Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
 |
|
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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.
| Do you need assistance? | Would you like to help? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
|
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember:
Open/close quick reference
|
| Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
| Autism | In Progress | Oolong (t) | 20 days, 16 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 days, 3 hours | WhatamIdoing (t) | 38 minutes |
| Sri Lankan Vellalar | Closed | Kautilyapundit (t) | 19 days, 2 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 3 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 3 hours |
| Imran Khan | New | SheriffIsInTown (t) | 14 days, 16 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 23 hours | WikiEnthusiast1001 (t) | 2 days, 15 hours |
| Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) | On hold | Abo Yemen (t) | 9 days, 12 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 3 days, 17 hours | Abo Yemen (t) | 3 days, 16 hours |
| Habte Giyorgis Dinagde | New | Jpduke (t) | 4 days, 4 hours | None | n/a | Jpduke (t) | 4 days, 4 hours |
| List of WBC world champions | Closed | Blizzythesnowman (t) | 2 days, 11 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 2 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 2 hours |
| Movement for Democracy (Greece) | New | 77.49.204.122 (t) | 13 hours | None | n/a | 188.4.120.7#top (t) | 6 hours |
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.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 07:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Current disputes
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. No comments from editors in more than a week. Any further discussion should be on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
USS John S. McCain (DDG-56)
– Discussion in progress.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Kendall-K1 (talk · contribs)
- Davemck (talk · contribs)
- Cinderella157 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
The inclusion of a state reaction to the description of an operational activity that the ship undertook
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Tried to strike a balance with this edit, discussed my version of the text extensively on the talk page, all of my responses to the criticisms that the other three participants have had of it has as of this point been unanswered
How do you think we can help?
By stopping the consensus that Kendall-K1 is currently trying to ram through and eventually bringing it to an end
Summary of dispute by Kendall-K1
There are two competing versions of the statement about McCain sailing past Mischief Reef. Wingwraith favors one version, and has engaged in edit warring to preserve it. Everyone else prefers the other version. A compromise does not seem possible. I suggest an rfc. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Davemck
The dispute is over the statement, 'China expressed its "strong dissatisfaction"'. Wingwraith consistently removes any mention of China's reaction, with the edit summary "the article is about the ship and what it/was doing not the reaction of another government to it". The rest of us editors think mention of China's reaction is appropriate. Davemck (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Cinderella157
The filing editor has ignored a consensus that it is appropriate to briefly mention the consequences of the ship's actions. They refuse to "get the point". I have attempted to flag the conduct with the editor on their talk page but the only response was to delete the post. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) discussion
- Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editors. Waiting for replies from the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
First statement by moderator
Since one editor has gone ahead and made a first statement, I will open this thread for moderated discussion. Please read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules and comply with the rules. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. Will each other editor please provide a one-paragraph statement as to what they think the issue is? Refer to article content, not to the actions of other named editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
First statements by editors
An RFC would be fine but what would be better is if Kendall-K1 FIRST responded to the comments that I made to that user. Cinderella157's position on the issue is inconsistent: the user supports the version of the text that's proposed by Kendall-K1 but opened up the immediately preceding section of the dispute with an observation ("I would observe that the revert in the case of the McCain has left the article in an unsatisfactory state since it has removed the context for the action having occurred such that the reason for including the mention of the event appears meaningless. In the case of the USS William P. Lawrence, the reverts have left the article in a better condition. If I have this right, the consequences of the actions in each case have been stated in a single sentence." [emphasis added]) that in effect supported my version of the text. Wingwraith (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I like Davemck's summary of the difference between the two versions. The majority version contains these two points:
- 1) sovereignty is disputed
- 2) U.S. considers its actions lawful & China disapproves
The Wingwraith version omits those two points but includes this point:
- 3) the point about FONOPs
I believe points 1 and 2 are important and should be included, as they are the main points of recent press involving McCain. The statement that "John S. McCain sailed past Mischief Reef in the South China Sea" doesn't make much sense without these points. I don't care strongly about point 3, although I think it makes sense to include it as it gives a link to an article with more detail on the dispute. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe it is reasonable in reporting an event, to also report what led to the event (prelude) and the consequences of the event (aftermath). It is reasonable to report the response of a state to the action of the McCain, the instrument of another state. I believe there is a consensus in this respect. I would pretty much agree with Davemck's summary too. The proposed edit by Wingwraith chooses to ignore the aftermath. My only support for his edit is in a very backhanded kind of way and I have made this clear on the talk page - to say something is "not as bad" is not the same as saying it is good. My position is in no way inconsistent. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator
Please discuss article content only without talking about other editors. It doesn't help much to talk about "their versions"; the issue is what should be in the article. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issue or issues are about the article? We can discuss Wikipedia policies and guidelines after we finish identifying content. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Second statements by editors
The disputed issue is whether it's appropriate to include in this article mention of a foreign government's (China's) reaction to the ship's action of sailing past Mischief Reef. I contend it is appropriate because warships exist to act as instruments of foreign policy. In addition to the most extreme case, actual warfare, this include many other activities: deterrence, public relations, disaster relief, and, in this case, establishing freedom of navigation by sailing close to Mischief Reef. If China made no protest, this act would not be notable and wouldn't need to be included in the article. It was China's expression of "strong dissatisfaction" that made the action significant. It's significance is supported by the AP article referred to as a source, from which the phrase "strong dissatisfaction" is taken. In order to allow the reader to understand the context and significance without following wikilinks to other articles, it's useful to include brief mention in this article of the following:
- 1) That sovereignty of the reef is disputed by 4 nations.
- 2) That the ship's action was part of a series of FONOPs.
- 3) That the U.S. considers the action to be permitted by international law.
- 4) That China expressed "strong dissatisfaction".
Davemck (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ditto per Davemck. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
As I stated in the dispute overview section, the issue is whether it is appropriate to include a state reaction to the description of an operational activity that the ship undertook (in this case the reaction by the foreign ministry of the People's Republic of China to the freedom of navigation operation that the USS John S. McCain conducted near the Mischief Reef), and I argue that it isn't for the following reasons:
- 1) The protest by the PRC was inconsequential - it was to be expected, nothing material came out of it and it merely reproduced that state's pattern of political reaction to the previous FONOPS of the same nature to the one that the ship undertook which the USN had undertaken.
- 2) The direct (particularly materiel) consequences to the ship from conducting the FONOP was inconsequential - nothing (of a commensurate order of spectacularity) that did not happen to any of the other ships which had conducted a FONOP as part of the same FON program of which the USS John S. McCain's Mischief Reef FONOP was a part happened to that ship while it was conducting that operation.
- 3) The reasoning underlying the general assertion that every consequence from a naval ship's actions must be documented in virtue of the fact that it is an instrument of foreign policy commits a genetic fallacy - it overlooks a need to distinguish the magnitude of the consequences to a ship's actions from the mere fact of its consequentiality.
- 4) It breaks for no good reason with the extant practice that neither any of the operational activities of the USS John S. McCain nor the operational activity of the other ships (USS Lassen, USS Wilbur Curtis and USS William P Lawrence) whose participation in the same FON program of which the USS John S. McCain's Mischief Reef FONOP was a part have been documented on their corresponding Wikipedia pages has been described in a way which amalgamates a (let alone the PRC's) state reaction.
- 5) It represents a category error - since the controversy as it pertains to the PRC's FM's reaction to the FONOPS is neither about the ship's operational activities nor the background information about the sovereignty disputes but the overarching US foreign policy objectives in the SCS which govern their content, character and nature, there are other articles (Freedom of navigation, Territorial disputes in the South China Sea, etc) where the inclusion of that kind of material would be more appropriate.
Wingwraith (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I note that the discussion at USS John S. McCain has been made as a centalised discussion and notified at Milhist and at USS William P Lawrence, which has been subject to a similar dispute of content. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm the OP that first raised this issue on WP:MILHIST after running into Wingwraith's persistent reverts to disallow any mention of reactions to individual of FON operations on ship articles. There I, after discussion, suggested this wording. Perhaps if we can find consensus for something like this, we can have a starting point? 82.163.247.154 (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
"In August 2017 John S. McCain sailed within 6 nautical miles of Mischief Reef in the South China Sea, as part of the United States' "Freedom of Navigation" program. China expressed its "strong dissatisfaction".[1] A US Navy representative reported that a Chinese frigate had sent at least ten radio messages warning that the John S. McCain was in Chinese waters, to which the US replied that the warship was "conducting routine operations in international waters."[1]
- I can't see why that shouldn't go in the FON article. Wingwraith (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b "China protests, challenges US warship near its artificial islands". News Corp Australia. 11 August 2017. Retrieved 30 August 2017.
{{cite news}}: Unknown parameter|deadurl=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help)
Third statement by moderator
The above statements by the editors are civil but not concise. However, it appears that the issue is whether it is appropriate to mention that China protested against the McCain sailing close to Mischief Reef, which is claimed by China, and that some editors think that this (the Chinese objection) should be mentioned, and that one editor thinks that it should not. Is that correct? Please explain briefly why or why not. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Third statements by editors
This is a reasonable summary. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
For any "event", it is appropriate to mention both what led to the event and the consequences of the event. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Can a volunteer who hasn't previously been involved in this debate give an opinion on this? Robert McClenon is it possible that you can offer your opinion on the disputed content? Or can any one of the involved editors at the very least issue a point-by-point rebuttal to the reasons that I gave to exclude the material in the immediately preceding section? This was the same problem that I encountered on the talk page: my criticisms of the points that an editor made was met with a non-response from that editor, after which another editor basically regurgitated the same arguments that the first editor came up with. I can't see how it helps the consensus building process if it simply gets treated as a numbers game where objections to the preferred version of the text go unanswered and are eventually overridden.Wingwraith (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderator
Will the editors who support the inclusion of the content please explain, in one paragraph each, why they support its inclusion? Other editors, including volunteers other than myself (I am remaining neutral by plan), are asked to provide their opinions. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, but in compliance with the moderator's request ... FONOPS are topical and intrinsically noteworthy. They are not routine but operational in nature. The event must be weighed in respect to the service of the ship and that service which is operational. They are a significant event. For any "significant event", it is therefore appropriate to mention both what led to the event and the consequences of the event as well as the event, itself. I believe that such an approach is generic to any event in any article. In this case, this can be dealt with in as little as three sentences and, as such, this is not (IMHO) undue weight. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
A FONOP is indeed significant but as I pointed out the consequences were not and unless the user above can disprove my arguments that I made earlier (points #1, 2 and 3) I can't see why that assertion should stand. The other assertion about how this "approach is generic to any event in any article" is similarly incorrect: as I alluded to in point #4, none of the other ships (USS Lassen, USS Wilbur Curtis and USS William P Lawrence) whose participation in the same FON program of which the USS John S. McCain's Mischief Reef FONOP was a part have been documented on their corresponding Wikipedia pages has been described according to the aformentioned "generic approach." Wingwraith (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator
Both participants and other editors are still invited to include their comments in the section for fourth statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
The objection to the mention of the Chinese reaction, in the form of a demand for a point-by-point case, unfortunately has a quality of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If one editor continues to object to the mention (and seems to be trying to get the moderator to rule against it), and other editors think that it should be mentioned, this dispute will have to be resolved with a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors
I would observe that this discussion originated at Milhist talk and there have been notifications there and at USS William P Lawrence. While an RfC might be the correct formal process to follow, I doubt it would elicit significantly greater participation or any new arguements in support of either position. Wingwraith has chosen this course to resolve the content dispute and would expect the opposing editors to be bound by an outcome arrived at here. The same must also reasonably apply to Wingwraith. My observations, for what they are worth. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Pictures for Sad_Children
– New discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
Pictures of Sad Children page still continues to misgender John Campbell against her states wishes. Given the subjects's proclivity to privacy, it is difficult to produce multiple sources regarding her gender, but nonetheless her gender has been assumed to be "nonbinary" regardless of common knowledge regarding her expressed wishes. Continuing to misgender her could cause psychological distress and harm to the subject, which is not only unethical but demonstrates an extremely poor attitude towards trans people in general.
It has been repeatedly asserted by several parties that the issue has been settled upon. But it has not. The language has been left extremely conspicuously neutral on the page, despite the subject having *never* expressed a desire for gender neutral pronouns. Concerns have been repeatedly ignored.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Edited the page directly, discussions on the talk page, drawing attention to the manual of style on the issue.
How do you think we can help?
Include trans people and trans people in this discussion, as they would likely have more of an understanding of this issue than cis editors. Stop insisting that trans should *create an account* on a site that repeatedly demonstrates itself to be unwelcoming to them. Consider why using stated pronouns is such a problem for trans people when for cis people no specific source would be needed. Stop accusing editors of bad faith for trying to correctly gender public figures.