Revision as of 03:38, 27 February 2017

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252, 253, 254

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Current disputes

I tried using Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request but got an error. Manually posting this re Bohemian Grove article edit warring

Location of dispute here

Dispute Overview: 96.59.162.50 saw discussion for inclusion of "homosexual activity" into the Bohemiam Grove article, in a 2010 comment by User:Binksternet. He said in talk he agreed & gave notice of intent to edit. Thereafter, he edited ending here. Neutrality reverted, claiming "obviously not reliable sources." The IP reverted, claiming vandalism, alleging at least 3 sources were reliable. I clicked on his sources & they seem OK: Misplaced Pages often cites to itself. 2 sources were actual recordings of a former president to verify this. The 4th was an unknown (but apparently long-time) news website (which I think is unreliable by itself). The IP didn't try to talk to Neutrality to resolve this, instead reporting him on admin vandal board. Drmies deleted the IP's report & blocked him on 02:58, 26 Feb 2017 here, which was upheld by another editor, claiming that it would do no good to remove block if his IP changes.

I took a look: The IP was emotional & probably should've tried talking with Neutrality first, but he made no disruptive editing, reverting only once. Moreover, Drmies didn't give a warning first. While the IP should've been more proactive in talking, himself, he seems to have had 'good faith' making what seem good edits & reporting instead of edit-warring. I think he didn't talk to Neutrality for fear of being blocked & his mistreatment verifies his fears. OK y'all resolve it.

Users involved: 96.59.131.65, Neutrality, Drmies, Boing!_said_Zebedee

What other steps, if any, have you tried to resolve this dispute? ANSWER: The IP in question tried posting to a talk page, but says he was blocked from the talk pages in question.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? ANSWER: Other editors can do like the IP wanted and discuss it in the talk pages before taking drastic measures like blocking someone. Sure, the IP was hotheaded, but: he 1) made a good edit, 2) tried talking in the talk page first, and 3) tried getting help on the admin vandal board instead of edit-warring. I think he was mistreated and this things like this are why Misplaced Pages is thought of as juvenile. I agree: you all handle your dispute: I did my part & loath wasting more time here. Thank you.47.192.18.128 (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Continuation of Talk:Singapore#Sovereignty

Volunteer note: this case was recently archived by Lowercase sigmabot III before its conclusion. I am now attempting to continue the discussion, as there are at least two and possibly three editors who appear interested in doing this. It was not marked as either "Resolved" or "General close" by me or any other volunteer. I am uncertain as to the correct way to do this, but am taking a shot at the process. KDS4444 (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is the header, copied from the archive:

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Singapore#Sovereignty (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs)
• Lemongirl942 (talk · contribs)
• Wrigleygum (talk · contribs)
• Shiok (talk · contribs)
• Zhanzhao (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a disagreement over how to present Singapore's independence in the infobox. This includes whether to note that independence was from a country, and which events to include.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive talkpage discussion, this is the next DR step taken.

How do you think we can help?

Provide a fresh look at how the arguments interact, if the participants are talking past each other, and fresh opinions and ideas.

The last comment was as follows:

• For a start "Independence from the United Kingdom: 31 August 1963" is incorrect. This was an unilateral declaration which was not recognized by the British nor by the Malayan leadership. This should never be there in the infobox. The independence from British happened together with the merger with Malaysia. It was a combined event. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

British High Commissioner, Singapore - Antony Phillipson:

• "On 9th August 2015 Singapore will celebrate 50 years as an independent nation But a key moment in the journey to the events of 1965 came on 31st August 1963, 50 years ago today, when Singapore declared its independence from the United Kingdom." (published 31 August 2013)
• "Last September I wrote an article for Lianhe Zaobao on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of a key moment in Singapore’s path to independence, its separation from the UK in 1963.

I wrote then that "50 years on from Singapore’s declaration of independence from the UK the relationship between us is both strong and deep. The ties that bind us now are those of friendship, partnership and respect; and they provide a platform on which we can work together for mutual benefit, for the good of all our people, in the years to come."

Shiok (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

References

1. "Singapore and the UK: 50 Years Stronger". GOV.UK. Retrieved February 25, 2017.
2. "High Commissioner's speech at HM The Queen's Birthday Party 2014 in Singapore - Speeches - GOV.UK". GOV.UK. Retrieved February 25, 2017.

Talk:Wish You_Were_Here_(Once_Upon_a_Time)

Closed. This dispute seems to have gone away, either because it was resolved or because the editors have stopped disputing. If there is a new dispute, a new case can be filed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Canadian House_of_Commons_Special_Committee_on_Electoral_Reform

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Canadian House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kirkoconnell (talk · contribs)
• RA0808 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Basically, the issue at hand is the recommendations of the report. The committee had several members from several parties on it. Each member could make recommendations. The user I am discussing it with cherry picks the sections that support PR for the electoral system. The over-all view of the report, which has not been acted on, is to NOT bring in a PR system, but rather a system that rates a certain level on a scale, which in no way proclaims one voting system or another.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I recused myself from editing, requested the other user do the same. They out-right refused, and continued to engage in personal attacks instead of addressing the sourced concerns I had with his interpretation of the report.

How do you think we can help?

A third party review the case, one with governmental experience in Canada could not hurt, though it does seem that the PR people seem pretty out-of-gear on making sure this article says "Canada proclaims PR is the way to go". In fact, it does nothing of the sort. Nor will their be a referendum. One recommendation is to NOT have one, another one is TO have one. At best, the report is un-reliable, at worse, contradictory. So someone who could sort out that mess.

Summary of dispute by RA0808

My interest with this article has been to make the relevant section reflect the contents of the report as clearly and concisely as possible. The report's recommendation for a proportional electoral system and holding a referendum on the subject is clearly stated and has also been the subject of multiple reliable secondary sources (see the article).

When User:Moeburn disagreed with the other user's removal of content stating the report recommended a proportional representation system and holding a referendum on the subject and suggested that the other user was splitting hairs and/or misunderstanding the usage of the term "proportional representation", I concurred and restored the content. The user responded with unfounded accusations of bias directed at both of us. I chose to assume good faith and provided the other user a brief summary of how proportional representation is a descriptor of multiple systems, not a system itself, and provided the specific recommendation in the report (Recommendation 12) which recommended a referendum. The user then claimed the recommendations beyond Recommendations 1 and 2 were "tacked-on" representations which were somehow not valid, and accused me of being "incredibly biased". The user's later responses included claims that 4-5 of the recommendations in the report contradict each other (not specifying which), stating I was cherry-picking from the report, comparing the interpretations of results to Islam, and again claiming that the report was contradictory.

As for the user's claims of personal attacks, I disagree that I have attacked them. I concede that my comment about the user disregarding "sections of the report because don't understand the topic" could have been better-phrased, but I don't believe they constitute a personal attack because I genuinely believe there is misinterpretation of the report. After reading the comments above I continue to maintain that belief. RA0808 _contribs 21:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Canadian House_of_Commons_Special_Committee_on_Electoral_Reform discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page, and proper notice has been given. This case can be opened by a moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Do the parties want to engage in moderated discussion with a moderator who knows little of Canadian politics? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Resolution: For convienence, reccomendations can be found here. I am using the primary source in this case because taking information as it was presented is far more reliable than taking information from how somebody else has interpreted it. The more interpretations, the more unreliable a source can get - this avoids a he-said-she-said situation. Also, explicit information is better than implicit - implicit information can be interpreted in many ways and should not be presented as fact. I can see from the source in Recommendation 12 that The Committee acknowledges that, of those who wanted change, the overwhelming majority of testimony was in favour of proportional representation. This is not a recommendation that PR should be used, merely it is a statement of fact. I also disagree with the assertion When the committee says they're recommending an electoral system with a Gallagher score of 5 or less, they're recommending a proportional system from that talk page. Instant-runoff voting or AV is a system that can be fairer, with a low Gallagher score. However, then the recommendation extends to:

The Committee recommends that:

1. The Government hold a referendum, in which the current system is on the ballot;
2. That the referendum propose a proportional electoral system that achieves a Gallagher Index score of 5 or less

This is an explicit proposal that a proportional system is used.

There was also some dispute around the recommendation 1. It says that The Committee recommends that the Government should, as it develops a new electoral system, use the Gallagher index in order to minimize the level of distortion between the popular will of the electorate and the resultant seat allocations in Parliament. The government should seek to design a system that achieves a Gallagher score of 5 or less. This does not mention PR, or a non-PR system. It just recognises the current problem, with unfair elections, and recommends a system change. I can see no way of reading any recommendation of specific system. In any case, any implicit information is overshadowed by the explicit recommendation later on in (12).

Thirdly, there was dispute over the use of the term PR. From reading the first 3 sources given in the Proportional representation article, it is clear that there are many PR systems that could be implemented; PR just means that x% of the vote gets x% of the seats. Party lists are features of some PR systems, but not all PR systems, for example Single transferable vote.

To summarise, the report recommends that a referendum be for a PR system referendum, featuring a PR system that does not have only party lists. There are many such examples of this system that could be used. Therefore the statement included in the article On December 1, 2016, the committee released its report recommending that a form of proportional representation be adopted, and that a referendum be held on the issue. can be proved correct. The words, a form of are key here - these acknowledge that all systems may not be suitable. However, to avoid ambiguity in the text, some more information or footnotes could be added to clearly define terms. TheMagikCow (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on this User:TheMagikCow. It's good to have a third party look over both sides to come up with a solution to disputes. From this, I take it that the text of article as it stands now is OK... but can be improved by further cited information? RA0808 _contribs 21:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The explanations is very good, and goes into the right amount of depth I feel. However, to avoid any doubt or dispute in the future, you might like to add a {{efn}} just after the first instance if proportional representation, defining that this is a term to encompass many systems. Apart from that - It looks great! TheMagikCow (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I've added an efn to that effect (incidentally, thank you for bringing that template to my attention... I've been doing notes the old-fashioned way) which hopefully clarifies things. I suppose we wait for the other user to respond as well? RA0808 _contribs 21:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Timothyjosephwood

Closed for multiple reasons. First, the topic of a thread should be an article or its talk page, such as Norwalk, Connecticut, not an editor. This noticeboard is for discussions about content, not contributors. Second, although there has been some discussion on the talk page, it has not been about content, but about who has the right to edit first. Discuss changes to the article rather than just complaining about the use of in-use templates. Third, the subject editor has not been notified of this filing. Discuss content changes on the article talk page. If that is inconclusive, a thread can be filed here, or a Request for Comments can be used. In any case, talk about content rather than who has the right to edit first, when Misplaced Pages is collaborative. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards