| Revision as of 21:21, 28 January 2010 edit208.59.93.238 (talk) →Discussion← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:35, 28 January 2010 edit undoSugar Bear (talk | contribs)36,906 edits →Discussion: cmtNext edit → | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
| *I'm fresh to this debate and am aware of no past contact between me and either involved party. For now I'll comment mostly on a specific part of their disagreement: the inclusion or exclusion of the term "]". The book ''Somebody Scream'' is one of the sources specifically identifying Kid Rock with "a budding sub-genre called ]." Personally, I don't like seeing crowded info boxes and don't see a need to list every genre with which a particular artist has been associated. I'd prefer "nu metal" ''not'' be included in the info box but ''I don't think this preference matters when another Wikipedian wants it there and has produced good sources supporting it's inclusion''. This seems to be merely a disagreement over editorial style, lumping versus splitting, etc. ] told ] "Your POV-pushing attempts are astounding" but I do not see how this difference of opinion is POV-pushing by either party except to the extent that any disagreement involves, by definition, opposing viewpoints. I don't see policy-violating ] at ], at ] or at ] although some of the messages these two have left for each other on their talk pages have come very close (maybe some more severe stuff has since been removed). In my opinion, and from what I can see, ] has adopted a tone which is ''at least'' as hostile and unfriendly as that of ]. I'm a littled puzzled by ]'s desire "to keep RG from editing long enough for him to think the issues involved". It's true that violation of ] and such can result in account suspension, but ''both'' these users have been warned about edit warring by third parties. --] (]) 21:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | *I'm fresh to this debate and am aware of no past contact between me and either involved party. For now I'll comment mostly on a specific part of their disagreement: the inclusion or exclusion of the term "]". The book ''Somebody Scream'' is one of the sources specifically identifying Kid Rock with "a budding sub-genre called ]." Personally, I don't like seeing crowded info boxes and don't see a need to list every genre with which a particular artist has been associated. I'd prefer "nu metal" ''not'' be included in the info box but ''I don't think this preference matters when another Wikipedian wants it there and has produced good sources supporting it's inclusion''. This seems to be merely a disagreement over editorial style, lumping versus splitting, etc. ] told ] "Your POV-pushing attempts are astounding" but I do not see how this difference of opinion is POV-pushing by either party except to the extent that any disagreement involves, by definition, opposing viewpoints. I don't see policy-violating ] at ], at ] or at ] although some of the messages these two have left for each other on their talk pages have come very close (maybe some more severe stuff has since been removed). In my opinion, and from what I can see, ] has adopted a tone which is ''at least'' as hostile and unfriendly as that of ]. I'm a littled puzzled by ]'s desire "to keep RG from editing long enough for him to think the issues involved". It's true that violation of ] and such can result in account suspension, but ''both'' these users have been warned about edit warring by third parties. --] (]) 21:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| <noinclude>]</noinclude> | <noinclude>]</noinclude> | ||
| *I'm not hostile at all. I see RG as being accusatory. He makes claims towards me that are untrue, demands that I be prevented from editing against his opinion, and ignores my repeated attempts to point out numerous editing policies which suggest that including information based on a singular source is strongly POV. RG's claim that I "am the one always removing sourced info pushing opinion" is absolutely false on all counts, and I have pointed out that I have made no attempt to push my POV and pointed to sources which contradict RG's opinions and the sources he uses to back up his own POV -- particularly biographies of ''other musicians'', etc. The results of my efforts seem to always be that this particular editor, for one, ignores me, and continues to edit as he pleases despite multiple disagreements with various editors, various policies which are in effect, style guidelines, etc. Writing a musician's bio takes a lot of hard effort which RG doesn't want to put any effort into, despite the fact that he has the time to edit-war on menial issues such as a genre that he thinks a certain musician performed in for one album. We clearly agree on some points, such as that Kid Rock does not perform traditional ], and I have attempted to open up discussion of the issues at hand, but his refusal to listen smacks of POV pushing. I have always taken the time to listen to multiple sides in various issues I've encountered in the past, but RG does not seem to be open to even discussing the matter at hand. I hope that I'm wrong about this and that he can discuss the matter ''here''. I'm doubtful, but I hope that this matter can be resolved. I thought that the generalization offered of "rock, hip hop, country" was fine, and corresponds with what is sourced. (] (]) 23:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)) | |||
Revision as of 23:35, 28 January 2010
| Misplaced Pages Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Kid Rock |
| Status | New |
| Request date | 00:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:
What is the dispute?
The user Rockgenre has been repeatedly adding genres based on his own POV, reverting a previous generalization which multiple editors have agreed upon, which covers any subgenre of rock music which RG feels this musician belongs under, including more long-term style choices and styles that the musician in question performed for shorter periods of time. He has attempted to add sources that do not back up the information he has tried to cite.
What would you like to change about this?
Attempts to discuss the issue have proved unsuccessful. Rockgenre refuses to listen to any reason, including suggestions that a generality might be preferable in this particular case to listing specific subgenres, and suggestions that the information he claims is being used to cite the unneeded specific subgenres does not exist within the sources given are met with extreme backlash. RG has responded in a particularly uncivil manner towards suggestions of POV pushing, and has tried to claim that editors who disagree with him are doing the same thing.
How do you think we can help?
Discussions in regard to the applications of Misplaced Pages guidelines, especially those found here would be needed. What would be good here would to keep RG from editing long enough for him to think the issues involved over and decide whether he should continue heading down the path he is currently on.
Mediator notes
Administrative notes
Discussion
This is completely false, he is the one always removing sourced info pushing opinion. I have used numerous sources all seen on Kid rock's current talk page and in the archives. Sources from Rolling Stone, MTV, Sound of the Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal, and a book called Somebody Scream!: Rap Music's Rise to Prominence in the Aftershock of Black Power by Marcus Reeves. And everytime I even state a source he says something like that's your opinion despite the fact that I use references. RG (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm fresh to this debate and am aware of no past contact between me and either involved party. For now I'll comment mostly on a specific part of their disagreement: the inclusion or exclusion of the term "nu metal". The book Somebody Scream is one of the sources specifically identifying Kid Rock with "a budding sub-genre called nu metal." Personally, I don't like seeing crowded info boxes and don't see a need to list every genre with which a particular artist has been associated. I'd prefer "nu metal" not be included in the info box but I don't think this preference matters when another Wikipedian wants it there and has produced good sources supporting it's inclusion. This seems to be merely a disagreement over editorial style, lumping versus splitting, etc. User:Ibaranoff24 told User:Rockgenre "Your POV-pushing attempts are astounding" but I do not see how this difference of opinion is POV-pushing by either party except to the extent that any disagreement involves, by definition, opposing viewpoints. I don't see policy-violating incivility at Talk:Kid Rock, at User talk:Rockgenre or at User talk:Ibaranoff24 although some of the messages these two have left for each other on their talk pages have come very close (maybe some more severe stuff has since been removed). In my opinion, and from what I can see, User:Ibaranoff24 has adopted a tone which is at least as hostile and unfriendly as that of User:Rockgenre. I'm a littled puzzled by User:Ibaranoff24's desire "to keep RG from editing long enough for him to think the issues involved". It's true that violation of WP:3RR and such can result in account suspension, but both these users have been warned about edit warring by third parties. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not hostile at all. I see RG as being accusatory. He makes claims towards me that are untrue, demands that I be prevented from editing against his opinion, and ignores my repeated attempts to point out numerous editing policies which suggest that including information based on a singular source is strongly POV. RG's claim that I "am the one always removing sourced info pushing opinion" is absolutely false on all counts, and I have pointed out that I have made no attempt to push my POV and pointed to sources which contradict RG's opinions and the sources he uses to back up his own POV -- particularly biographies of other musicians, etc. The results of my efforts seem to always be that this particular editor, for one, ignores me, and continues to edit as he pleases despite multiple disagreements with various editors, various policies which are in effect, style guidelines, etc. Writing a musician's bio takes a lot of hard effort which RG doesn't want to put any effort into, despite the fact that he has the time to edit-war on menial issues such as a genre that he thinks a certain musician performed in for one album. We clearly agree on some points, such as that Kid Rock does not perform traditional heavy metal music, and I have attempted to open up discussion of the issues at hand, but his refusal to listen smacks of POV pushing. I have always taken the time to listen to multiple sides in various issues I've encountered in the past, but RG does not seem to be open to even discussing the matter at hand. I hope that I'm wrong about this and that he can discuss the matter here. I'm doubtful, but I hope that this matter can be resolved. I thought that the generalization offered of "rock, hip hop, country" was fine, and corresponds with what is sourced. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC))