This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fresheneesz (talk | contribs) at 23:51, 6 December 2018 (→Talk:List of_bitcoin_forks#Contentious_revert_by_Primefac: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve small 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.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 19:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Current disputes

Talk:Origin of_the_Romanians#Restructuring_the_article

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Origin of the Romanians#Restructuring the article (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Iovaniorgovan (talk · contribs)
• Cealicuca (talk · contribs)
• Borsoka (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

After many disputes spanning several months, a half dozen independent editors ("moderators") have expressed unanimous concern with regards to the structure of the article (in violation of NPOV, theories presented separately from the evidence, etc). While most editors expressed a desire to re-structure the article, the process has failed in practice. While some editors have taken the "moderators'" suggestions to heart, the others keep reverting and editing towards the old and failed structure. Most recently, an independent editor suggested that we should "present no evidence without explaining its relevance to an Origin of the Romanians theory". Most of the usual page editors voiced their agreement and yet some are forcefully resisting the transition to an article that uses that piece of advice as its overriding principle. We'd appreciated a fresh view on the process.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have opened a case on the NPOV noticeboard but that moderator's opinion (" So I say that this is a breach of WP:NPOV - that what the sources say is misrepresented (removed from the context, that is one of the three theories) ") was ignored by the "resisting" editors.

How do you think we can help?

I believe an opinion on the subject (re-structuring the article) would establish a firm guideline to be followed in the future and put an end to the countless debates.

Summary of dispute by Cealicuca

The subject of the article is debated in academic circles - and the scholars have come up with answers. Those answers are represented by several theories - so our job as editors would be to present those theories in a non-biased way. Yet still present them clearly.

It is not our job to collect and categorize evidence, to weigh the validity of a mainstream theory or another, to say that the arguments used by one theory are right or wrong, to run around finding bits and pieces of whatever statement made by otherwise WP:RSs that are, in fact, taken from articles or books that don't actually deal with the subject in terms of the framework of any of the mainstream theories. As it stands the article "collects" various bits and pieces that, in the opinion of one editor or another are "related" to the Origin of Romanians.

In short, this should not be an (original) research article on the subject, but an article that reflects the academic research. The article should not circumvent the framework of the theories (which is a clever device used by some editors, in conjunction with WP:NPOV, to argue in favor of disconnecting the academic's opinions stated within a certain theoretical framework from the theory itself).

Our job is to summarize and clearly present the academic opinion on the matter, and we need to concern ourselves with determining if a source is indeed a WP:RS, with concepts like WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV etc.

I already gave an excellent example of an article that deals with a lot more diverging (or conflicting) theories, in a domain which is a lot more dynamic. Please take a look at the Interpretations of quantum mechanics article.Cealicuca (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Borsoka

Talk:Origin of_the_Romanians#Restructuring_the_article discussion

Robert McClenon There hasn't been any progress on the Talk page. In fact, it's gotten worse, as one editor (Borsoka) has already made several edits without any consensus whatsoever, running roughshod over the article as well as the admins' directives. So, I was just wondering if this dispute resolution is still a go, or should I pursue other ways to resolve the issues (such as RfCs, etc)? Obviously, if it'll take a little longer we can all wait as long as we know that help is on the way, so to speak. I just don't know how exactly these things are being handled and I don't want you to think that the core issues have somehow vanished into thin air. Cheers.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Iovaniorgovan - Have you read my previous comments here? Dispute resolution at this noticeboard has never been a go. This case is not likely to be resolved within one to three weeks by a volunteer at this noticeboard. A request for a mediator who will attempt heavyweight mediation, or for two or three volunteer mediators to attempt tag-team mediation, has not been answered. The article page in question is already subject to special restrictions under ArbCom discretionary sanctions. If, as you say, an editor has ignored the directives of administrators, that is a conduct issue that should be reported at Arbitration Enforcement. My advice is that, if an editor has ignored instructions from administrators, the conduct issue should be reported at Arbitration Enforcement. I hope that clarifies things. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I guess I'll just have to resort to RfCs in that case.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Comments on Origin of the Romanians

This dispute has gone on and one for months in various places, at the article talk page, Talk:Origin of the Romanians, at the neutral point-of-view noticeboard (NPOVN), at the original research noticeboard, at WP:ANI, and at user talk pages. I have not reviewed the discussions at length; they are lengthy and appear to be inconclusive. There are mentions, both here and on the article talk page, of moderators. I do not know who are being characterized as moderators, and do not see any obvious evidence that anyone is acting as a moderator. Perhaps that is a reference to neutral editors at the neutral point of view noticeboard.

There are two procedural barriers to taking up discussion here at DRN. The first, which can be resolved, is that the filing party has not notified the other editors. They can resolve that with proper notice. The second is that dispute resolution is already in progress in two places, at the neutral point of view noticeboard, and at the article talk page in the form of a Request for Comments, and an RFC takes precedence over all other dispute resolution. The RFC is due tor robo-closure in a few days, and can then be formally closed by an uninvolved neutral editor. The discussion at NPOVN appears to be just going on and on, and I would suggest that it be closed as No Consensus.

Discussion here is voluntary. (An RFC is binding and is not voluntary. WP:ANI is binding and is not voluntary.)

This dispute is not the sort of dispute that is likely to be resolved here, because this noticeboard is for lightweight cases that can be resolved in one to two weeks, or at most about three weeks, and this controversy has already been going on for months. This would have been the sort of case that would be right for the Mediation Committee, a heavyweight process, but the community has, in my view foolishly, chosen to get rid of the Mediation Committee, and now we have a case that would have been appropriate. If the editors want this case resolved by a content dispute resolution process, and if they actually include all or at least most of the editors, it can be handled here by a process that is similar to what MedCom would have done, with an experienced mediator, and discussion going on for months rather than weeks. One difference is that MedCom proceedings are privileged, while DRN proceedings are not privileged. That may be an advantage of not using MedCom, because any difficult editors will have the sword of Damocles of Arbitration Enforcement (AE). (Participants should agree in advance, as a precondition, that they know that both WP:ANI and AE sanctions are available.

Has the filing party listed most of the editors, or only a subset of the editors? Dispute resolution here will only work if all or nearly all of the editors are identified and agree to participate, and if nearly all of the editors want to resolve this dispute by mediated settlement. If there are editors who are not interested in editing collaboratively or who edit disruptively, they will have to be sanctioned before dispute resolution can be worked.

Please notify the other editors. Please have the discussion at NPOVN closed as No Consensus. Do the editors want to try MedCom-style mediation at DRN?

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, regarding your mediation committee point -- there's got to be a place to do it, might as well be here. If you'd agree that it's best that multiple mediators here can help and contribute, instead of the usual one volunteer mediator, then the heavyweight dispute mediation could succeed. ProgrammingGeek 21:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Additional note: I've closed the RfC as editors there could not reach a consensus. ProgrammingGeek 21:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

User:ProgrammingGeek - I personally am very skeptical of the ability to resolve a dispute with multiple mediators, who are likely to have different styles and may accidentally get in the way of each other. If two or more volunteers want to try that, it is fine with me. I won't be one of them. If multiple mediators can resolve the dispute, that will be good. If one experienced mediator can resolve the dispute, that will be good. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Further Discussion of Origin of the Romanians

The other two editors have been formally notified. This is my first time filing for such a motion, so any kind of guidance would be greatly appreciated. Such as, what is the best way to move forward with this dispute?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Before summarizing the dispute, I would like to know who are the parties involved. There are more than three editors discussing the issue on the Talk page. We should either involve all of them or limiting this discussion to two editors representing concurring views. I prefer the second option. The present status (two editors against one) could hardly be acceptable for me. Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, we should invite one other Hungarian editor, for balance. I would think KIENGIR, since he's been involved more often, the other ones just drop in once every blue moon (that is, they perform edits/reversals more than actually participating in discussions).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I can imagine a situation when two editors (each representing one view point) discuss the issue and also a situation when all editors are involved in the dispute, but I think all other approaches lack logic. Why should we ignore non-Hungarian editors? Borsoka (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The other editors were not deeply involved in all our past discussions so it wouldn't make sense to invite all of them. As far as I can tell we're not about to take a vote here. So if the four of us (two Romanians and two Hungarians) does not seem balanced enough for you then let's let the volunteers decide what's fair. p.s. I'm not aware of any non-Romanian or non-Hungarian editor having been involved in all our discussions. Iovaniorgovan (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I am ready to discuss the issue either with you alone (as you started the process), or with all other editors involved, but I will not let me draw down to the level of this Romanians vs Hungarians or Hungarians vs Romanians approach. If the volunteer forced me to accept your proposal I would insist on choosing a Romanian editor. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It's irrelevant to me. Whatever the volunteers decide, I'll abide by that decision.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion between would-be parties is not permitted while we are still trying to determine whether and how the case will be moderated. All editors are cautioned that incivility may result in sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Miss Universe 2018

Closed as not adequately discussed. There was no subsequent discussion on the article page after editors were told to edit on the article talke page. Resume discussion on the article talk page. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. A new case can be filed here if there is lengthy and inconclusive discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Tirupati Airport

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Tirupati Airport (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• LeoFrank (talk · contribs),LovSLif (talk · contribs),IM3847 (talk · contribs),aggi007 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dear DRN team,

This is regarding an airport called 'Tirupati airport' with IATA: TIR and ICAO: VOTP in India. This airport was declared international by Government of India in June 2017. This airport has got all immigration and custom facilities established and post which this was added as 20th public international airport by current govenment of India. An airport to become International as per Indian aviation rules, an airport is deemed international post customs and immigration facities.It has to first get environment clearnace followed by establishing customs and immigration facilities. This Tirupati airport has got all the above mandatory facilities and thus declared international in june 2017 by Indian aviation ministry. Below are the copy of official reference from government of india.

1. https://www.aai.aero/sites/default/files/traffic-news/Jun2k18annex3.pdf

2. https://www.aai.aero/sites/default/files/national-register/Tirupati%20REPORT.pdf

3. https://www.aai.aero/sites/default/files/national-register/Tirupati%20REPORT.pdf Hence I have added international tag in article main paragraph. There is a user called 'LeoFrank' was enaginging in frequest reversion of the above fact and deeming it as 'domestic airport' in article just because no international operator/flight yet from airport. He says airport shall be first becomes customs airport and then converts to international which is not at all correct. In india if I consider few airports like Coimbatore, kochi, trichy and vijayawada these are converted from domestic to international or directly built international cum domestic. User fails to produce any reference to his statements and indulging to override government data which was passed by official GO. User is also attacking me personally. He says am native of tirupati city and hence I am fighting but this is incorrect. I am just fighting aginst wrong content. He says 'IATA gives definition to airports' this says he is not aware about IATA well.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have rasied this matter on airport talk page and also on his and my talkpage. other users supported to retain the international tag in aiport page. If required I have even request this information again from governement of India under Right to information Act ,India.

I request you to go through the facts and provide your feedback and help to retain correct information in article.

How do you think we can help?

Please go through the various references from government of India G.O which I have mentioned in the above message and help to retain the correct information. I request valuable feedback from other users too. Thanks

Summary of dispute by LeoFrank

Talk:Tirupati Airport discussion

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. It appears that three editors have taken part in the discussion. Only one of them has been listed (although one of them is the filing editor). All editors should be listed. The editors must be notified of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth II and Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden

Closed for lack of follow-up by filer. The filing party has not notified all of the other editors. Since this appears to involve other world leaders also, possibly all of the presidents and monarchs who have opened Olympic Games, this probably calls for a centrally located Request for Comments to revise the appropriate page of the Manual of Style. The filing editor is advised to ask for advice as to where and how to publish the RFC, at a well-attended forum such as Village Pump - Policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Alfred Jodl#Signature

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Alfred Jodl#Signature (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Skjoldbro (talk · contribs)
• Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs)
• Rja13ww33 (talk · contribs)
• K.e.coffman (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute on whether or not to keep the signature of Alfred Jodl in his Infobox. Following 6 years with no problems, it was removed because it had "no encyclopedic value". The counter argument was every other biography on Wiki has a signature, which was responded with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It was then argued that the signature should have some significance. It was pointed out that the reason Jodl was charged at the Nuremberg trials was because of his signature on certain orders, likewise was his signature on the instruments of unconditional surrender, making the signature historically important. The counter argument for this was that it was the "signing" not the "signature" that was important. There have been more than one instance where it has been asked what constitutes as significant signature, since being on the instruments of unconditional surrender for Germany in WWII, was said to not be sufficient, it has however not been addressed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There has been a thorough discussion on the talk page, it has however gone nowhere.

How do you think we can help?

Please go through the arguments, and see if you can end this back and fourth.

Summary of dispute by Beyond My Ken

There is a consensus on the talk page not to have the signature in the article, so there is no dispute to resolve. In any case, I would not be participating in a procedure in which the filer has not been able to point to anything other than WP:OTHERSTUFFHASIT -- i.e. a non-existent policy. That amounts to WP:IDONTLIEKYOURREMOVAL, which is not a basis for a legitimate DR case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Rja13ww33

To me, it is significant. We are talking about his signature on a document that (in part) ended the most destructive and significant conflict in human history (to date). I see no issue with it being on there (as it was for years).Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by K.e.coffman

Summary of dispute by Drmies

Robert McClenon, I just wanted to say how much I appreciate you handling these disputes that to some seem mundane, but to others assume gargantuan proportions. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Alfred Jodl#Signature discussion

• Volunteer Note - There has been lengthy and inconclusive discussion on the article talk page, and the filing editor has notified the other editors, so that moderated discussion can be conducted here when a volunteer agrees to moderate. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer Question and Comment - Is this content dispute of a yes-no nature? Are there only two possible answers, include the signature and do not include the signature? If this is a yes-no type of question, there is unlikely to be a compromise, and the purpose of moderated discussion here is to achieve compromise. If this is a yes-no type of question, a Request for Comments is more likely to resolve the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

First Statement by Moderator

I am willing to try to conduct moderated discussion to see whether a compromise can be worked out. If this is a yes-no question, then we will resolve the dispute by a Request for Comments. Please read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules and follow the rules. Be civil and concise. Will each editor please state, first, whether there are any issues besides whether to include the signature, and, second, in one paragraph, why should or should not the signature be included. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

First Statements by Editors

.

Talk:Turco-Albanians#Dubious: %22Albanian_was_and_still_is_a_term_used_as_an_ethnonym%22

Though the filing editor would like it to be otherwise, it's clear from the other parties that this is at this point primarily a conduct dispute and I second Robert McClenon's remarks in that regard The conduct issues need to be worked out, probably at ANI, before the content issues can be addressed since DRN doesn't handle cases which are primarily conduct disputes. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Tha Hla Shwe

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Tha Hla Shwe (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Phyo WP (talk · contribs)
• Polyamorph (talk · contribs)
• Onel5969 (talk · contribs)
• Ninjastrikers (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the BLP article Tha Hla Shwe, it was created from redirect by an IP editor on 4 December. Two experienced editors restored redirect which I disagree. IMO, the BLP is notable because the subject of the article had held highest-level appointed administrative post at a major academic institution (University of Medicine 2, Yangon) and was appointed as President of country-level Red Cross Society.

My point is it is better to discuss in AFD discussion if this article is not notable. The article should not redirect to Myanmar Red Cross Society. But User:Polyamorph restored redirect and has no intention of starting an AfD discussion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I stated my opinion in the talk page. I restored the article one time.

How do you think we can help?

• Option A: Restore the article from redirect if the article is notable.
• Option B: Restore and nominate for deletion if the article does not meet the relevant criteria for Misplaced Pages.

Summary of dispute by Polyamorph

Summary of dispute by Onel5969

Summary of dispute by Ninjastrikers

Talk:Tha Hla Shwe discussion

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - The issue here appears to be whether the individual, Tha Hla Shwe, is sufficiently notable for a separate article, or whether the name should be a redirect to the national Red Cross society. That is a dispute that is best resolved by a formal Articles for Deletion discussion, with the choices being Keep or Redirect as an alternative to deletion. Two of the editors who favor redirection say that there is no need for an article and no need for a deletion discussion, but, if an editor thinks in good faith that an article is appropriate, a deletion discussion is a better way to resolve the dispute than redirect-warring, and the redirect-warring is about to go to 3RR, which should be avoided. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - This does not appear to be the sort of case that can be addressed at this noticeboard, because this appears to be a deletion discussion. The editors are advised that they have three choices:
• Agree to a redirect.
• Agree to an article.
• Resolve the dispute with an Articles for Deletion discussion.

Robert McClenon (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not see revert-warring. Multiple good faith users have restored the redirect, I restored it twice, but one of those restorations was in response to uncivil edit summaries which have no place on wikipedia, and no one is close to breaking WP:3RR. Polyamorph (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

As an administrator who happened to be watching this page, I concur with the above statement by User:Robert McClenon. WP:AFD is a logical choice, unless either User:Polyamorph or User:Phyo WP will commit here to making no further reverts. Anybody who reverts again to either restore the article or re-make the redirect is risking a block for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

As repeatedly stated, the BLP requires sources that demonstrate notability. AfD is not the appropriate forum because no one is advocating deletion and AfD is not for cleanup. But note I neither intend to edit this page again, open an AfD, or comment any further on this matter. Polyamorph (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Two editors favour redirection and two favour restoration. As I think the article is notable, how should I proceed? Can I resolve the dispute by opening a deletion discussion with keep vote? --Phyo WP (message) 12:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Or, is there any resolved similar discussions? --Phyo WP (message) 12:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

See WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT. The best way to resolve this dispute, when the redirect is being used as a back-door deletion, does appear to be a Article for Deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Tucker Carlson#Political_Party

DRN doesn't handle cases where some other form of dispute resolution is pending. There's an RFC on the article talk page. If that ends after it's normal time — usually 30 days — without a consensus being reached, then feel free to refile here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:List of_bitcoin_forks#Contentious_revert_by_Primefac

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:List of bitcoin forks#Contentious revert by Primefac (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Fresheneesz (talk · contribs)
• primefac (talk · contribs)
• Praxidicae (talk · contribs)
• Ladislav_Mecir (talk · contribs)
• Jtbobwaysf (talk · contribs)
• C933103 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A number of editors are consistently reverting additions to the page List of bitcoin forks even for

additions that are well sourced. Multiple users have complained on the page that too much content has been

removed. The users reverting these additions are not giving anywhere near sufficient reasoning for their

reverts. After attempting to discuss the issue, most of the users that are reverting these additions simply

aren't discussing the issues at all. Specifically, User:primefac and User:Praxidicae only responded a

single time to my discussion specifically about their edits, and their responses completely ignored the

problem I had with their edits. Those two users have ignored subsequent requests to comment on which they

think aren't reliable and why. User:Retimuko has reverted my edits multiple times, and yet hasn't said a

word about it on the discussion I created about this.

User:Ladislav_Mecir has been the only person willing to discuss, however he hasn't been very cooperative.

His opinion is that the source I chose are not reliable, but he hasn't given me good reasons he thinks that.

He chose to focus on the only one, of 8 sources I have to choose from, that is self-published, and only gave

reasons that contradicted wikipedia policy. At first, he claimed that self-published sources can't be used at

all. Then once I show him that wikipedia policy accepts self-published sources in certain cases, and that this

situation met all the criteria to be accepted, he claims that the source isn't giving information about

themselves, when it clearly is. When asked to comment on the other sources, which should all be less

contentious since they're not self-published, he completely ignored me. This isn't the behavior of someone

that wants to ensure sourced quality content on wikipedia.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've started a thread to disucss this issue. I've invited the users involved to comment and discuss. I've discussed extensively with the one user willing to have a discussion. I've proposed alternate edits based on the discussion with better and more sources. I've tried (and failed) to gain an understanding of why these users think my edits aren't up to wikipedia standards.

How do you think we can help?

I'd like to get external opinions on whether my edits are up to wikipedia standards or not (and if not, why not), as well as get opinions on whether the conduct of these editors (that are consistently reverting the work of me and others) is appropriate behavior.

Summary of dispute by primefac

Summary of dispute by Praxidicae

Summary of dispute by Ladislav_Mecir

Summary of dispute by Jtbobwaysf

Summary of dispute by C933103

Talk:List of_bitcoin_forks#Contentious_revert_by_Primefac discussion

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards