The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Benevolent dictatorship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Banedon (talk · contribs)
• LokiTheLiar (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Me and LokiTheLiar (and some other editors, but mostly the two of us) have been engaged in a long-running dispute about whether to include examples in the page. We've gone through RfCs and pings to WP:Politics, but never got anywhere; in fact the latest dispute suggests we even interpret the close reason for the previous RfC differently.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[1]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I don't believe more discussion between me and LokiTheLiar will lead anywhere; we simply disagree on a fundamental level and there's no prospect that will change. Any further discussion will just be rehashing old arguments.

Weighing in on how to interpret the close reason would be a good start.

I interpret the close of the RFC a year ago to mean that dictators that are foundational to the concept of a benevolent dictator, like Cincinnatus, should be included with attribution, and that no other examples should be added even with attribution. I also think that this is a correct editorial decision as someone who started and participated in that RFC. Note that I wouldn't necessarily mind brief mentions of specific people, but I definitely think that organizing the page as a series of examples is very bad. Loki (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Courtesy ping to Tayi Arajakate as the closer of the RfC (although as far as I can tell, they are inactive). Banedon (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to try to work on this dispute to see how to try to resolve this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A, which will apply to our preliminary discussion. Be civil and concise. I see that there was an RFC about one-and-one-half years ago, and that the RFC did not resolve the disagreement, and now there appears to be disagreement about how to interpret the close of the RFC. Since the RFC was more than a year ago, and had disagreement at the time, a new RFC is probably a better idea than moderated discussion aimed at interpreting the RFC. So I have a few questions. Address your answers to my questions to the community and the moderator, not to each other. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion of the answers. First, do the editors agree to accept DRN Rule A? Second, are there any other content disagreements besides whether to provide examples? Third, does any editor have any objection to another RFC? We will probably have another RFC anyway. It will probably be preceded by discussion to define how to word the RFC, such as the inclusion or non-inclusion of specific examples. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) Sure, DRN Rule A looks reasonable. 2) There're no other content disputes that I'm aware of (LokiTheLiar might have a different interpretation). 3) Sure, we can have another RfC - but how will you do it different such that it can resolve the dispute? Banedon (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One editor has asked a question. The other editor has not yet made a statement, and is still invited to make a statement. One editor asks: Sure, we can have another RfC - but how will you do it different such that it can resolve the dispute? The first problem with the previous RFC is that some editors thought that the close was wrong, and disagreed with the RFC They ignored or disregarded the RFC rather than challenging the RFC close at WP:AN. This meant that the RFC was an empty exercise. If the result of the second RFC is in any way contentious, it should be reviewed in WP:AN, rather than ignored. Then, after any challenge of the RFC at WP:AN to the community, editors who edit against consensus persistently should be partially blocked.

Unless there is a reason why there should not be a second RFC, a draft of the second RFC will be prepared,. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a draft RFC at Talk:Benevolent dictatorship/Draft RFC. Please review it and comment on it. If there are no significant comments, I will move it into the article talk page in 24 to 48 hours and activate it. Are there any other comments or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to the wording, but since it's effectively the same RfC as the first one how is it going to resolve the dispute? We can predict that it'll result in a 50% include and 50% do-not-include result, which still leaves things unresolved. Banedon (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a different suggestion? Do you think that a revised wording is more likely to work better?

In particular, should examples be provided in the RFC?

If there are constructive suggestions for how to improve the RFC, we will continue to work on the RFC. Otherwise I will activate the draft RFC.

Are there any other comments or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with another RFC but I sort of share Banedon's concerns about this RFC not actually resolving the issue. I do think it's better to try it than not though. Loki (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering the arguments for inclusion and non-inclusion are multi-faceted, it might make more sense to link the diff directly (this one) and ask if the removal is appropriate. Respondents can then say yes, the material should be removed and no similar material added, or no, the material is good/can be salvaged, etc. Banedon (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd personally prefer the RFC as-worded. I don't think "Here's a diff that removed most of the content on the page, is it good?" is better than "Should we have examples of specific benevolent dictators?" Loki (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How would that lead to a different result compared to the RfC a year ago? Banedon (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It probably wouldn't, but I'm fine with that, since my goal from the beginning is to implement the result of the RFC. I don't feel any pressing need to change the consensus. Loki (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And that I would strongly disagree with, since I think you misread the close reason. Banedon (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm pretty confident I didn't misread the close reason, as the person who started that RFC in the first place. But if nothing else, a new RFC will have a new close reason that will presumably be harder to misinterpret. Loki (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I missed Robert's question about examples in the RFC, and I do think some specific examples might help, since there was a difference of opinion last time about examples crucial to the concept (like Cincinnatus) and just random dictators who have at some time been called benevolent by someone. I also think that, because of the way the RFC was closed last time, we should at minimum include the status quo of the previous RFC (namely, "only if crucial to the concept AND with attribution"), in addition to "yes" and "no". But I wouldn't object to more options than this. Finally, I think that it might be relevant how examples are mentioned. I can say for myself that I feel the example section in the article previously was big WP:NPOV problem: giving Castro or Tito a whole section in benevolent dictators implies very strongly that they are benevolent in Wikivoice. However, I have much less problem with inline mentions with attribution: Source X calls Fidel Castro a "benevolent dictator", while sources Y and Z disagree. Loki (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Each editor is asked to propose improvements to the RFC. I am not planning to publish the RFC in the form of asking about deleting anything. So if you think that there should be examples, propose specific examples (and be aware that the examples may be controversial). If you think that the question should give a choice other than Yes and No, state it. I intend to put the RFC in the form that I think is most likely to resolve the issue.

Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion.

Are there any other comments or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My preferred RFC question:

Question 1: Should this article include examples of benevolent dictators at all?

Option Y: Yes.

Option A: Only with attribution.

Option N: No.

Question 2: If Options Y or A, which of the following examples that were included in a previous version of this article should be included?

1. Cincinnatus, the legendary dictator of the ancient Roman Republic.
2. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of the modern Turkish state.
3. Josip Broz Tito, head of communist Yugoslavia from 1953 to 1980.
4. Lee Kwan Yew, influential leader of Singapore.
5. France-Albert René, dictator of the Seychelles from 1977 to 2004.
6. Thomas Sankara, dictator of Burkina Faso from 1983 to 1987.

Question 3: If Options Y or A, should the examples be each in their own separate sections (as per the status quo) or only inline?

Option S: Separate sections.

Option I: Inline.

Loki (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd rather give specific diffs illustrating the differences.

Question: Should this article contain examples or not?

Banedon (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what is meant by "Only with attribution"? Does that mean in the form that "A considers B to have been a benevolent dictator of country C?" I infer that is what is meant, but want to be sure.

I have revised the draft RFC to include the With Attribution option and to provide proposed examples.

Are there any other comments or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I meant by "With Attribution", yes. But I'd also like to say I don't really like the separate Possible Examples section, and that I'm fine with Banedon's two diffs version.

The point of the different sections was to settle all the various subquestions that were brought up by participants in the last RFC. (Back then it was clear that many editors had opinions that were not "yes" or "no", especially around with/without attribution and whether Cincinnatus in particular was different from other examples.) While I'd prefer to vote on them directly, I think that if they're just going to be hanging around, Banedon's version with the two diffs is a better way to do that than just listing them. Loki (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Again I'd rather give example diffs, because the version right now promotes responses like "___ shouldn't be listed, because ...", which are not helpful with resolving the core issue. After resolving that, if the result is "yes", then one can argue whether ___ should be listed. Banedon (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor who has a different idea about the RFC is invited to develop their own draft RFC. Maybe I don't understand something. I am willing to consider other ideas, but it's someone else's turn to write the next draft RFC.

Are there any other comments or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what kind of response you're looking for - both LokiTheLiar and I have given preferred wordings above. Banedon (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I even said I was okay with Banedon's proposed wording. Loki (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you object if I start the RfC using my wording? Banedon (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Loki (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Taylor Swift (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Gsgdd (talk · contribs)
• Ippantekina (talk · contribs)
• FrB.TG (talk · contribs)
• Krimuk2.0 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

i think intro is written in fan point of view. i tried to change it. involved editors repeatedly revert my edits. i tried to place tag POV lead - so that i can get opinion from uninvolved users - but that was also reverted too. I already have several editors agreeing to the issue, even supporting placing the tag. What is the best option to get consensus. Can this tag be placed?

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor_Swift See last topic

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please place POV lead tag - so that uninvolved wiki editors can review and contribute to fix the issue

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. The filing editor is required to notify the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified @Robert McClenon Gsgdd (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious right now? There’s literally an ongoing civilized discussion on how to improve the lead and all you care about is sticking that godawful tag in a featured article, one that is supposed to represent the best of Wikipedia. Also, you need to stop with this aggressive approach. First you got involved in edit-warring with multiple editors and repeatedly accused other editors of being biased when you should be commenting on the content and not on the editors. Maybe constructively engage in the talk page discussion instead of obsessing over a tag. FrB.TG (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG I wanted to express my concern about your revert to people’s edits based on arbitrary rules, such as prohibiting “ugly tags” on featured articles. I initiated a discussion on Talk page before making any edits and waited two days ( no one replied) before proceeding. However, my edit was reverted with the explanation that consensus needed to be reached. When I then placed a tag, it was reverted again for being “ugly.” The only person opposing the topic is a Swiftie User:Ippantekina who primarily edits Taylor Swift pages. Like i said - placing tags gets attention of uninvolved editors - help improve the article. I dont think there is a rule - it cannot be placed on feature article.

Please respect others’ time and feedback. Reverting should not be used as a tool to discourage and punish editors from making improvements to articles without any valid reason. Gsgdd (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG And if you are accusing me that i only care about placing that tag - its so incorrect. I tried to fix issues. But was reverted aggressively by involved editors. And you did not have any opinion on the matter ( ie its fan point of view or not ) All you care about is not placing any such tags and reverting edit's preventing improvements. Look at your actions first. Gsgdd (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That tag may no longer be needed. We now have lot of editors making comments. But at that time only person objecting was User:Ippantekina. You were just reverting without participating in Talk and you wrote the intro. So maybe you did not want it to be changed. Its was so easy for you to revert - but maybe adhere to wiki standards first and please stop playing wiki god. Gsgdd (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Kylie Minogue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• PHShanghai (talk · contribs)
• Hotwiki (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Whenever I try to edit this article to fix wordy hard-to-read text or to re-add missing information, it always gets reverted with comments like "not needed" and "stop trying to change it." I try to take it to the talk page to reach a compromise, but it always reaches an impasse because all arguments essentially whittle down to "Keep it as it is." and "It is not an improvement in my opinion."

It also doesn't help that whenever I reply, I get like 5 more replies saying that even things such as basic grammatical copy/editing are "not improvements" and "too drastic changes".

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kylie_Minogue#Tension_critical_acclaim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kylie_Minogue#Contemporary_sources_for_%22Princess_of_Pop%22

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I do want to reach compromise and be more constructive and eventually work on more of the article, but the filibustering is whittling me down. I would like a third or fourth opinion on the whole situation.

@PHShanghai: has a pattern/habit of everytime they come across the article of Kylie Minogue, they would drastically change the lead section of the article, to the point they've been called out for misformation several times.[2] They claimed that Minogue's first four albums were teen pop albums which were false.[3] When I brought it up, in the talk page, they admitted that they haven't listened to those albums in a long time. They claimed other singles from Minogue's albums Fever had the same chart success as "Can't Get You Out of My Head" which was false, since the other singles didn't enter the top 20 of Billboard Hot 100 and weren't number-one singles in Australia and the Uk.[4] They claimed that certain singles "Dancing", "Say Something" and "Magic" were critically acclaimed yet those singles didn't win any awards.[5] At one point, they claimed that the singles "Say Something" and "Magic" made a significant noise, yet those singles failed to chart in the top 40. The editor also made a RFC request in the talkpage - their proposal to the lead section, and no one really agreed to their proposal.[6] They also had an issue with the infobox picture, to the point they've changed it to two different files.[7] The 2nd file, when someone cropped their uploaded file [8], they wouldn't let that cropped version remain in the infobox [9] The changes they've made in July 2024, a grammatically change wasn't needed and it wasn't an issue to begin with.[10] They were the only one who is activitely trying to alter this sentence "She has been recognised for reinventing herself in music as well as fashion, and is referred to by the European press as the "Princess of Pop" and a style icon." The issue with PHShanghai, goes beyond grammatically change. Every once in a while, they would alter the lead paragraph specifically. There were several times, they made it more wordy when the lead section should be brief. A lot of their changes in the lead section aren't really needed "in my opinion" and they had a history of posting misinformation in the article. Other issues are already discussed in the talk page/talk page archive, and there are more issues there that were brought up, regarding PHShanghai's lead section contributions.Hotwiki (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to act as moderator if the editors here want moderated discussion as the way to resolve any content disputes. Please read and agree to DRN Rule A. I will restate a few points in the rules. First, be civil and concise, which means to be concise. Overly long posts may help the poster feel better, but do not always clarify the issues. Second, comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. Those two statements say the same thing, which needs repeating.

The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So I will ask a two-part question. First, does each editor agree to DRN Rule A? Second, what specifically do you want to change that the other editor wants to leave the same, or what do you want to leave the same that the other editor wants to change? Do not give general answers. Be specific at DRN. We need to know what we are discussing. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have read and agree to DRN Rule A. I am only here regarding my concerns about the quality of the prose of this article, which given that it is a featured article that was last reviewed in 2009, may need a WP:FAR to reevaluate the article quality. I want to maintain the article's FA quality (with regards to references and text quality, once again) but given the constant stonewalling, it has been admittedly hard to do so. Specifically, I would like to make the article more concise by whittling down the lead paragraph's word count from 450 words to 400~ words, and clean up the article body to be under 6,000~ words (right now, the word count is currently at 6,700 words.)

• There's information there that can be moved to other sections (regarding Minogue's businesses outside of music), in addition, every article section all have 5 paragraphs each; I'm confident it can be consolidated to a more MOS-friendly 3-4 paragraphs. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The filing editor has replied with a general statement. The other editor made an introductory statement but has not replied to my request for a more specific statement. Since neither editor has been specific at DRN, I will wait about 48 hours to see if the editors provide enough detail about how they want to improve the article for further discussion to be useful.

If one editor wants to trim the lede section, they can develop a draft lede section in a sandbox and replace the current lede with the draft version. If that is reverted, the community can be asked to choose between the two lede sections with an RFC. The same approach can be followed for any section of the article. The other editor is encouraged to comment and discuss, but otherwise we can follow the sequence of Bold - Revert - No Discuss - RFC.

I will wait for about 48 hours to see if there are any specific suggestions, or if the sequence of BRNDR is in order. Are there any other questions or comments at this time? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No other questions, my zeroeth statement outlined all of the issues I currently have with the article. Thank you. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• African diaspora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kyogul (talk · contribs)
• Xuxo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I noticed other countries' populations included multiracial figures and so I included it for Brazil as I'm most familiar with sources for it and gave almost five sources, many being genetic studies showcasing Pardo/multiracial Brazilians across the entire country having significant African ancestry and made notes distinguishing the amount between people who identify as preto/black vs. pardo/mixed. @Xuxo has a problem with this and has made claims such as not all pardos have African ancestry despite multiple (genetic) studies I linked showcasing otherwise. He says stick to the census, and I then provide him an article that talks about "African-Brazilians being the majority" in which the IBGE (Brazilian census) comments on the trend. He then proceeds to say the source is afro-centric and dismiss it when it's from The Guardian, a reputable international source. He continues to make claims and misrepresent my sources and when pressed for sources, he is extremely obstinate and either refuses to give any or refuses to give any relevant ones. He also does not understand what the term afrodescendant means as he thinks it's a synonym for black person. I explained multiple times already that afrodescendant does not mean someone has to be predominately African. He also has a history of white-washing other Latin American pages and has been warned about it.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

I have proposed to only include people who identify as black for all countries, not just Brazil. I have said this to Xuxo multiple times and he has refused it and just wants to whitewash Brazil's population. He also has a history of doing this on other Latin American pages

[11]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Hopefully talk some sense into him because I've explained it very simply and he refuses to listen

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Primavera Capital Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• WorldPeace888 (talk · contribs)
• Amigao (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hi there,

An editor named 'amigao' has repeatedly and successfully undone an edit aimed at balancing a paragraph on the page, which currently seems biased.

Current paragraph: "In September 2023, Florida governor...."

The part "Fred Hu denied any membership in the CCP" was added by another admin in an attempt to find a middle ground without consultation. The main issue is that this statement is factually incorrect. According to the updated Financial Times (FT) article, it is Primavera, the firm, that denied his membership with the CCP, which is quite different. Additionally, repeatedly mentioning Fred Hu on the company's page is unusual. If Fred Hu is notable, he could have his own page, rather than being mentioned throughout this topic.

I had proposed two options for editing the para to the other editor, when the editor reverted the edits the first time around. Details for the options provided can be found on the 'talk section' of the topic.

However, in reply the editor seem to have checked an incorrect link (an archived article) & came up with a random question, even when the correct links were provided on the talk page.

I believe the editor obstructing these edits may have a certain bias or perspective. Therefore, I would appreciate it if other neutral third parties could help resolve this.

Thank you for your assistance!

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[12]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please help ensure: the content on the page remain on the topic of the page and not any specific person. Also, if there is a real justification for the content being 'undone' & replaced with 'factually incorrect' content.

I'm okay with a WP:THIRD here. It seems that this issue stems from some misunderstanding of this particular statement from the Financial Times: "Primavera Capital, the firm later founded by Fred Hu, has subsequently stated that he is not a member of the CCP or any other political party and was not a CCP member at the time when he was an executive at Goldman Sachs."

After WorldPeace888 brought this updated Financial Times article to my attention, I summarized it in the main article. The proposed "Option 1" below omits this statement entirely and "Option 2" misconstrues the FT's statement to the point of being factually incorrect. - Amigao (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amigao: So do you wish to participate in this mediation or would you like to seek a third opinion (might be better)? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THIRD would be my preference. Thanks. - Amigao (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amigao: Then feel free to list it at WP:3O and I will close this case. Thank you. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amigao, could have easily given the same reply in the 'talk section' & I would have explained 'again' the objectives behind the edits.

The idea is to have a balanced & a well read statement, either by using 'The Guardian' or Financial Times' while proving that even references used have balanced articles and they republish/update them to make it balanced, if needed.

Option 1: explains the facts in simple language while using a 'credible source'. Also, why is one of the founders given so much importance on the page? It's not his page, its a company page. Also the company denied on his behalf. So, why does the edited/current ver. say 'Fred Hu denied'.

@Kovcszaln6 WP:THIRD however is non binding, may be that's why it's being opt'ed. What if @Amigao still after the verdict (if not in his favour) doesn't allow the edits? It was due to his subborness of 'not replying' on the talk page + reverting the edits without justification, that I had to open the WP:DRN in the first place.

Why can't we resolve it here? I am ok with whatever the final judgement you provide. WorldPeace888 (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WorldPeace888: DRN is non-binding and completely voluntary. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like I need to focus on editing tonnes of articles, get more rights & then I can bully anyone by undoing any content, I don't like. Got it! thanks WorldPeace888 (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer Note: I'm not sure whether the parties would like mediation or the opinion of an uninvolved third-party. For the latter, please see Wikipedia:Third opinion. Please clarify which one you would like. Thanks Kovcszaln6 (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have opted for mediation, since my edits were 'undone' twice. The second time around no justification given (there is radio silence from the other end) for reverting the edited content even after proactively reaching out. After undoing my edits (second time) the other editor added a 'factually incorrect' statement.

Point being: How can a correctly edited sentence edits are undone, without any reasoning?

Also, the current sentence does not sound well, so why can't it be reworded with the same meaning and updated information? WorldPeace888 (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through the case, I am willing to moderate this dispute. I would like to ask the editors involved to state whether they are willing to comply with Wikipedia:DRN Rule A; and specifically what changes they wish to make (or what they wish to leave as is) and briefly explain why. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kovcszaln6

Thanks for opting in for moderating this case. I agree to comply with Wikipedia:DRN Rule A.

Change the below (current) statement:

In September 2023, Florida governor Ron DeSantis announced that voucher programs for four private schools owned by Spring Education Group would be ended due to alleged ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) via its majority owner, Primavera Capital Group and its CEO Fred Hu. Fred Hu denied any membership in the CCP.

Proposed updates:

OPTION 1: "In September 2023, Florida governor Ron DeSantis ended voucher programs for four Spring Education Group schools, citing concerns about ties to Primavera Capital Group. This was one of the measures against the Chinese Communist party in the state of Florida. However, as per The Guardian the action taken against the four schools was without evidence."

OPTION 2: "n September 2023, Florida governor Ron DeSantis ended voucher programs for four Spring Education Group schools, citing concerns about ties to Primavera Capital Group, though as per Financial Times the firm denied having political connections with China's ruling party."

Reasons for edits:

1. Financial Times (FT) updated it's article with more neutral content, which is one of the references for the above para.
2. Overuse of the name Fred Hu. This article is about Primavera. If Fred Hu is notable he can have his own page.
3. The para sounds biased. Wiki is a neutral platform and the content should be neutral.
4. When you read the sentences, they don't read well.

WorldPeace888 (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Serbia men's national basketball team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Wikiacc321 (talk · contribs)
• SpinnDoctor (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have edited the Competitive record section of the article to include data such as point differentials, winning percentages, head coaches, to add another sub-section which includes all major tournaments in one table, etc. User SpinnDoctor keeps removing my work without even the slightest attempt at compromise. He seems particularly opposed to me putting the Olympic Games record first, and the FIBA World Cup record second, which is the case with many national team pages. In order to avoid this, I even tried accepting his wish on this issue, but even then he only responded by deleting all of my work, including the completely uncontroversial parts. I am forwarding the issue to Dispute Resolution since he has shown no will for even slightest compromise, and I have put in enough effort to find deleting my work unacceptable.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

I have discussed the issue on the edit summaries with him, but it is pointless given that his immediate reaction is to delete all of my work.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Warn him against further vandalism.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.