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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Orville&type=revision&diff=812857421&oldid=812856795
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%20talk%3ANightscream&type=revision&diff=813494865&oldid=813454165

Users involved

• KAMiKAZOW (talk · contribs)
• Nightscream (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In The Orville I changed an existing paragraph slightly. That paragraph was then modified by an IP user.

Then – totally unprovoked and I do not recall ever engaging with him on a talk page or anywhere else – user Nightscream insulted me in the edit summary – referring to other users' edits to "incoherent gibberish" by me.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

On Nightscream's talk page I left a notice – written in neutral tone – that I will report further attacks. I didn't even expect an apology, just that he quits that behavior.

The IP user also saw his insult and wrote that the edit in question ("incoherent gibberish") was his. Nightscreams reaction was another insult – by calling the two comments "mendacious drivel" in the edit summary when removing the two comments from his talk page, making it clear he's not interested talking about it.

How do you think we can help?

Ask Nightscream to cease that behavior and apologize. Remove the two edit summaries in question.

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. (Note: See Talk:Survivor 35 where attempts to resolve the dispute are made after a link to Survivor: Ghost Island was removed from the Survivor 35 article.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Survivor: Ghost Island (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• VietPride10 (talk · contribs)
• 100.37.125.19 (talk · contribs)
• 108.53.232.130 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

After posting information on Survivor: Ghost Island, user VietPride10 keeps blanking the page without making any effort to use the talkpage despite the fact that many sources exist confirming the title and cast of the article in question. User has made effort to get the page locked so that IP editors can't contribute to the page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Suggested using talk page in edit summaries, but user keeps reverting.

How do you think we can help?

explain that there are many sources for the information posted.

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

• Useful idiot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Darouet (talk · contribs)
• DHeyward (talk · contribs)
• SPECIFICO (talk · contribs)
• My very best wishes (talk · contribs)
• Jack Upland (talk · contribs)
• My name is not dave (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The phrase "Useful Idiot" refers to a liberal who is a dupe of the communist cause. The phrase is commonly attributed to Lenin, but can't be found in his written work. Whether he used the word in speech, and where the term actually comes from, is contested. We need help resolving what to include in the body of our article describing the topic, and how to summarize this topic in the lede. One particular subject of contention is whether the lede should simply state that the phrase is attributed to Lenin, or whether the lede should also state that the attribution is contested. A part of this dispute stems from disagreement over the nature of reliable sources. Editors are divided as to whether investigations into the etymology of the phrase (e.g. by William Safire at the NYT, or in the Oxford U. Press book They Never Said It), are academically legitimate.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have extensively discussed the topic on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I think a mediated discussion would help establish 1) what are reliable sources for this topic, and 2) what is a neutral way of summarizing the topic in the lede.

This is not ripe for DRN and I note that the issue is misstated and is unrelated to communism. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I simply think that the page should comply with WP:NPOV, meaning that all well sourced conflicting views should be reflected on the page, including the historical and current usage of the term. I think that current version is problematic, as explained here, for example. In addition, the page does not include the current usage of the term in political discussions. I think it should be included. But as a practical matter, I would suggest that the filer of this request (who did not actually edit the page) should simply go ahead and implement all changes he wants to be done. Then perhaps everything will be resolved. There is no need in complex DRN procedures here, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with SPECIFICO that the reason for disagreements was misstated by the filer of this request. Everyone agree that NYT article by William Safire and book "They Never Said It" qualify as RS and should be used on the page. I think they are not scholarly sources, but this is hardly relevant because there is an agreement to use them. My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I have watched the page since 2005, and there's always been a dispute between people like me who don't think Lenin said it and people who do. I don't think the article should editoralise, but just report the sources: it's is commonly attributed to Lenin, but it hasn't been found in his published works (which include speeches). Recently there's been an upsurge in the dispute, including claims that the Oxford English Dictionary is not a reliable source. I find it hard to have a reasonable discussion if other editors are making claims like that. A common argument that's made is that Lenin said it, but it wasn't written down. This is a synthesis: no source that I've seen says it. And it's not useful for the article. We need to write the article based on what the sources say, not based an imaginary source (the "secret Lenin diaries"). I think the current page is pretty good on the attribution to Lenin, and we should only change it if we have new, relevant sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

There is also a second dispute, which I haven't been involved in till now, about including a 'modern usage' section. It's now clear to me, based on comments by Specifio (including the one above that this isn't about Communism) that the proposed section is intended to be about the Trump-Russia connection and is envisaged to be the most important part of the article. If that is what a 'modern usage' section means, then I am totally opposed to it. It would destroy the article, distorting the meaning of the phrase and rendering the rump of the article unintelligible. It is also a gross misuse of Wikipedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

This article has the extraordinary situation where sources can't help but conflict continuously. If there isn't a thoughtful and thorough process and discussion about how to resolve this matter, and how to view all sources in due weight and properly (no misrepresentation of them), then we can come to some sort of conclusion. !dave 08:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: There has been discussion on the talk page. @Darouet: Please notify all of the users of this discussion by leaving a message on their talk pages. Thanks. Nihlus 09:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Nihlus. I've notified each user. Since opening this request talk page discussion has improved, but those two events might be correlated. I'd like to keep this request open and ask people to move their comments here. If everything is resolved in the next few days I guess we won't need to have this. -Darouet (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I think the page is heading back towards an edit war as soon as the block is lifted, given the tone of recent discussions. Perhaps an RfC might be useful...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

No, unless you revert. There is basically a consensus on the article talk page about the historical use of the term. As about modern use, this should be discussed on article talk page when someone can suggest a specific version of changes. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, edit wars never happen unless someone reverts!!! You intend to revert the article as soon as you can, ignoring most of the discussion that has happened in the past week. There is no consensus. It is just you and Specifico. (Specifico says it's not about Communism, but has been arguing about Lenin for the past week.) No doubt Specifio will then attempt to turn the article into an attack page about Trump. Let's just see what happens over the next week...!--Jack Upland (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Seven people took part in discussion, and no one but you objected to fixing the historical usage as I suggested. However, your position is not supported by sources, and I am waiting for your answer to this question. My very best wishes (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

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

• User talk:Mélencron (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ToThAc (talk · contribs)
• Mélencron (talk · contribs)
• Jamestamim (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Mélencron seems to be dragging a dispute about whether Delphine O is the same person as Stéphanie Kerbarh, and I'm already aware that they're not and am trying to ask them why the Delphine O article has content purely on Stéphanie Kerbarh. The page creator is already aware of the situation as well, and based on Mélencron's comments I don't think the discussion will ever reach a compromise on its own.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have discussed the issue on Mélencron's talk page, but I don't think I can resolve the issue on my own.

How do you think we can help?

I think it would help consider whether Delphine O's content should be merged with Stéphanie Kerbarh.

This was a stupid misunderstanding which should be resolved by this edit by Number 57. The original creator of the article copied/pasted it from the article on Stéphanie Kerbarh and forgot to change the name, but the other content was always correct. I don't believe any further action is needed here, but I'll apologize for my remarks to ToThAc that they were "trying to fuck with me here or plain incompetent", which I agree were uncalled for. Mélencron (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

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

• Yemeni Civil War (2015) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Panam2014 (talk · contribs)
• NuclearWizard (talk · contribs)
• Chilicheese22 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hi

Because of Chilicheese22's behaviour, the article is outdated since March 2017. He remove all mentions of Southern Transitional Council since months without argument : [14], [15], [16].

He continued his edit warring with various user. And he continued again since November. [17], [18].

Days after, he continued, [19]. The page have been protected for three days, but after the end, he continued.

• Again user clearly has a biased dispute summary and takes many edits of context, but to keep it short, neutral, and sweet to the point me and NuclearWizard were actually in the midst of a hard-fought debate on the TP and not the actual article, but it was Panam2014 who didn't really contribute to the debate and let his emotions get the best of him, which caused this to spill over to WP:AN/I and over here. (also please note that he just literally copied his complaint against me from WP:ANI and placed it here, if you would like to see the full story see here [20]) Chilicheese22 (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Copiying is not a problem. Thank you for stopping your accusatory reversal. I debate the correct way and it is not me who breaks the rules. For the rest, for months, you delete any mention of the STC.--Panam2014 (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Suggested using talk page in edit summaries, but user keeps reverting. How do you think we can help?

explain that there are many sources for the information posted.

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:Johnny Hallyday (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• DerekvG (talk · contribs)
• Ritchie333 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Ritchie333 has deleted correctly referenced and factual information , this is considered vandalism he has not made efforts to consult with editors (no comment an the talk page) or sought consensus he the motivation was "atrociaous writing" which indicates he did not take the edits/ complementary factual info as being contributed in good faith

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have made comments on the page talk page but he has reverted the revert without making any factual contribution himself

How do you think we can help?

don't know

DerekvG's assertation is incorrect. His revert was re-reverted by Zigzig20s [21] while I commented on the talk page thread. The main driver for my edits is the discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Johnny Hallyday, where there is a general consensus that the article is of an insufficient quality to be posted on the main page, so improving it (in particular, making sure all content is verifiable with in-line citations to reliable sources) would be the only suitable way to get that consensus to change. (Indeed, I seem to one of the few people trying to retrospectively put inline sources in the article : [22], [23], [24], [25], [26])

I also note that the version reverted to by DerekvG contains "Johnny Hallyday, was a French actor porno singer and actor" and "So his mother had to earn a living (she took on a job as a fit model)" both of which are serious violations of WP:BLP (which doesn't cease to function the minute a subject dies). This is premature to come to DRN, but if a third party thinks their input will be helpful, I'm amenable to that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: @DerekvG: I don't see extensive discussion on this on the talk page as is required (and mentioned in multiple places), and your comments lead me to believe you have issue an issue with conduct and not content. Can you please summarize above the content issues you have? Nihlus 15:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

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:Nigeen Lake (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• aqib38 (talk · contribs)
• majid98 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

some editors are entering wrong and creating the cast difference. this page is all about Nigeen Lake not about any ones family there is not only hakim family who lives there. there are lot of other families who live there. But they are from low cast and the editors from hakim Family are typing these word because they want to show them low

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

they edit it back abain and again

How do you think we can help?

ban them

• Volunteer note - There has not been adequate discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Discussion of the caste or race of editors in Wikipedia is not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

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:Survivor: Ghost Island (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• VietPride10 (talk · contribs)
• 100.37.125.19 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview
User keeps removing information that has sources on the web. Using a search engine, the cast for the upcoming season is revealed. User VietPride10 insists that the the finale must air before the cast is posted but that's not true. So far, this is the only person to remove the content from the page after I kept reposting it. A DRN was requested days ago, but closed due to lack of a talk page discussion. Now, after an extended discussion on the talk page and a 3 day protection of the article itself no resolution has been reached.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The page was locked for 3 days but after the same user have been removing disputed content on the account that the source he relies on hasn't confirmed the content

The IP user continually adds unsourced information that cannot be backed up by any of the sources on the article. VietPride10 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

explain that there are many sources in the info posted.

As an editor of Survivor articles, it is always the precedent to add the information from the upcoming seasons of Survivor, after CBS officially announces it. In addition the cast is only added after CBS officially releases the cast, as the biographies and ages of the contestants can be added. Even though, the last three/four seasons of Survivor have had the cast spoiled far in advanced, the precedent was to always wait for CBS to officially release the contestant information. However, this user has decided not to comply and follow the precedent, and continues to add unsourced information about some of the contestants (who are made-up and not supported by any sources whatsoever), and will constantly revert my edits trying to prevent unsourced information on the article. VietPride10 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editor, but the other editor has responded and so is assumed to know of the filing. The filing editor is advised that if one wishes to engage in dispute resolution, it is useful to register an account. The case can be opened for discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Note: The editor Only left a message on both talkpages about edit warring and the page hasn't been edited since. 100.37.125.19 (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• Note: I would like to add that the IP user has not only reverted my edits but also the edits of Jd22292 and CLCStudent on the page. VietPride10 (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - The filing unregistered editor is strongly cautioned that they are over 3RR, and that the most common response to this situation is semi-protection. The filing unregistered editor should notify the other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 08:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if someone could make the article semi-protected, that would be very helpful. VietPride10 (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: As per suggestion by Robert McClenon, I have requested temporary semi protection. In the meanwhile, all involved editors are requested not to edit the page until this DR is resolved. Yashovardhan (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• Note: The IP user has continued to edit the article even after being blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring and I have requested semi-protection for the article. VietPride10 (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• Note: I feel we should follow the precedent, and delete the cast until CBS announces it. We should also semi-protect the article for 3 months to prevent the IP user from editing. DEJ88DP10 (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

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:HyperLogLog (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• KingSupernova (talk · contribs)
• Retimuko (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I'm having an edit war with Retimuko over some terminology on the page. The word "cardinality" is used incorrectly in one of the sources, and Retimuko appears to be unwilling to accept that and let me fix its usage in the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have discussed the issue on the talk page, but do not appear to be reaching a resolution.

How do you think we can help?

I don't think Retimuko is acting maliciously, I think they're just misguided. A third party stepping in and confirming that the usage is in fact incorrect would probably resolve the issue.

I believe this is a case of some mismatch in terminology between some literature on the theory of multisets and literature on count-distinct problem in applied math. There is a large body of research into the count-distinct problem, including Flajolet's 2007 paper about HyperLogLog algorithm, using terminology described in the article. I believe we have to practice a descriptive approach as opposed to prescriptive. If reputable sources use this terminology, we must not just use another terminology in the article. At the very least the discrepancy must be explained somehow. I stated my points an proposed a compromise on the talk page, and I believe that this dispute has been opened way too early in the process when the discussion has just started. I don't mind any involvement of a moderator or just a third opinion. Retimuko (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editor. The comments by the filing editor make it appear that Third Opinion might be appropriate. If moderated discussion leading to compromise really is desired, the filing editor should notify the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
• Vol. comm.--If both the parties agree to a DR process, I am willing to step in as the moderator. Winged Blades ^Godric 07:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - The filing party did not notify the other editor, but I have provided that notice. If the other editor agrees to dispute resolution, moderated discussion will proceed, as noted above. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - User:Winged Blades of Godric - Are you ready to start moderated discussion, or should I start moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for having not checked the progress.I will be starting handling this within 12 hours.Winged Blades ^Godric 18:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note --Looking through the issues.Will be commenting shortly.Winged Blades ^Godric 04:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note --@Retimuko and KingSupernova:--Is Retimoko's last proposal acceptable (even if to a certain extent)?Can both of you please point out/list the respective sources that uses his preferred terminology? It may be worth noting that if a single source is found to contradict numerous others, we have to decide the content per WP:WEIGHT.Winged Blades ^Godric 09:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought I should wait for KingSupernova to present sources as initiator of this dispute, but on the second thought here are a few papers from prominent researchers in the field published in reputable sources:

1. (for completeness, the subject of the article in question) Flajolet et al, HyperLogLog: the analysis of a near-optimal cardinality estimation algorithm. Relevant quote: "...algorithm for estimating the number of distinct elements, known as the cardinality, of large data ensembles, which are referred to here as multisets..."

2. Graham Cormode. "What is Data Sketching, and Why Should I Care?". Communications of the ACM (CACM), 60(9):48-55, 2017. Quote: "... determining the cardinality of quantities: we might ask, in a data set that has many different values, how many distinct values are there of a certain type?"

3. Robert Sedgewick. Cardinality Estimation. Princeton University. Qoute: "Cardinality counting: Q. In a given stream of data values, how many different values are present?"

4. Stefan Heule et al. HyperLogLog in Practice: Algorithmic Engineering of a State of The Art Cardinality Estimation Algorithm. Google Inc. Quote: "Cardinality estimation is the task of determining the number of distinct elements in a data stream."

I am sure there are more if needed, but these should suffice I would think. Retimuko (talk) 06:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm....Waiting for the other side to chime in.Winged Blades ^Godric 18:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm...User:KingSupernova, User:Winged Blades of Godric - It appears that the filing party hasn't commented in five days after the other editor and the moderator commented. Godric - I suggest waiting for 24 hours and then closing this thread if there is no response. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

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:Alex Jones (radio host) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Wisdomtooth32 (talk · contribs)
• DrFleischman (talk · contribs)
• JzG (talk · contribs)
• Tidewater 2014 (talk · contribs)
• MPants at work (talk · contribs)
• Niteshift36 (talk · contribs)
• Neutrality (talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)
• Tarage (talk · contribs)
• Slatersteven (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The neutrality of this article is in dispute since at least 2005 (archive 1) — and still ongoing! — but whenever a WP:POV tag is put on it, it's shot down by those who want to use opinion from mainstream media as fact to disqualify people who hold alternative views (in contravention to WP:NEWSORG policy). Wikipedia policy should be enforced.

Further, anyone who tries to argue the contrary in the talk page is met with WP:UNCIVIL behaviour, and, ultimately, as I found out, blocked from WP. And interestingly, the very same admin who blocked me, also blocked off a discussion I raised in the WP:RSN before I'd have any chance of participating. One gets the sense that WP has being hijacked by a mob.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

1. Debate in the Article Talk page. 2. Resolve personal issues in the User Talk pages. 3. Raised it in WP:ANI. 4. This: WP:DRN.

How do you think we can help?

Alt media is booming, and mainstream media (MSM) is fighting back labelling it all conspiracy theories and fake news. This happened largely because the MSM has become a lot more partisan. WP is attached to the old paradigm of nearly blind faith on the MSM, and complete disregard for alt voices. It needs to update itself. That should happen via internal discussion, but for that to happen, it must be transparent about it, clearly showing where neutrality is being disputed with an WP:POV tag.

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

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#Roy Jones Jr. and Location of Foxwoods Resort Casino (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mac Dreamstate (talk · contribs)
• JMichael22 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:JMichael22 and myself disagree on how Foxwoods Resort Casino should be labelled on professional boxing record tables, specifically Roy Jones Jr., which subsequently affects 100+ other articles. User:JMichael22 maintains that the venue should be displayed as being in the Indian reservation of Mashantucket, Connecticut; I maintain that it should be displayed as being in the town of Ledyard, Connecticut, in which Mashantucket is located.

MOS:BOXING/RECORD, specifically the Location element, has long stipulated that fight locations are to be labelled as "[venue] (arena, stadium, hall, etc.), [city or town], [state], [country]". Areas within a city (boroughs, suburbs, reservations, etc.) are overly specific and should be omitted for brevity on a wikitable.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have discussed extensively at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing, with both of us providing numerous WP:RS confirming that either descriptor (Mashantucket, CT; Ledyard, CT) is valid. Sources include primary and secondary. Overall, this is a labelling issue on which we cannot agree.

How do you think we can help?

Mediate on whether Foxwoods Resort Casino should be labelled, in professional boxing record tables, as being specifically in the reservation of Mashantucket, CT; or generally in the town of Ledyard, CT. Bearing in mind that labelling it as Mashantucket would somewhat disrupt the consistency set forth above in MOS:BOXING/RECORD, namely the convention of "[venue]/[city]/[state]/[country]".

I found it very simple the Foxwwods Resort Casino sits on the Mashantucket tribal land it is owned and controlled by the Mashantucket tribe. it is declared on numerous sources that the Foxwoods Casino is located in Mashantucket, CT. The Official website and social media accounts including Twitter and Facebook state the casino is located in Mashantucket. The Land is within Ledyard but has nothing to do with the town, it stands on its own as a Native American controlled and owned venue which is located on their land Mashantucket and is not under US government control. Ledyard is a town under US government control. Something that I feel makes things clear if the casino was part of Ledyard, CT then the Native American tribe wouldn't own the land it stands but that is not the case the tribe owns the land it is on and does infact through multiple sources refer to the Casinos location as Mashantucket, CT JMichael22 (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment - Towns are not under US (federal) government control in the United States. Towns, whether in New England or elsewhere in the US, and municipalities with other names, are established by and subject to the state. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the project talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editor. A third editor has been involved in the discussion and should be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Have now notified the other editor. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I will try to act as the volunteer moderator. I don't know whether this is actually the sort of content dispute that is appropriate here, which is a content dispute where the objective is to find a compromise, or whether there is a simple yes-no question. Will the editors please read Mediation Rules and follow the rules? Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issue is or issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by User:Mac Dreamstate: The issue is that we cannot agree on how the location of Foxwoods Resort Casino should be labelled. I maintain it should be Ledyard, Connecticut; the broader city in which the venue is located. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It appears that the Foxwoods Resort Casino is located on Native American tribal land within the city. In the United States, native American tribes have a special status with respect to gambling and sports. As a result, the operative law is that of the tribe, not of the state or the city in the state. Should that affect how the location is listed? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

We should use the city/state, as location. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

"Should that affect how the location is listed?": I believe it should not affect how it is listed, because MOS:BOXING (specifically MOS:BOXING/RECORD) has long made use of city/town as the first level of location for venues—not areas within, regardless of autonomy. To do so otherwise creates inconsistency, and would affect over a hundred related articles which have listed Ledyard for almost two years (alongside city/state for other venues). Furthermore, I have provided numerous sources which state Foxwoods to be located simply in Ledyard—omitting the specifics of Mashantucket. I must make it clear that I am not debating the status of Mashantucket or their status within Ledyard; I am merely striving for brevity and consistency in using only city/town for these wikitables in question. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It appears that this is the sort of content dispute for which this forum is not useful, because this appears to be a yes-no question. However, I will ask the editors two questions. First, can you propose a compromise? Second, what are your reasons, in terms of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and common sense, as to how the location should be listed? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

After the extensive discussion by User:JMichael22 and myself, which ended at stalemate, I stand very firm by my stance. I am not willing to compromise, as such a labelling detail would affect a huge amount of other articles and create an opening for unnecessary changes to MOS:BOXING. If this is not the right avenue for resolution, then I'm thinking an RfC or consensus support/oppose at WikiProject Boxing would be better. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

To add on: since this is merely an intra-Project style issue between two editors, and which does not involve WP's guidelines, I would be happy to compromise or back down from my stance if other editors preferred the labelling of Foxwoods one way or another. I wanted to make that clear so as to not appear unyielding for the sake of it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

We haven't heard from the editor, User:JMichael22, who wants to use the tribe as the locality. In any case, this doesn't appear to be a dispute that can be resolved by compromise. Would the parties be agreeable to a Request for Comments, which should be on the project talk page (rather than an article talk page), and so if necessary could result in minor changes to the project-related MOS guideline? If the parties are agreeable to an RFC, then the key is that it needs to be worded neutrally. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon this is simply a case of the Foxwoods Resort Casino I believe it to be located in Mashantucket, CT while Dreamstate believes it to be located in Ledyard, CT and if Mashantucket, CT is an actual place in CT. We have both provided sources, which I have continued to add to the WikiProject Boxing Talk Page with new ones I am finding which state the Casino being located in Mashantucket and other things being located in Mashantucket due to the discussion also being about Mashantucket being an actual place in CT all in all I find my stand on the topic to be strong JMichael22 (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I am done my research as we are supposed to before placing information on Wikipedia I feel that with the sources I provided were more then enough evidence to defend my feelings on the matter. JMichael22 (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Mine too, so it's back to the Project talk page for an RfC. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Mac Dreamstate Okay JMichael22 (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to make note that I have recently added more sources about to the Boxing Project's talk page in regards to the location of Foxwoods Resort Casino being in Mashantucket, CT and Mashantucket, CT being different then Ledyard, CT JMichael22 (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

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:Environmental racism in Europe#Complaint. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sturgeontransformer (talk · contribs)
• Kleuske (talk · contribs)
• François Robere (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

1. The article Environmental racism in Europe was started and tended to by User:Sturgeontransformer some time ago. It's a rather lengthy article with all kinds of copyediting issues, but Sturgeontransformer has made it clear that they're open to discussion and improvement, and value constructive argumentation.
2. Several days ago User:Kleuske "arrived" at the article and started making sweeping, heavy-handed changes, and within four days cut the article's length by 20%.
3. Sturgeontransformer asked for a third opinion. I gave my opinion and tried to facilitate a discussion between the two at the article's talk page, among others asking that editing be suspended so we can review Kleuske's extensive revisions in order. I have not been involved with the article before.
4. Unfortunately, two things have happened that prohibit that discussion: First, Kleuske's radical revision of the article made discussing it in full very difficult; second, they exhibited such a short-tempered, single-minded approach that both Sturgeontransformer and myself became convinced that discussion could not, and will not yield consensus. Sturgeontransformer has since taken an extended leave from Wikipedia.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Applied for WP:ANI but was notified the issue would more properly fit here.

How do you think we can help?

First, kindly ask Kleuske to leave the article as is for 72 hours, so that I may restore it to its "stable" revision (with minimal stylistic changes). Second, ask that they regain control over their temper; I do not believe any of this was the result of ill intention and I do not seek personal sanctions, but whatever itch this subject scratched must be overcome if we are to continue the discussion with less angst, and more patience and civility.

Sturgeontransformer has taken a leave from Wikipedia following the events described above.

•  Volunteer note: @François Robere: What's the content issue here? All I see are complaints about Kleuske. Additionally, please notify them of this discussion by leaving a message on all participant's talk pages. @GB fan: Can you explain why you closed a discussion at ANI and diverted them here when it is very clearly a conduct issue as described above? Thanks. Nihlus 21:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't divert them here. They described this as a content issue. One editor removed content another wants the content in place until discussion takes place. The only action being requested was to ask for reinstatement of the content, no administrative actions. I did direct towards generic dispute resolution not specifically this notice board. ~ GB fan 22:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is so tedious sometimes. I wondered why there isn't a "don't forget to alert other user" anywhere, and figured the script (or wizard, rather) that automatically starts page sections here will actually do something automatically, like notifying the other user (otherwise what's the point? formatting?). Silly me. I'll notify the user myself.

As for the "why this board and not another", sort it out among yourselves. I tried to be as clear as I can. François Robere (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - User:Nihlus, User:François Robere - As presented, this isn't really stated properly to be either a conduct dispute or a content dispute. It consists of complaints about one editor, but doesn't allege any actionable violation, which typically means that there isn't an actionable violation, only a content dispute. However, it isn't stated as a content dispute either. I could close it, but it is probably more prudent to leave it open to see if the editors will state a content dispute that can be dealt with by compromise that we can handle here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Robert, I asked the admins to do something about a user. I specifically used the terms "temper" and "patience", and noted my reservations regarding the way they made changes. I did not ask the admins to restore content, nor have I asked for their advice or mediation on content. I did not complain about POV, COI, language, style or any other problem that may arise with content. I asked them to act in relation to one user (going as far as noting that I am not seeking personal sanctions, thereby implying my concern is with a user, not an article), and nothing more. To me it seems a clear as daylight, and if any issue arises its with the admins' definition of what exactly is "content-related", and whether admins posses the power of asking someone for some patience in order to prevent an edit-war, or merely to deal with it post-factum. Put differently: Can we for heavens sake just drop the bench game for a moment, and just act like the plain-spoken humans which, according to legend, comprise this community? Actionable or not, can you ask that user to cooperate for 72 hours before we enter an edit war? It's not a complicated request. If they do, all's well that ends well, and see you in mediation three days from now when the talk page explodes again. If they don't, then we have an edit war and everything's already put on record for you to act on. Cool? Cool. François Robere (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

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:Mount Athos (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SilentResident (talk · contribs)
• Dr.K. (talk · contribs)
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There was an unresolved dispute on this talk page about whether the flag used by Mount Athos can be displayed on the infobox.

Everyone already familiar with the religious affairs, knows that, much like countries and organizations, the religious institutions may very well have and use their own flags of choice to represent them. Such is the case of Mount Athos, which has chosen the double-headed eagle flag on a yellow background. The Athonite state, although today is technically part of Greece, doesn't have its own goat of arms or constitution, however it is a self-governed monastic polity on a peninsula of same name, uses its own flag of choice, has its own government and authorities, independent from those in the rest of the country, as enshrined by the Greek Constitution.

The heart of the entire dispute we got here in Wikipedia, is whether can this religious flag be displayed on the infobox about that religious entity. I supported the flag's inclusion to the infobox and provided photos and sources documenting its use by the Athonite authorities. However, other editors, opposed the flag's inclusion to the infobox, citing personal views on the matter, without providing any sources. Instead of providing sources to counter the flag's inclusion to the infobox, a big part of the discussion was spent on defending/disputing the reliability of the sources supporting the flag. I brought the matter to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard where the opposition has failed to challenge the sources. When it was clear that the dispute is isn't getting us anywhere, I opened a Request For Comment where I requested the opinions of third parties. In the RfC, it turned out that those who supported the flag's inclusion had a slight majority which was unsufficient for a solid consensus, while those who opposed the flag lacked any strong arguments against its inclusion to the infobox. Due to these developments, the dispute remains resolved to this day.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I brought the matter to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_227#Mount_Athos.27s_Flag

I opened a Request for Comment at the Talk Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mount_Athos#Request_for_Comment:_Flag_on_Infobox

How do you think we can help?

Evaluate each side's arguments, mediate in resolving the dispute

• Volunteer note - It isn't clear to me whether this is an appropriate subject for the dispute resolution noticeboard in view of the fact that it was already discussed via a Request for Comments. Is this noticeboard being asked to engage in moderated discussion leading to compromise, or is this noticeboard being asked to override the (lack of) consensus achieved by the RFC? Can the filing party please provide a brief statement of how, in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, discussion here (with a subset of editors) will resolve an issue that wasn't resolved by RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

User:TransporterMan - Your advice is requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Robert, I've taken a look at this per your request. I think that the short answer is that I would close this for lack of recent extensive discussion (as near as I can tell, the most recent discussion was in the RFC in August, 2017), and that would be my recommendation to you. It needs to be remembered that "no consensus" is an absolutely acceptable result at Wikipedia; the FP has honored that by waiting and not continuing to grind the axe, but an equal principle is that consensus can change (no consensus being a form of consensus in that sense). The way to get discussion started again is just that: to restart discussion at the article talk page and see if anyone's interested. (But doing so is probably futile and will easily become disruptive unless the FP brings new arguments or evidence to the discussion; merely rehashing arguments previously made probably isn't going to work.) Until that happens, there's no current dispute for this noticeboard to handle. If this had been a recently concluded RFC, then other considerations might or might not apply (e.g. how well attended and well discussed the RFC had been) but that's not the case here. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Robert:My apologies. I myself admit to be usure what else can be done in overcoming this stalemate. The dispute is unsuual one in that the one side wants to add sourced content to the infobox, while the other side is objecting to it and these objections are not based on reasoning or sources, but on WP:NOTTRUTH. However, since it is a content dispute in nature and not a behavioral one, I can't think of any other steps that can be more ideal than the DRN. The issue has been ongoing for a very long time, and any attempts to reason with the opposing party on the talk page have failed completely in providing any tangible results. If there is a more ideal place for such situations, then I could appreciate any suggestions. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 19:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Reply to TransporterMan:Then in that case, as a FP I am dropping this filling and consider this dispute resolved until new evidence/argument supporting the flag's inclusion, emerges. In the event this happens, a new discussion will be started at the article's talk page. Have a good day and thank you both for your time. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 20:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

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:Ghurid dynasty#Ghurids (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Hayras123 (talk · contribs)
• Wario-Man (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have followed my edits as per the editor's concerns and yet, when the editor in question, doesn't have any other concerns to put up, he flags it as edit warring. This is clearly some bias this editor has and an agenda to push, when every single one of my edits were improved as per other editor's feedback.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried on his talk page and yet he always deletes it for personal attack. I tried talking on the article talk page and he doesn't respond.

How do you think we can help?

Mediate an actual discussion between me and the user in question to achieve some sort of agreement over the issue.

• Volunteer note - The filing party has been reverted by three editors and has only listed one of them. The discussion on the article talk page is not really extensive enough to warrant discussion here, and the filing party has not notified any of the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

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

• User talk:Frankabr. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Meters (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This regards the "Billy The Kid" Wikipedia site. "Meters" has taken down the articles regarding the Billy Garrett Tintype. This tintype has been in world news, including The New York Times. Forensic Experts have spoken. Wikipedia has already in the past addressed this issue. "Meters" has ignored this fact, and without any substantiation, without any contrary forensic evidence, and without cause, has taken the section about the Billy Garrett tintype down. This action by "Meters" makes Wikipedia look both amateur and unprofessional as everyone with any information knows about the Billy/Garrett tintype.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Meters is not acting in the best interest of Wikipedia.

How do you think we can help?

Revert the article back, and prohibit "Meters" from making additional changes.

This is a content dispute. There has been consensus at the article talk page that the photo in question should be left out because it has not been authenticated. Indeed, there are more authorities on the article subject who say the photo is not of the article subject than those who say it is. Edit warring has ensued at the article more than once over the last month. I could be wrong, but appears that the editor Frankabr. is logging out and editing as well as using the article talk page in order for it to appear there are two editors who support the photo being included. If I'm wrong, my apologies. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

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

• User talk:Snooganssnoogans#top (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Rs24 (talk · contribs)
• Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I've impartially added critical context with reliable sources to the page for George Borjas, however my edits have been combatively reverted by user Snooganssnoogans without substantive elaboration on the citations and edits with which they disagree. I've made clear to the user, I am willing substantiate my edits, answer questions and work in good faith.

George Borjas is a leading labor economist at Harvard who has studied immigration for over three decades. Recently, he's garnered media attention for challenging a prominent study from 1990 that concluded migrants arriving during the Mariel Boatlift did not reduce the wages of natives. Several economists disagree with him, however Borjas has replied and the debate over migrant impact on wages continues.

This area of research is one piece of a significantly larger body of research that Borjas has produced. He discusses this research in his book "We Wanted Workers: Unraveling the immigration narrative". I read the book, and *in line with precedent found on similar Wikipedia pages where summaries of books are written*, I summarized Borjas' findings on the economics of immigration including but not limited to the Mariel boatlift.

I edited as such: (1) With precedent found on other similar Wikipedia pages, I created a dedicated section for "We Wanted Workers", adding a robust and impartial summary of Borjas' own observations from the book; (2) I strengthened the citations of the counterarguments to Borjas' research by citing work completed by Michael Clemens and Jennifer Hunt; (3) In line with precedent found on similar Wikipedia pages, I added Borjas' reply to Clemens and Hunt; (4) For further impartiality, I cited a third reputable source, the National Academies of Sciences, who find truth in both Borjas and Clemens and Hunts claims; (5) Added authors of the RAISE Act and included with citation Borjas' own words on why he supports the Act

Space here is limited. Happy to answer questions.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've sought to revert the edits, but do not want to unnecessarily wage an edit war. User Snooganssnoogans reversions have occurred in rapid succession to my own edits so I suspect reasonably that they have acknowledged my entry on their Talk page but have not or do not want to engage in substantiating their reversions. I'm open to other dispute resolutions, but my sense is trying to make any edits to the page with be reverted by this user.

How do you think we can help?

I hope you can review the page as is, refer to similar pages (even pages by other similar academics), and review the edits I made and moderate a civil, substantive dialogue to find a resolution. I'm willing and able to substantiate each of my edits.

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:Origins of the Cold War#13,000 byte massacre by Volunteer Marek (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• GPRamirez5 (talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Volunteer Marek cut over 13,000 bytes of text (around 10,000 words I believe) out of the article without discussing it on the Talk page. Virtually all of this material was sourced-there were dozens of citations that he cut away at the same time. When he deigned to join the Talk debate, it became evident that Marek was not really reading the sources, and where he did, he dismissed RS. For instance, he wrote "that source is trash" about a textbook published by Cambridge University Press. <https://books.google.com/books?id=VCX-CwAAQBAJ&q=percentages+agreement#v=onepage&q=refusal%20of%20Britain%20and%20France%20to%20join%20an%20anti-Nazi%20alliance&f=false >

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to point out the errors, reposted links to Talk page, provided further credentials for my sources.

How do you think we can help?

Facilitate a careful and balanced consideration of the material and sources.

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:Cold War#Secret treaties (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• #Russian revolution section (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• GPRamirez5 (talk · contribs)
• Rjensen (talk · contribs)
• Gravuritas (talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I included the Soviet publication of the WWI Allies' secret treaties in a list of disputes which troubled East-West relations in the "Background" (Origins of the Cold War) section. I initially misattributed the effect of the exposure of the treaties, and changed it when it was pointed out to me. My final formulation of the effects <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_War&diff=prev&oldid=816539254> was thoroughly RS and notable. In spite of this there has been constant rejection of the material on spurious grounds, often under the false claim that the pre-1945 origins of the Cold War aren't relevant at all, when in fact there is huge body of RS literature which demonstrates that they are.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive debate on talk page. Extensive research/linking to RS on my part

How do you think we can help?

Keep us focused on the specific issue at hand, which is the effects of the secret treaty exposure on West-East relations. Help us to engage with the sources honestly.

GPRamirez5 has repeatedly added statements that are not supported by the sources he uses. It's OR on his part. It's also POV. He tosses up a dozen or more issues that he thinks perhaps might or should have annoyed the Soviets decades later and assumes they were causal factors in starting the Cold War. Some of the episodes never happened (poison gas), some are unrelated issues (Balfour Declaration, secret treaties, Wilson) -- and none of his additions are mentioned by any reliable source on the Cold War. Hundreds of scholars from many countries have written on the Cold War & he has not found one that link his stories to Cold War. Rjensen (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

In the #Background/Russian revolution part of the article there is currently a strange list of items that caused or reflected some degree of discord between the Bolsheviks and the (European) West. There seems to be little or no RS linking these differences with the Cold War. In particular, the OP seems very keen on the inclusion of Soviet exposure of ‘secret treaties’ in this list. Compared with other elements in the list, (e.g. Allied support of the Whites in the Russian civil war; Bolshevik desires to export world-wide revolution), the exposure of the secret treaties seem very small potatoes and, even if some fringe view is dug up which links these treaties to the Cold War, I would struggle to believe it. I don’t believe the secret treaties deserve houseroom and, probably, the list would benefit from further drastic pruning. Gravuritas (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

What Gravuritas said. This isn't so much a "dispute" as just a case of one editor who wishes to include their own thinly sourced original research into the article. Volunteer Marek 01:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to add that after spending some time on this, I want to note that similar problems with this editor's (GPRamirez5's) edits are present in several other articles, such as Origins of Cold War, Italian Communist Party, and Percentages agreement. In all of these cases GPRamirez inserts his own very dubious and highly POV original research and then adds an inline citation at the end which includes a reliable source ... except the source doesn't actually support the text he's inserting.

Once, twice... yeah, ok, somebody is not so good with reading sources. AGF and all that. But this is a pretty consistent pattern which suggests that the misrepresentation of sources is intentional.

This isn't a situation that calls for dispute resolution. It's a situation which calls for admin intervention and some sanctions. Volunteer Marek 06:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - One editor has stated that they are not interested in moderated discussion. Participation in this dispute resolution process is voluntary. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. This case will be closed in 24 hours if the other editors are not notified. (If you need help notifying the other editors, ask for it.) Robert McClenon (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

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:Angela Merkel#%22Leader of the free world%22 in the section International status (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Michael G. Lind (talk · contribs)
• Tataral (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Tataral insists that Angela Merkel should be described as "the Leader of the free world" in the lead section. He is not alon in this opinion, User Nillurcheier shares this opinion. Other users (I am one of them) would like to erase this sentence for various reasons. After deleting the phrase, Tataral threatened me (at my User talk site) to "ban me from Wikipedia" „block" further editis here, to „block me for disruption" and so on.

Furthermore he called me a „Vandal", „a New User unfamiliar with Wikipedia's editing process pushing his own opinions and original research" „uninformed with Wikipedia's editing process pushing his own opinions and original research" „uninformed" and so on.

This is nonsense. I've written since several years now and I am proud to say that in de:wikipedia one of my articles was chosen as a well-documented, well written Good Article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to communicate with this user on the Talk page and I suggested a Dispute resolution, but to no avail. He keeps insulting me at a fast pace.

How do you think we can help?

Tataral should immediately stop with insulting me and trying to intimidate me (by constantly threatening me that if I dare to advocate my position, I will be blocked. This brute should apologise.

The issue about the Editwar could be solved quickly. A third opinion might help and I will accept the outcome. I should add that both he and I are not alone, several users take issue with this "Leader of the free world" description.

• Volunteer note - Both editors are reminded to comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of this noticeboard is to resolve content disputes to improve articles, not to improve other editors. There has been talk-page discussion. The filing party has not notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - "Check this, react, and behave accordingly" seems like a rather unpleasant way to notify another editor of a filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: @Tataral: Are you interested in having this discussion here at the DRN? If not, then this case will be closed. Nihlus 01:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Tataral - Do not issue a vandalism warning to a user with whom you have a content dispute. If you really think that User:Michael G. Lind was engaging in vandalism, read the boomerang essay and then report real vandalism at the vandalism noticeboard. Report unreal vandalism to /dev/null. If you want to resolve a content dispute, drop the claims of vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

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:Mexicans#Issues on sub-section "Autosomal studies" (edit | subject | history | links | "Autosomal_studies" watch | logs)

Users involved

• Iñaki Salazar (talk · contribs)
• Pob3qu3 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On 19 December 2017, I noted that user "Pob3qu3" had reverted user "Theutatis", who had removed a content alleging that it was a false information. The text removed (Special:diff/814746050) by Theutatis and reintegrated (Special:diff/816052254) by Pob3qu3 claimed that "18.5% of Mexicans have blond hair", "28.5% of Mexicans have light eyes", that "Mexico [is] also the country with the second highest frequency of blond hair in the study", and that there were a "discrepancy between phenotypical trais and genetic ancestry".

At first, I looked upon the text of the source, a genetic research on plos.org, and found nothing at first sight, so thus I revertd Pob3qu3 change. However, I checked the research again, and then I found that there was a supplementary table with the caption "Sample size, proportion of women, age, estimated admixture proportions and phenotypic features of the study sample." that contained information on sample size, proportion of women, continental admixture proportion (African, American and European), head circumference, height, hip circumference, melanin index, waist circumference, weight, male baldness, graying, eye color, hair color, and hair shape. The source shows all those figures with a gender discrimination (except on ancestry admixture and male baldness), being females at left and males at right, not having an exact number for both genders perhaps because of the sample bias, having more women than men in the research.

The source says: 2-1% blonds, 21-12% dark blond/light brown, 77-86% dark brown/black; 1-1% blue/grey, 3-2% honey, 4-6% green, 21-21% light brown, 72-71% dark brown-black.

I partially restored Pob3qu3 edit as I realized that the data was in the source, but contained some OR, and his wording was inaccurate (combining what he personally regarded as light, having no mention on other phenotypic traits than those). I was RV by Pob3qu3. So I replaced any text on hair, eye color with a table in the article but Pob3qu3 readds

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have talked to Pob3qu3, but this user shows no intention to reach some understanding.

How do you think we can help?

A third party can bring a new perspective to this dispute.

As I've said previously on the talk page of that article, there's no real point of discussion, I'll use a brief example: in the source at dispute there's a chart that states that in the study there was found that 1.5% of Mexicans had blond hair (this is light blond) and 17% had dark blond hair/light brown hair, user Iñaki Salazar is accusing me of doing synthesis and original research because I wrote in the article that "research made by the university college London determined that 18.5% of Mexicans had blond hair" I don't see how putting in words things that are clearly expressed with numbers by the source in question can be considered synthesis of sources or original research. Additionally, as can be seen on his last reply to date in the talk page of the article [27], he is convinced that dark blond hair is not considered to be blond hair as a whole, even though almost everybody else in the world does, including the wikipedia article he was using as basis of his complaints earlier in the discussion, this is the only thing he is holding on to accuse me of doing synthesis, he mentions other sections of text, that when analyzed don't have the slightest chance of be considerd synthesis (for example, in the source there's a map that ilustrates from where the samples used for the study come from, with most coming from southern Mexico, so all I do is to write that most of the samples come from south Mexico) but are being removed using the blond hair argument as the justification, thus I consider his postures regarding this article to step beyond of what can be considered rational arguments. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - While there has been discussion on the article talk page, it has neither been extensive nor civil. The editors should continue discussion on the article talk page and should try to be civil. The filing party has not notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I did notified them instantly. → https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pob3qu3&diff=prev&oldid=817085597
•  Volunteer note: @Pob3qu3: Quick question as I am leaning on closing this: why don't you just provide the information that is in the source? You are essentially synthesizing it as it is clear there are multiple interpretations of the information based on this dispute alone. Nihlus 06:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nihlus: Well I believe that's what I am doing, if you check my version of the article [28] I include all the statements and points of view; the only thing that would change would be the sentence:--

"Additionally, different phenotypical traits were analyzed, with the study determining that that the frequency of blond hair and light eyes in Mexicans was of 18.5% and 28.5% respectively"

to

"Additionally, different phenotypical traits were analyzed, with the study determining that that the frequency of blond hair (including dark blond/light brown) and light eyes in Mexicans was of 18.5% and 28.5% respectively"

I have no problem with that or making rewording of other sapects so it looks "less related" to the eyes of Iñaki Salazar, albeit he reverted the article again and then asked for a semi-protection so I it can't be edited right now. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment--Sorry, but no OR including synthesis of data (male% and female% cannot be ever combined for a lot of reasons!), drawing own critical analysis from maps et al are allowed.The table currently present represents the real conclusions quite good.And if the sum needs to be done, it shall be a weighed-avg.!Winged Blades^Godric 09:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: I calculated the weighed average, blond hair (including dark blond) is 17% and light eye color is 27% now. Could you elaborate which of the segments on my version are or look like drawing own conclusions? consider the example I wrote on my summary of the dispute, where I mention the source includes a map that shows that most samples come from an specific region of Mexico, so all I do is to write in the article that the samples do come from that region, that's an ok thing to do isn't it? Pob3qu3 (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - I am having difficulty in figuring out what is being argued about. I see that there is a question about original research, but am not even sure what the topic of the OR is. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think is the issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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:Citizens (Spanish political party) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sonrisas1 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A wider obsolescence issue affects article Citizens (Spanish political party). The party was defined as "center-left" by a few spokespeople after its inception, but the current national and international consensus is that they occupy varying segments of the political right, and are vying for the center-right vote still monopolized by PP.^[1] This is corroborated by:

1. the loss of nearly all conservative Parliament seats to Cs in the Catalan election days ago (hard to prove by encyclopaedic standards, but easy to glean from contemporary newspaper references), and especially

2. the profusion of former PP and to a lesser extent far-right and even neo-Nazi militants, as well as a motley crew of xenophobes, hardline Jacobins and former Francoists among its membership, its conference invitees, and its celebrity endorsers. This is easy to prove and is properly referenced in a 1 1/2-year-old section entitled "Alternative views and past membership".

User Sonrisas1 has been trying to erase this section entirely for the past few days, bordering on edit warring, especially after Dec 21--by their own admission without even having read all of it. He never tried to allege lack of references, he erased it all on the grounds that it is "abuse" and "propaganda". Erasing this section and leaving the rest of the article intacy would mislead the profane reader into thinking this is, say, a more left-leaning version of the British Liberal Democrats, which couldn't be farther from the truth.

The user's arguments are that the section constitutes "soapbox propaganda", "vitriol", "mud-slinging", "dump" matter, "insane soapbox garbage", "accusations" or "abuse" at Cs, as if stating widely-documented truths were abuse or accusatory in any way or form.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to explain to User:Sonrisas1 that supremacism is marginal within Catalan nationalism which is civic in nature, whereas Spanish unionist demonstrations lately have invariably ended in far-right and/or racist violence. But anyone who disagrees, such as myself, is "completely bonkers or editing in bad faith (sic)". He has failed to justify why the section should be erased. He has also failed to explain why Cs is still the "centre-left" party it once styled itself to be.

How do you think we can help?

Some form of external mediation, parallel to the poll that has been suggested by another user. I believe this should be broadcast to a wide audience, not just to a list of users pinged by Sonrisas1 in an RfC poll. We're talking about erasing a fully referenced section that is germane to the current times. The article needs to be updated in a direction opposite to that which Sonrisas1 is trying to steer it to.

The avenue for this at this stage is Request for Comment, not Dispute Resolution.Sonrisas1 (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion, although it has not been civil, at the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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

• List of Xbox One X Enhanced games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• LTH ASG (talk · contribs)
• Zero_Serenity (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User is preventing metacritic review scores being added to a list of xbox one x games.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There has been some discussion on this subject - but a consensus was declared with just 6 users opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Metacritic_Scores_in_Lists

How do you think we can help?

Approve creation of separate page with metacritic scores of xbox one/one x games which can be added to the video game portal.

Something similar to http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/all/all/filtered but with added parameters like 4K/HDR capability and FPS information

This issue does not require dispute resolution. There's already a strong consensus at the WikiProject level about how to approach the situation. (See here.) This is basically an attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP. Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect Statement on motivation. Please read "How do you think we can help?" section on dispute resolution approach.

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

• Belly dance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Marina Towadros (talk · contribs)
• Swazzo (talk · contribs)
• Pinkbeast (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dear Respectful Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Board;

I, user (Marina Towadros), added the historical name of Egyptian Dance in the Belly Dance page, sourcing it with a very reliable source as the Independent. User (Swazzo) kept removing the sources 4 times and posted an Edit War threat to my talk page though he was the one removing sources, not me.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where everything should be accurate, the name is literally used as a Dancing Course in endless schools worldwide, students go and register for Egyptian Belly Dance.

The global source i added is the Independent Article with title of:

"How the ancient Egyptian art of belly dancing is suffering a wobble in popularity."

Link:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/how-the-ancient-egyptian-art-of-belly-dancing-is-suffering-a-wobble-in-popularity-9509855.html

Further, suddenly one claimed that i have personal axe with them for just putting a global source and respecting the Egyptian art heritage? i know no one here, unlike them.

Also every step i make is after an advice that been sent to either:

1) Wikipedia Help Request. 2) Wikipedia Admin.

Thanks for all the help.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I informed the issue to a respectful Wikipedia Admin and he advised that if the issue keeps going, i can take it to the Dispute resolution board.

How do you think we can help?

Seeing the history page. Reading the sources and seeing by yourself whether removing accurate and reliable sources information 4 times is with or against Wikipedia editing rules?.

Thank you.

• Volunteer note - There doesn't appear to have been enough discussion on an article talk page prior to discussion here. Also, the filing party has not notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Done! The other user claims that my editing is not allowed and writing Egyptian Dance accompanied by the global source is not allowed too, is this really against Wikipedia rules?. The issue been discussed in Arab Dance Talk Page too and a respectful Wikipedia Admin said that fixing inaccurate data is great as i was astonished by how the article lacked correct info regarding Egyptian folklore. All i want is preserving Egyptian Art and i kept putting well sourced data, not a single edit i did without putting sources, yet the other user keeps implying that i should not edit page's information and removed reliable sources?. I didn't remove any sources as this is not allowed as per my knowledge of Wikipedia rules, unlike the other user. Marina Towadros (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Please discuss further at Talk:Belly dance. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Thank you for your help, and done [29], the Talk Page needs to be watched by others as the user keeps deleting sources and claiming that editing with sources is against editors?. I will add the Independent source as it has highly accurate information. Thanks again.
  •  Comment: Users claim that all the books and articles provided in the article don't mention Egyptian dance, which is clearly false, all the books mention it as Egyptian art and the Egyptian folklore is the one that shaped it. Kindly see the Talk Page as the discussion ended at same point it started with. Dispute resolution by Wikipedia Admins will be much appreciated. Thanks. Marina Towadros (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - I can see that the filing party is passionate about the subject, but it isn't clear what the issue is. She says that other editors are removing sources, but doesn't seem to be discussing at the article talk page. Please do not continue to discuss here. As it says, please keep discussion to a minimum until it is opened by a volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment by uninvolved user (lurker). The issue is straightforward. The filing party wants to change the opening sentence from "Belly dance, also referred to as Arabic dance, is an Arab expressive dance which originated in Egypt" to "Belly dance, also referred to as Arabic dance or Egyptian dance, is an Arab expressive dance which originated in Egypt". Those who disagree with the edit are arguing that no reliable source actually says it is referred to as "Egyptian dance", and that the fact that it is Egyptian is right there in the sentence. The filer also seems to think that a comment by an admin (I'm guessing this one), which had words of encouragement for her, was meant as admin endorsement of her edits, 2001:BB6:4703:4A58:10FE:3EC2:C129:2E5F (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Thank you. Since dispute resolution at this noticeboard is voluntary, we are waiting for replies from the two editors who were notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Mr. Robert i apologize sir for commenting, but i just want to clarify that the great Wikipedia Admin Mr. The Bushranger is the most helpful one and he was the one who advised me that if the issue keeps going on i can take it to dispute resolution board. His help and kindness are much appreciated. I was not referring to the respectful Wikipedia Admin but to removal of sources here: [30]. Please accept my apologies. Marina Towadros (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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:British Empire#Afghanistan (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Hayras123 (talk · contribs)
• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)
• Slatersteven (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I do not want so start an edit war, so I have come to this as the other editors in question have not reached a consensus despite all the replies on the talk page. I have repeatedly given sources that Afghanistan has not been part of the British empire etc etc, but the other two parties involved seem to be oblivious and disregard this and instead just revert these edits. They have resorted to personal attacks and claims rather than talking about the subject matter in question. I propose the use of a correct map with lots of sources to back it up but the agenda the other two parties have results in them having trouble accepting it. I do not want personal opinions and biases to affect what content sources say. Look over the section on the relevant talk page for more information. This credible map is the best one to use [31] but this is disputed by the other parties for no reason other than "I don't like it". Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Back and forth discussion on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

By looking over the discussion and giving advice on what to do.

The dispute is about whether to include Afghanistan as part of the map showing all territories that were ever part of the British Empire. Hayras123 says it wasn't but hasn't provided any good sources. One source for example is a current news article about Afghanistan's independence day celebrations published in the Republic of Georgia. As a compromise I suggested that the map refer to the empire and it territories. TFD (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Only one of Hayras123 sources (as far as I can tell) unequivocally state that Afghanistan was not part of the British empire (and I am not too sure about even that). They all says is that either it was not part of the British Empire at a given time, or that Afghanistan had some degree of independence. I (and indeed The Four Deuces) have tried to suggest a compromise. My one based in part on Hayras123's last edit [[32]]. This Hayras123 then rejected [[33]]. Hayras123 then seemingly alters the text to now exclude the word Protectorate [[34]], and then again [[35]] (again as if to ensure there can be no loop hole for inclusion of Afghanistan).Hayras123 has been pretty damn insulting over this. The date Hayras123 picks for his map is 1919, the year of Afghanistan's independence. The map Hayras123 wished to replace showed all territories that had ever been administered by Britain. I did provide sources that explicitly said it had been a protectorate at some point (and our map showed protectorates as part of the British empire, the user had not objected to the inclusion of those). If anything it is the Hayras123 who had not edited in good faith, not attempted to reach a compromise. Well they appear to have done so now.Slatersteven (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: I have notified the other editors. @Hayras123: Please be aware of the instructions set forth at this page going forward. Nihlus 01:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I will be acting as the moderator. Read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules and follow the rules. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think is the issue and what should or should not be done to the article? Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Also, please do not use terms such as "accuser" or "aggrieving party". They don't help even at WP:ANI, let alone at WP:DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hayras123, The Four Deuces, and Slatersteven: Pinging to notify of round one. Nihlus 23:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

.I have included many different crediblesources all of which clearly state Afghanistan as a separate, independent entity from the British empire. Including: [36]p.102

This one which explicitly states "not part of the British Empire": [37]p.149

I also included credible sources that states that the British only ever had control of Afghanistan's foreign affairs. What I believe is the best compromise is to use this map that clearly states all of Britain's territories correctly. [38] This map is not "from the British empire in 1919" because it clearly shows the US territories and others that were not part of the British empire in 1919. This map, I believe, is the most credible in terms of representing the territories that the British empire had ever held.[39]

This map [40] which is currently used also has improper use of sources, as one of the source links doesn't even work and the other contains no map or mention of Afghanistan in the British empire. The file also clearly states that it is the author's own self-published work.

No other maps from the time Britain "supposedly" ruled over Afghanistan ever included Afghanistan as part of the empire. Rather, they include countries such as Nepal [41], which isn't even highlighted on the map that is currently used. For example, this map [42] used on Wikipedia should clearly highlight Afghanistan as it was produced in 1886. However, it makes no such mention or claim. Neither does this map [43] or this one from the BBC of the British empire in 1914 [44]. I have included many more sources on the article's talk page, but I digress.

My compromise would be to use any other credible map to show the territories that the British empire had ever held, which is this map [45]. Along with the caption that mentions "all of the territories ever held by the British empire, as the map currently used is false, and the fact that Afghanistan had never been part of the British empire. Hayras123 (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The first source is not saying it, it is quoting one British empire official at a given snap shot in time (and we neither know who this was or when they said it). The other source says it was not part of the British empire in India, which is not quite the same as saying it was not controlled by Britain (and in fact can be seen as weasel wording), it ids also a foot note, so it is hard to see context of what it is saying. The map he is presenting in not the one we were discussing, it was this edit [46]. I also provided sources that say Afghanistan was a protectorate, and I now demonstrate the problem with Hayras123's approach [47] in 1839 Britain invaded Afghanistan and installed a puppet king and ruled the place. Thus (yes) at on e time it was rules by Britain.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The first source, Tribe and State in Iran and Afghanistan, p. 102, says that Afghanistan was both independent and a British protectorate. It mentions the "Three Frontier" policy of British India. The three were administrative, political and military limits of British control, only the third of which included Afghanistan. But the source doesn't say whether Afghanistan was considered to be within or outside the empire.

The second source, Deadly Embrace: Pakistan, America, and the Future of the Global Jihad, p 149, ft 1, says, "Afghanistan was not part of the British Empire in India nor is it part of today's Pakistan." It is a footnote to p. 4, which discusses the creation of Pakistan which name was "an acronym compiled from the names of the areas of Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, and Baluchistan." Pakistan was created by the partition of British India in 1947. Afghanistan had become independent in 1919. No one disputes that Afghanistan was not part of India when it was partitioned.

The other problem with the second source is that it is a book about terrorism written by an expert on terrorism (Bruce Riedel) and the claim itself has no source. One would expect a source about the British Empire written by an expert on the subject who explained his or her reasoning. The more tangential a fact is to the topic of a source article, the less likely that it will have been subjected to the same scrutiny. Using this type of sources is cherry-picking.

TFD (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Be consise. You dond't need to provide a long justification for your view. Comment on content, not contributors. You don't need to say who is wrong, only what is right. Please statement, in no more than three sentences, what you think the issue is. Then we can talk about compromise. We don't need to hammer sources at this point. (Arguing that one source is better than another usually doesn't resolve content disputes. But we need to identify what the content dispute is very briefly before we even talk about compromises.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The issue is an argument about the map and caption used in the "British empire" article. More specifically, whether to use this map [48] or this map [49] is the main issue of contention that is disputed over.

I am puzzled. I see that the issue is what map to use. However, the dispute is characterized as being about Afghanistan and the British Empire. It appears that neither map shows Afghanistan as ever having been part of the British Empire. One map simply shows the maximum extent of the British Empire, and the other map breaks down the territories of the British Empire. So what is the issue, and what does it have to do with Afghanistan? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The Issue is whether or not the map for the article should include Afghanistan (see arguments above as to why). A matter that can be resolved by just changing the caption (as was done).Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay. We are in agreement that the issue is whether the map should include Afghanistan. We have also identified two proposed versions of the map, neither of which includes Afghanistan. So there appears to be no disagreement on the main real issue. Should I close this thread as resolved? If not, should I close it as failed because no one knows what the issue is? Can someone clarify? Any posts longer than one paragraph will be hatted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem at first, which was the first edit I ever made, was a change in the map used to illustrate all the territorial holdings that the British empire has held. The debate then evolved into a debate about whether Afghanistan was ever part of the British empire, and now is claimed to be a change in caption as the main focus point of the dispute. I have no problem with the caption, as long as this map is used [50]. Also, the current map used for all territories of the British empire does include and highlight Afghanistan in red, which is located west of Pakistan, or more specifically, top left of India[51]. As has been shown, Afghanistan was never part of the British empire ever, so the map I want to be used clearly shows a correct version of all territories of the British empire (and contains more useful information such as the breakdown of each territory ever acquired by the British empire). Hayras123 (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I think that there is agreement that the map to be used is not of the British Empire at any particular year, because it should include places that were under British rule at different times, including the Thirteen Colonies and British India. That means that we need to use a map that shows the maximum extent of British rule across times and centuries. Afghanistan was always under various kings, sometimes under unequal treaties. Does anyone think that we need to include Afghanistan in the coverage? If so, is there agreement that it should be shown in such a way to indicate that it was never part of India and was a special case (out of various special cases)? Is everyone willing to agree to exclude Afghanistan? If not, is there a compromise that will include it in a special way? Please provide a brief answer below, regardless of whether you have said anything above, not later than 2359 UTC, 2 January 2018. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Afghanistan should not be included and as such a better map, such as this one be used which shows all of the territories the British ever controlled, excluding Afghanistan. [52]. Sorry for any mistakes I made during this process as this is my first time. Hayras123 (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

If there is no objection within 24 hours, this case will be closed as resolved with agreement to use the "anachronous" (non-synchronous) map of the British Empire showing its maximum extent. (This isn't any one time, since the Thirteen Colonies and British India were the crown jewels of two different British Empires that partly overlapped.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

• User talk:Mvcg66b3r#"Consistency" (edit | subject | history | links | "Consistency" watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jeh (talk · contribs)
• Codename Lisa (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The use of italics vs. quotation marks in radio/TV station infoboxes.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Explained to Jeh that there's a consistent format across all radio/TV infoboxes.

How do you think we can help?

Third opinion

Awfully early for requesting a 3PO, don't you think? And why is @Codename Lisa: involved? This dispute, not that I think this has yet risen to the level of "dispute", involved only myself and @Mvcg66b3r:. If Codename Lisa is actually involved then this is unsuitable for 3PO, which is only for disputes between two users. Jeh (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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:Shammar#Shammar in Syria (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Batternut (talk · contribs)
• Swazzo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User Swazzo removed the naming of Sheikh Humaydi Daham al-Hadi as leader of the Shammar tribe in Syria. Swazzo believes the sources to be outdated and WP:OFFTOPIC. I re-added the disputed section with another source here, but that was similarly deleted.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A third opinion request was made, and a volunteer provided some input to the discussion, but did not directly address Swazzo's offtopic argument.

How do you think we can help?

Experienced interpretation of WP:OFFTOPIC would be especially useful. All advice appreciated though.

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:Myofascial release (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Memtgs (talk · contribs)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs)
• Alexbrn (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Jytdog and User:Alexbrn are persistently reverting my edits to this article. In my edits, I am attempting to clarify that one major systematic review found research quality on the subject was mixed. The other users are pushing edits that describe the research quality as universally poor, which does not accurately represent the information stated in the source's conclusion. User:Jytdog tells me that his edits are according to Wikipedia's medical evidence policy, but will not explain why, and has instead accused me of "Wikilawyering," "weasel words," and "promotion" without any explanation.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Explaining my position, citing the source and comparing it to the edits, reaffirming assumptions of good faith

How do you think we can help?

Clarify Wikipedia's policy pertaining to medical evidence, and help explain when the information in the article should not match the conclusion of the source being cited.

Here are the two diffs by the OP: diff, restored in this diff. We don't write things like "Although it shows some promise in treating othopaedic conditions, further high-quality research is necessary to better assess its clinical efficacy", in fact WP:MEDMOS specifically warns against the "more research is necessary" trope. OP has been pointed to WP:MEDMOS at the Talk page. The content in the article says nothing about "universal" anything - the ref PMC 3718355 says "but because of the low quality, few conclusions could be drawn" and the content says: "The poor quality of research into the use of myofascial release for orthopaedic conditions precludes any conclusions being drawn about its usefulness for this purpose"Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The article correctly summarizes our on-point sources; the complainant's proposed edits would make our summary less accurate and overstate the evidence supporting Myofascial Release.

In particular, the proposal to limit the American Cancer Society's discussion of evidence to "cancer" is incorrect; the source does not have this restriction (quote: "There is little scientific evidence available to support proponents' claims that myofascial release relieves pain or restores flexibility").Alexbrn (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

In response to Jytdog's summary: I believe my edits match the cited source's information. For example, my edit included the line: "Although it shows some promise in treating othopaedic conditions, further high-quality research is necessary to better assess its clinical efficacy." This is what is stated in the conclusion of the source: "The quality of studies was mixed, ranging from higher-quality experimental to lower-quality case studies. Overall, the studies had positive outcomes with myofascial release, but because of the low quality, few conclusions could be drawn. The studies in this review may serve as a good foundation for future randomized controlled trials." WP:MEDMOS suggests that if directives for further research are mentioned in primary sources they are appropriate to mention in the article, and thus I have incorporated them here. The second phrase I changed is "[t]he mixed quality of research into the use of myofascial release for orthopaedic conditions precludes any conclusions being drawn about its usefulness for this purpose," which is being reverted by the other users to "[t]he poor quality of research..." But this is not what is stated in the source, it specifically describes the research quality as mixed in the conclusion. Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 02:43, 5-01-2018 UTC 02:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has given notice at the article talk page, but notice should also (instead) be given at the user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I have filed these at the appropriate user talk pages. Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 07:48, 5-01-2018 UTC 07:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Do the two other editors wish to engage in voluntary moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - There has been no response from the other editors in 48 hours. Since discussion here is voluntary, this discussion may be closed by a volunteer unless there is a response prior to that time. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

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:Aangan (TV series) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• M.Billoo2000 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hi! There has been a huge dispute between me and an anonymous IP (182.182.… and 39.38.… can't notify) editor. I don't know how to explain here, if someone please check out the whole talk page history, so that it becomes clear that what actually happened. Shortly, in my opinion, the user has reverted some of my sourced edits and keeps up his rude behaviour. The edits by me on its main page indiacte their reliability on the talk page. While, he thinks that I am more angry than him, he even tried to discuss my personal life on his own, which I think as WP:Behave violation but he doesn't understand.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Also, see Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 December 27#Aangan. Can I report this matter to WP:ANI too?

How do you think we can help?

I want to restore the content on talk page, so that the edits on main page can easily rely. Please check and help, Thanks!

• Volunteer note - In looking over the edits to the article page and the talk page, I don't see a content dispute (and so I disagree with the editor who said to try dispute resolution.) It appears that the unregistered editor is being disruptive. You can report them to WP:ANI; this report will be closed. I would suggest requesting semi-protection of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

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:Bitcoin#Decentralization (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cloud200 (talk · contribs)
• Laurencedeclan (talk · contribs)
• Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs)
• Jtbobwaysf (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A section has been added on failures of decentralization, which is a central point of the Bitcoin protocol. The section has been sourced using a broad collection of references and link other Wikipedia articles on that subject. The whole edit has been deleted and replaced by a brief and vague statement. Further attempts to improve and restore the section has led to an edit war in which I have presented arguments why I believe the details are relevant and the sources reliable, while the other side essentially just denies the reliability of the sources without presenting any counterarguments and insists on removing the whole section without any attempt to improve on wording or sources.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Present arguments why the sources are reliable (see discussion).

How do you think we can help?

Provide independent opinnion on the reliability of sources and what improvements are required, if any.

• Volunteer note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors of the filing here. Please notify them. Also, although there has been discussion on the article talk page, it has not really been extensive. Please try to discuss a little longer on the article talk page and see if agreement (e.g., compromise) is possible. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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:State of Palestine (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• MusenInvincible (talk · contribs)
• WarKosign (talk · contribs)
• MShabazz (talk · contribs)
• Icewhiz (talk · contribs)
• Nishidani (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have added several well-sourced information (‘’New York Times, Anadolu Agency, Fox News’’) concerning the recognition of Muslim nations to East Jerusalem as capital of Palestine in an OIC summit, 13 December 2017. According to the ‘’New York Times’’ source, 57 representatives of 57 nations reported to make an official declaration about "East Jerusalem recognition." However, some editors were repeatedly reverting the addition. They are also trying to own the article and acts as if they are the ones who could decide what should stay or not in the article. Even though my addition is not an obvious vandalism and following the three principal rules of Wikipedia content (Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view) they keep reverting and undoing the whole content changes without any improving contribution or consideration to correct the misspelled words and to fix redundant sentences through constructive editing (not rejecting nor discourage the content improvement by other editors).
Furthermore, after I tried to add an well-sourced information that Parliament Iran recognized Jerusalem as Palestinian capital by (different from OIC recognition to East Jerusalem), which is a sole official recognition by a nation, these two editors WarKosign, Icewhiz were recklessly reverting and undoing the whole addition without considering the existence of Iran recognition to Jerusalem. I do not mind if they continued to discuss about OIC interpretation as single entity or a group of nations, but I strongly criticize their behaviour in rejecting contributions from other editor without any carefulness.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to reason and to answer the objections from the other users as clear as possible but they would not to listen. I also challenge the users to provide reliable sources that support their objections, but they failed to do it and insisted to unnecessary revert or undo the improving changes to the article just because they think "no consensus" in sentence phrasing.
In brief, the discussion did not end in any constructive solution.

How do you think we can help?

This dispute can be resolved if the neutral administrator(s) who is more familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines or principles and expert in content phrasing may adjudicate and judge on how the valid information should be appeared in the content, since the appropriate sentence is the dispute, while the information is a fact and published in the international news agencies several weeks ago.

The Wikipedia content is not mainly depending on the approval of the editors, instead the information can be given by any editor as long as it is well-sourced (verifiable) with neutral point of view, and no original research (Wikipedia:Core content policies)

The information I included is well-sourced and there is no reason for its removal.

..Never revert a change that you personally believe is a net improvement to the page. If you believe that the change is an improvement, then you should not revert it... — Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"

@Icewhiz You said Regarding Iran - this hasn't been discussed..., then why you did not read carefully the entire changes and recklessly undid whole of the revision rather than only edit-removing the OIC statement which is discussed. Whether it is binding or not, let see this fact: "Do the Iranian government officially recognized Jerusalem as capital of Palestine? Yes" it is reported by news and verified (not hoax nor content vandalism). — MusenInvincible (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't pinged - does MusenInvincible actually want other editors to respond, or only intents to use the noticeboard as rubber stamp without any discussion ?

As I (and several editors) already explained MusenInvincible several times at the talk page,a declaration by OIC is not the same as same declarations made by each of 57 member states. 10:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

For some reason I wasn't pinged to this. MusenInvincible's edit has been challenged by just about every other editor on the page (in reverts and in a talk-page discussion). The crux of the matter is the misrepresentation of a non-binding declaratory statement of the OIC - as a binding statement of each of the members of the OIC. The delegates of the members did indeed vote to have the OIC make the non-binding declaratory statement - but that's it.Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Iran - this hasn't been discussed (it was clumped together with a late edit on OIC - earlier discussions were focused on the OIC alone). The source used isn't great, there are however better sources - e.g. Iran's Parliament Unanimously Recognizes Jerusalem as Permanent Capital of Palestine in Response to Trump, Haaretz. Motions in Parliament, in most countries, are not usually binding in terms of foreign policy (which is usually the prerogative of the executive branch) and are usually declaratory in nature. This was not made clear in the edit, and there were COMMONNAME problems (e.g. the use of Al-Quds As-Sharif and not Jerusalem).Icewhiz (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: - this is a one on many situation at least for OIC and Jerusalem. Iran hasn't been discussed (it was reverted by 2 separate editors, myself included, as part of an OIC edit).Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Note - Edit warring noticeboard filing + block of editor following reverts precluded discussion on Iran with him - so the Iran issue is being discussed on DRN without a talk page discussion.Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• Multi-part volunteer note - First, the filing party has not notified the other editors. Please notify the other editors. It is not necessary to notify editors who have already responded. Second, all editors are reminded that ArbCom discretionary sanctions and enhanced ArbCom discretionary sanctions are in effect for this topic and this article, and that disruptive editing including tendentious editing may result in blocks, topic-bans, or even bans. Third, this is a thread where the filing party has listed multiple editors. Is this a case where multiple editors are on each of "two sides", or is this a one-against-many situation? If this is a one-against-many situation, the filing party is advised that participation by the other editors in moderated discussion is voluntary, and is further advised that either accepting the status quo or filing a Request for Comments is more likely to be productive than attempting to use moderated discussion to change a rough consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The editors represent a variety of opinions and are often on different sides of the argument. “WarKosign” 14:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

• User talk:208.117.127.135 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Rburton66 (talk · contribs)
• 208.117.127.135 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The page for the Academy Award for Best Original Song is being updated to more closely align with the official Academy Awards Database (awardsdatabase.oscars.org), which lists films and songs under the titles which they were nominated. Individuals are also listed according to screen credit, rather than alphabetically and often by legal names rather than stage names. I've added citations for each year to source these titles and names.

As a couple examples, "Shellback (record producer)" was nominated as Karl Johan Schuster. The song "Arthur's Theme (Best That You Can Do)" won under that title. User 208.117.127.135 has reverted edits several times, such as renaming Schuster "Shellback" and "Arthur's Theme (Best That You Can Do)" as "Best That You Can Do." Their edits now apply to dozens of entries, though it's not clear what their rationale is. I posted yesterday on their talk page hoping to understand the intent and open a discussion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've requested to discuss the issue with User 208.117.127.135 on their talk page, but they've begun reverting again without replying to me.

How do you think we can help?

My hope is to open a discussion on how to format this page going forward. I greatly appreciate any additional perspective on how to improve the page. Many thanks for your assistance.

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:Rosie Batty#RE Edits and possible disruptive editing#RE Edits and possible disruptive editing (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• E ribbon toner (talk · contribs)
• Brownlife (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On the page for Rosie Batty, a high profile Australian domestic violence campaigner. Page seems to have a history of vandalism (e.g. single use accounts only used for mass deletion of this page), and it seems that Rosie Batty's story/position can push buttons.

I and Brownlife are having a disagreement about what information is considered encyclopaedically relevant.

My side is that I began editing Rosie Batty's page because she's frequently in the media and I didn't know much about her background, and was surprised that her Wiki didn't match the mainstream media coverage she gets or have a lot of information about her story with domestic violence. The murder of her son by her ex partner was a big news story and is also the reason that she is a public figure. I don't consider myself a fan of her btw, just wanted to know who she was, and put in the bits I'd think others would also expect from a bio page.

Brownlife has done frequent mass deletions (especially around her history with her ex-partner and information around the impact she is reported as having on Australian culture/law/society) without much explanation and I have tried to engage on the talkpage. They've said that it's a mess of an article with a fan bias and doesn't abide by Wiki standards and they cite "not relevant" when deleting. It's become clear to me that we can't mediate this ourselves.

I want to assume good faith but the user has been pretty rude and does similar edits to other pages of Australian female public figures, and combined with the mass deletions, emotionality, and being sensitive to the mention of Batty's ex partner's name it all makes me a bit suspicious of their motivations. I'm concerned it's tendentious editing and bias trying to look like something else. Really want to be wrong about that though.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Engage on article talk page

How do you think we can help?

Hope this is an opportunity for me to get clarity on Brownlife's stance. I'd like to find a way to polish the page up so that important and accurate information is presented properly within guidelines. I think that her personal story and info on her career are sound information and don't need complete and utter deletion but could do with polishing and presentation. And advice on page protection. And I'd like Brownlife to clarify the wiki standards too. Hope it works out! Thanks

Hey there! Eribbon has made NO attempt whatsoever to enter into a civil discussion with me and makes some pretty wild assumptions about me personally which I resent. In fact all that they said would apply to themselves and their obvious POV. However sticking to content issues they have added a wad of text from Batty's own account and is not replicated in other quality reliable sources. Eribbon has made absolutely no attempt to resolve it with me on the Talk:Rosie Batty and why they see such material should be added to the bio and why other material has been left out. We need to always provide objective and neutral material only which is our policy.Brownlife (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. However, the discussion appears mostly to have consisted of the editors talking about themselves and each other, rather than about article content. The editors should try talking about article content before asking a volunteer moderator to help them talk about article content. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Note to volunteers, etc: please also see the discussion at WP:AWNB. There are multiple editors watching this article with concern but who are reluctant to engage with the sort of behaviour going on from at least one participant. This could really use someone with some patience and skills in relation to this stuff. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - If the editors want to discuss article content, then I suggest Requests for Mediation, because a skilled mediator (as opposed to an ordinary volunteer acting as mediator) may be needed to get the editors to compromise. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • That may be true, but it would be great if someone could have a try first, at least for those of us with this watchlisted looking on going "eek". The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: As a note, I blocked User:Brownlife for an indefinite period yesterday for BLP violations, mainly in regards to this article. This may render this process moot. Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Nick-D - Thank you for the update. That probably resolves the dispute. This thread will be closed unless there is any other dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Since an editor has asked if we can at least try informal moderated discussion, I will act as the moderator for now. Read and follow the mediation rules. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. Comments that are about other editors rather than about article content will be hatted with an admonition. If there are personal attacks, I will fail the discussion, and I reserve the right to report the uncivil comments to WP:ANI. Overly lengthy comments may make an editor feel better, but do not help resolve a dispute. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments only to the moderator on behalf of the community, not to each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Now, will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think should be done to improve the article (or what should be left alone). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

If the reason for the filing of this dispute resolution request was to deal with biographies of living persons violations by an editor who has been banned for BLP violations, then this case is moot. If there are any issues other than the edits by the banned editor, please state what they are. If there are no other issues than the BLP violations, it is not necessary to make a statement, and this case will be closed in 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

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:LJN (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Nihlus (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

PseudoSkull made an edit in which he had inserted a Criticism section regarding a game publisher/company named LJN; which has been frequently criticized by a number of popular game critics, especially James Rolfe. The page previously did not provide any type of criticism or feedback regarding the companies reputation. So Pseudo got the ball rolling to build a section to address this issue; regarding this company's reputation for publishing terrible games. An editor/admin named Nihlus repeatedly had reverted/rollback'd the edits, and it's become a small edit-war. This admin does not use the Talk page apparently. I have repeatedly asked them to use the Talk page, or, to edit the criticism section so that they find it more appropriate. Nihlus will not do this. He just rolls back the edits/undo actions I make, and makes no attempt to discuss the issue on the talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

When undo'ing Nihlus's efforts to delete the section entirely, I've repeatedly asked him to use the Talk page or follow the proper dispute resolution. He then sent me a message telling me to quote "move on or get blocked" which I did not appreciate.

How do you think we can help?

I think we need to find a way to edit the criticism section to properly explain the controversy surrounding this company. Nihlus does not like the critic mentioned in the criticism section. This is why he has repeatedly deleted it. I've told him...he should edit the section to provide other perspectives/critics/sources if he feels that the section is too biased with only James Rolfe being mentioned. Again, I don't have a problem with adding more sources or additional commentary.

There has been little to no discussion by the IP and the IP has been reported for edit warring. As a "party", I will not close it, so any other volunteer can go ahead and close this. Thanks. Nihlus 13:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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.