the coordinator is or who has access to the actual templates/coding. But I noticed that when I collapse the TOC it causes a format layout issue.
@Galendalia: - No problem. When I had a look at it, I realised I had anomalies too. With the TOC collapsed, the TOC was right of the table but with it open it was below the table on the left. (As I'd never collapsed the TOC before I hadn't previously noticed it). --John B123 (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Premature Closure of Noticeboard Request
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.
Hi all. Earlier today I launched a dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue over at Magic (supernatural). Not long after, User:Nightenbelle closed it, saying that it couldn't be taken because there was an ongoing RfC on the issue. As far as I can tell, there is no such RfC. I have also posted on Nightenbelle's user talk page [28], but I'm not sure if they are currently online. If they are indisposed could somebody else possibly consider reverting the closure? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Content resolution for draft of article on Real Bills Doctrine
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.
The first reviewer misinterpreted the intention of the article I have written on the Real Bills Doctrine. He agreed that the article does make the point that an authoritative article defining the terms of the doctrine needs to be written. However, he misinterprets the article's intention when he says that its purpose is to "debunk" the real bills doctrine.
The intent is to show the impact that it had on the Great Depression and the mechanisms through which it was sometimes used with a beneficial effect and other situations in which it had a disastrous effect. Please note that the doctrine is basically "metastable"; it can create either stability or instability in an economy depending on the institutional environment in which it is used.
I am not an economist, but I am the wife of economist Thomas M. Humphrey, and I have cited some articles and books by him. He has graciously agreed to let me write this article. I am an auto-confirmed editor of Wikipedia and began writing and editing articles in 2014. If anyone thinks of merging my article with some of the other inadequate attempts at writing on the subject, I do not approve that action,Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Mitzi.humphrey: - Hi this is not the proper place to list your disputes. You should start with a discussion on a talk page giving appropriate time for the discussion. I do not see one on the talk page that is current. So please start there. Thanks! Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up19:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)DRN Volunteer
The discussion above 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.
Pending Resolution Status Suggestion
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.
What are your thoughts on adding a pending status to go with open, closed, resolved so the table is updated a little more correctly when that stage is up to bat?
The discussion above 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.
Clarify reference to volunteer guide
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.
In the header there is an unlinked reference to the volunteer guide. This can be confusing to editors who want to understand the process, especially since there is not reference to "volunteer guide" anywhere else on the page.
The reference is in this paragraph:
Done
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information) and the bot will archive it soon after.
There is an earlier reference, which refers to the guide merely as "this page". It's not clear these are the same.
Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over this page to learn how to get started.
I would suggest we modify the text of the link to use the title "volunteer guide" so these two references are the same. It will be clearer.
Done::Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started.
Alternatively, the unlinked reference to the volunteer guide could be linked (or both):
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (volunteer guide) and the bot will archive it soon after.
All of these are now in place. If there is anything else, please open a new section. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up18:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)DRN Volunteer
The discussion above 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.
Change wording
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.
What do the DR volunteers think of changing the "You are not required to participate" to make an exception that the filing editor must participate in a timely fashion (and what is that "timely"?). I also would like to re-word "Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit." to "Remember to remove the line with the DoNotArchive wording in it" or something to that effect. The hidden comments in the template are not quite right as it says to remove the text before it. I think we should make that more clear. Thoughts? Suggestions?
Added after - I forgot to mention, we need the templates changed to add {{clear}} at the end of them because what I have noticed is if we post a template to a users talk page, someone else goes and adds a new section, the formatting is way off and appears to be included in the DRN notices. I do not have template editor rights, so I cannot make the change, but I can compile a list if need be.
The discussion above 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.
Defer to DRN Tag Comment
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 volunteers,
I asked to have a new template created to match what other projects have and I will be posting these on numerous talk pages where I feel they will be useful. The list includes Wikipedia:Teahouse. Well I guess not much of a list, but if you can think of any, please feel free to let them know. The code is {{deferdrn}} and it renders {{deferdrn}}. I also find this helpful as I used in a conversation topic on this page.
The discussion above 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.
ANI discussion
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.
I recently left a comment at ANI that, in part, concerns a DRN volunteer and a recently closed DRN case. Dropping this notice here, in case any DRN regulars wish to weigh in (on any side of the discussion). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
User:O-dog222 - I apologize for not having checked this section earlier. If an editor says that there are conduct issues, ask whether they are willing to discuss the content issues only. If they are willing to discuss the content issues and ignore the conduct issues, mediate the content issues. If they want to talk about conduct, close the content case and tell them to go to WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Process Tell Abyad
Hello, I'm here because I've filed a request for dispute resolution 6 days and 10 hours ago. After 4 days I wrote to DRN volonteer Nightenbelle, wondering if I was at the right place. Nighetenbelle answered they'd open up the process if no-one else is opening the discussion up in 12 hours, they'd get the case rolling. Didn't happen as to my account as well. Then I wanted to write to Robert McClenon but at his talk page there is a note I should rather post my contribution here. Am I at right place or not? The dispute was rather strong before, and if I write here, it is only because the dispute is still present.
The dispute is actually quite simple. It is just about looking at the facts. It is watching images, photographs that depict how Tell Abyad was named and show the Washington Post is wrong if it says Kurds renamed the city from Tell Abyad into Gire Spi, which the Governing Party at the time, the PYD also doesn't claim. It was always Tell Abyad, but the Kurds allowed that the kurdish name Gire Spi to be used as well. And it is also wrong if it says it detached Tel Abyad "unilaterally" from the Raqqa Governorate, which at the times was anyway governed by ISIS. Was it expected by the Washington post that the YPG delivers Tell Abyad back to ISIS? Also that Arabic script wasn't used to write the name but Latin script instead, is also just false, as Latin script was used throughout Syria from the Syrian Government. The Washington Post claims without any supporting images and this is used by an editor to keep this wrong information in the article. The dispute went to the ANI where Konli was blocked for edit warring, but he did not violate the 1RR rule to my account. I came here, and we would like to have a solution. Thank you very much for taking up the case.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Two Lessons Learned
There were two aspects of the Edward Colston dispute that made it unlikely that it would reach a conclusion. First, it had 28 editors. I have in the past tried to avoid moderated discussion in a case with a large number (maybe more than five) editors). With that many editors, RFC is more likely to resolve the matter. Second, there had already been an RFC, and the RFC had been closed as a deadlock. In this case, it was reasonable for User:Nightenbelle to try to handle it. It didn't work, and cases with large numbers of editors, or where there has already been any RFC, are not likely to accomplish anything. (If there has already been an RFC that found a rough consensus, DRN is either disruptive by the minority or unnecessary by the majority.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Two comments/thoughts I had. I was going to close it because of the reasons you mentioned- but I had the idea of trying to find a definition and figured it was at least worth a try. Two- I think any problem that involves a contentious current event is going to need time before it can be reflected on enough to decipher what any encyclopedia should say about it. Current events within the previous few months arn't history yet- so its impossible to look at them with a historical eye and we are not a newspaper or opinion magazine- so how can we possible address "historical" commentary in the midst of something? Sure we can say what other news sources are saying- but few people can do that and remaine WP:NPOV. As a former historian, I tend to shy away from revisionist history, but in this case- I saw the very valid arguments in favor of it.... so I really was unbiased- but tensions were just too high. And why would those in favor of the status quo want to participate anyway? The deadlock means they already won for now. Nightenbelle (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I see at least two separate considerations. The first is news vs. history in general. The second is why should those who wish to maintain the status quo defend it. I will discuss the first later. As to why to defend the status quo, at this point there is a game of American football in progress in Wikipedia, since the actual playing of football has not yet resumed. Two types of running plays are being attempted, which are the power play and the end run. Some editors on both sides want to continue the debate in the naive hope that presenting their case one more time will persuade the other side. That is the power play. We have already seen that the offensive line and defensive line are evenly matched, so that all that will happen from another power play is that someone may get hurt. The other attempt is the end run, to try to use some novel argument to re-open an argument that has already been closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Credibility of the www.theshipslist.com
Collapse off topic. Please see note at top of page. Dispute resolution requests are not accepted through this talk page. If you wish to request dispute resolution, please go to the DRN main page, carefully read the instructions, and then if you still wish to request dispute resolution click the "Request Dispute Resolution" button there. While considering that, you might want to consider whether the second paragraph of WP:COPYLINK might have some bearing on your dispute. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
There are hundreds of entries about ships on Wikipedia that cite a website called the www.theshipslist.com. This site has a copyright notice on it but in fact it appropriates information from other sources and used to mention (but not properly reference) which part of the information had come from which source. Some of these older entries there can be found in WaybackMachine versions of that site (which regrettably are linked to articles still). Clearly the site has changed its modus operandi for it now has sometimes very long articles with no references at all which it claims are its copyright, when that is clearly not the case.
Unfortunately some zealots in the editing community here think that shiplists actually owns the information it has purloined. In one recent case a certain editor (with whom I have had a run in before) has got it into his head that shipslists actually owned the copyright on the info. In a sweeping reversion this editor reverted a swathe of improvements I had made to the article on MS Sobieski that had corrected multiple errors and inexactitudes, and completes an article that was frankly not finished. I had multiplied the references fivefold and gone back to the original sources of the data. Instead this officious individual has made the quite outrageous claim that shipslist "owns" the copyright on the data it quite clearly lifted from two of the highest stature authors in the field of study of ocean liners.
In the historic liner space there are three experts that stand head and shoulders above the rest and they are Nicholas Bonsor, Arnold Kludas and John Maxtone-Graham.
I cited two of these authors. What's more I added a lot of additional information and reorganised what is one of the poorest written articles in the liner category. Please note that Polish Ocean Lines was only formed after the ship had been sold to the Russians (another detail not mentioned) so it never belonged to that line. Indeed the image refers to the Gruziya and yet the text does not. And then there is the issue that the source cited for the passenger numbers in each class does NOT even match the numbers in that source. Tsk, tsk.... and then there is the issue of the WaybackMachine reference as the principal source for this article.
The editor is in fact claiming that one cannot cite the original sources if the shipslist has subsequently used them.
I would request that some higher being correct sphilbrick on his erroneous thinking and revert the reversion.
The instructions on the noticeboard should include a link to Wikipedia:DRN Rule A. I don't frequent this board. This was my first time pulled into a dispute that needed resolution, so I carefully read through the top banner to try to learn what the expectations are for those involved before adding my statement. When a volunteer took on the dispute, we were all cautioned about following "the rules", however those rules are not mentioned anywhere on the noticeboard. and we had no way of knowing they existed until after we'd already "broken" them. Please add a link or a synopsis of those rules to the noticeboard instructions. Schazjmd(talk)12:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
A little off topic, but Schazjmd's comment reminded me of something I want to highlight. Im a somewhat new user (after a 12 year break, I recently reengaged) and I think this is the first DRN Ive ever been involved in. There was a something I wanted to say, but I was unclear exactly where to say it, or if it was in order. In the end, I think sorted it out. I do, however, think the "rules of engagement" on DRN need to be clear and easy to find. Rklahn (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
It's to be noted that DRN Rule A isn't actually a rule. It's an essay and, though I'm one of the three founders of DRN, I didn't even know that it existed until you brought it up just now. Moreover, some of the standards set in that essay are not rules at DRN (#4 jumps out at me), though they may be utilized by a volunteer as their personal conditions for conducting a case. Volunteers are given a lot of latitude in setting the conditions upon which they will accept a case and that essay is just one possible version of those conditions. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
TransporterMan, thanks for the explanation. I do agree with Rklahn that a bit of clarity for new arrivals, even if just linked to in a "what to expect" essay or something, would be reassuring. Most of us are probably apprehensive about violating norms in unfamiliar areas of Wikipedia. Thanks, Schazjmd(talk)18:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Attention to Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Kamala_Harris please
If the answer is that this dispute is improperly in DRN, can someone neutral go say that in the DRN section? Otherwise, editors are put in an ambiguous situation without clarity as to where to take this dispute, or even, what to do about it. Rklahn (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I see that you have done exactly what I suggested. Thank you for you detailed answer when closing the section. Rklahn (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I would like to comment briefly on this case. This was slightly unusual in that a volunteer, User:TransporterMan, closed it as premature after another volunteer, User:Clone commando sev, had opened it for moderated discussion. I agree in this case. I would in particular suggest that, when the content dispute is in an area that is known to be an editing battleground and has either of the two sorts of General Sanctions (ArbCom or community), we should be careful not to get drawn into a case that might go away. I suggest a general unstated rule that we be especially careful before opening a dispute involving either American politics or the Balkans or Eastern Europe. We don't want to restart the American Civil War, World War One, or World War Two. We probably also don't want to restart any wars that haven't ended, in Israel and Palestine or India and Pakistan.
Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
a quick comment. maybe add something about very political issues like the things you said in the above discussion. and also topic of highly contentious nature, like war crimes. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Any technical problem @ notice board?
@HeartGlow30797:, Hi is there any technical problem @ notice board. Without showing British Pakistani discussion in archives it shows it is closed. Or its is supposed to be in that way ?
My own advice is that the entire boundary between Europe, which is a cultural construct, and Asia, which is a cultural construct, consists of bloody borders between different civilizations. H. sapiens have been fighting in Eurasia since walking across the Isthmus of Suez 90 thousand years ago. (Eurasia is not a cultural construct, but is a very large outcropping of rock riding on continental plates.) There are multiple authorizations for ArbCom discretionary sanctions, including WP:ARBEE, WP:ARBMAC, and WP:ARBAA2. Anyone who wants to mediate the current dispute about the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan is welcome to do so. My inclination is to leave it alone and let Arbitration Enforcement decide who are the survivors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, in this case, I think that while having the discussion out at DRN with moderation may not convince involved editors to accept an outcome and drop the stick, it will allow for a clearer presentation of arguments and sources related to the dispute than a heated discussion on a talk page. It helps that the dispute is primarily over a simple factual question that we can reasonably expect reliable sources to be consistent as soon as, or possibly even before, the smoke clears, as opposed to a dispute over the collective interpretation a dozen different historical sources the hypothesize wildly different theories about where some long ago tribe lived. signed, Rosguilltalk06:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Dear Admin,
one user @ Roxy the elfin dog .
is continuously bothering me. He is always policing me and revert the edits. He always leaves the discussions incomplete on article talk pages. May I request you to see and resolve this case? As per him, I am illiterate, harmful to the project and Wikipedia, and many more. He is self-obsessed.
He always tries to discourage me. My objective here is not to fight but to contribute constructively and positively. I am not putting here all examples but the recent one is [[29]]. "Making mistakes is better than faking perfection" I am learning and very much committed and can never harm the community and the projects. Kindly advice. Thanks and best regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
please guide me if I am on the right page for the cause. Thanks, RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
RAJIVVASUDEV, you are in fact in the wrong place, as this is a board for resolving content disputes in articles; the appropriate board to take concerns about editors' behavior to is WP:ANI. I would also suggest providing more than one diff when posting there, as admins will be looking for an established pattern of problematic behavior, not just a single instance. You've alleged that this is ongoing behavior, but you need the diffs to prove it too. signed, Rosguilltalk15:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Done
