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

• Draft:SageTea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• null (talk · contribs)
• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I believe I have responded to all the requests for changes to this article in a timely fashion, I had them all completed within 24 hours. As I am the author of the peer reviewed patent I have disclosed this fact, which I believe would properly disclose a potential conflict of interest. That said, somehow I have failed to satisfy the reviewers and am being threatened with being blocked. I would like to have a productive discussion and am certainly open to any feedback that would help to improve the article. Numerous third party sources have been cited, and there are likely many more which could be researched by others. In addition, the mathematics and referenced patents and research are peer reviewed publications that can also be researched and cited.

I have worked to respond quickly to any feedback. I don't feel this is being argumentative, I am working diligently to respond in a timely way.

I would also note that I have found the reviewer comments on the article to be quite helpful, and it is evolving in a very good way. I would hope we can continue the dialog, and not end it. Although I naturally have a bias, I would still say this article has great potential for supporting academic and applied research in its field.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked the reviewer for further input.

How do you think we can help?

I believe the article is neutral and has sufficient third party sources and peer reviewed evidence. It would help if any remaining deficiencies could be specifically identified by either a third party or the reviewer. If we can do this, then I would be pleased to agree or make any final 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:Ooty#Did Pandyas, Cholas and Cheras ever rule Nilgiris? (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs)
• NitinBhargava2016 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute started with user NitinBhargava2016 making edits to various articles with content related to Kannada language and people. Pls refer to User_talk:NitinBhargava2016#Edits_in_various_articles. In the article Ooty, edits notable with the history of the place were accepted with sources. The user contended the line, Nilgiris was ruled by "Tamil kingdoms" on which discussion happened and sources were provided for the same. User reverting content stating the sources are not acceptable without citing any violation/reason and adds content related to Kannada not notable with history of Ooty. Further information at the talk page: Talk:Ooty#Did Pandyas, Cholas and Cheras ever rule Nilgiris?

With respect to the content in question, the sources have been quoted in the talk page. Re-producing the same here.

• First source, the first source (IBEF) states "not even the dynastic rulers—the Cheras, the Cholas, the Pandiyas, the Rashtrakutas, the Gangas, the Pallavas, the Kadambas and the Hoysalas— can be credited with discovering this jewel in their crown which remained uncelebrated till the British developed and modernised it".
• Second source, the book South Asia and Multilateral Trade Regime: Disorders for Development and Madras District Gazetteers: The Nilgiris states that "The location of the Nilgiris is unique that it was in the tri-junction of ancient Tamil kingdoms of Cholas, Cheras and the Pandyas. Hence, it was under Cheras, Cholas or local chieftains at various...".
• Third source, if you read about these Tamil kingdoms, say for e.g. during reign of Raja Raja Chola and Rajendra Chola, the territory extended all the way up to Ganges from the South which means Nilgiris was part of it and source book Maritime Heritage of India states "At their peak, the Cholas ruled over not just the whole of south India, but also conquered island nations".

While the road to Ooty and further developments were made by British, the territory was a part of kingdoms who ruled over time (wherein all Kannada kingdoms have been mentioned by the user himself) and mentioned sources clearly say that it was under the control of Cheras, Cholas (Tamil kingdoms) or local chieftains at various times.

Regarding the claims of statement by the other user, the "not" at the beginning of the sentence in source 1 does not alter the meaning of the the claim, the point there is that the kingdoms have ruled and whether they discovered it or not is the point here. User always disputed regarding the content of the sources rather than verifiability. User's comments Hilarious! Cholas ruled India's far south plains, and conquered up to Vengi kingdom of Godavari river delta, not all the way till Ganga in Bengal which were invaded but not conquered. Karnataka was ruled by the mighty Kalyani Chalukyas. All of Karnataka's highlands were thickly forested and inaccessible to southern plains of Kerala and Tamil Nadu except through Kolar which was the only known route. Only the natives of highlands knew the passes and secret routes to the plains and also controlled them thoroughly. again raises suspicions as to who has a W:NPOV and the user seems to have a affiliation with the area/people. I have merely stated what sources say and pages for e.g. Chola dynasty state with sources on the rule and expanse of the kingdoms. A mountain/hill would have never been ruled by the emperor directly and only local chieftains would have ruled as stated by the sources, who would report to the emperor. It does not matter that it is not controlled by the kingdom as if it inside the territory ruled by the kingdom and the chief accepts sovereignty, it is under the rule.Magentic Manifestations (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

My comments pasted above denote facts and in no way indicate a non-W:NPOV. It rather indicates user doesn't have W:NPOV as explained below. User completely twisted the source by deliberately omitting "not" for source 1. NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I have merely quoted lines from what you have said and without sources and deviating from the discussion, you talk about some story on secret routes and unknown territories. Also, hope you understand English language and I am repeating for the third time, as "not" in the source is not related to the "ruling" part of the sentence, but to the "discovery" of it. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User is pasting selected portions of my comments to create a wrong picture. The source citation is in no way a concrete proof of Chera/Chola rule over Nilgiris. Author of that source doesn't affirmatively say that Nilgiris was ruled by Cholas/Cheras/Pandyas at such a point of time in history and such inscriptions of theirs was discovered as a proof. On that yardstick, one can even add Kalabhras, Nolambas, Banas, etc., to that list of Nilgiri rulers as they ruled over large tracts of South India (containing Nilgiris) for long periods. But, no. We don't. Why? Reason is that none of the historical/archaeological artefacts pointing to their rule over Nilgiris has been discovered yet, although they might have ruled, they are unlucky in the form of artefact discovery and proofs. Example : If someone says 'Not even the Mauryas, Vakatakas, Satavahanas, Abhiras or Sakas can be credited with discovering gold in Kolar', it in no way means all these dynasties ruled over Kolar, not sensible at all. Important point : Author of that source, Ravi Sagar, writes for tourism update in India Now magazine of IBEF.org. Neither is he an authority on history, nor an archaeologist or professor or research scholar. Author has not cited any references or valid sources. Wikipedia should maintain its international standards and quality by refusing to accept any such disputed content or claims from tourism writers. NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asked for intervention from third user basis which sources were provided.

How do you think we can help?

Require clarification as to whether sources are reputed and the content that "ruled by Tamil kingdoms" is acceptable as per guidelines. Also, require intervention on whether the content added by the user "A hero stone (Veeragallu) with a Kannada inscription at Vazhaithottam (Bale thota) in the Nilgiri District, dated to 10th century CE has been discovered." is notable and can stay.

Dispute did not start with my edits to Kannada language or people. It started with user Magentic Manifestations refusing to delete 'various Tamil kingdoms ruled Nilgiris' which was inserted without any citation at all in the sole reference mentioned in the beginning '^[1]' as Nilgiris is presently in Tamil Nadu, user's home state! I immediately identified that this could be a possible act of bias/parochialism/chauvinism. I politely notified the user that the sole reference doesn't say a word about rule of Tamil kingdoms over Nilgiris instead of challenging and removing it right away. User thanked and asked me to search for references instead! 1st source - User twisted citation in source by deliberately omitting the negator 'not' in 'not even the dynastic rulers—the Cheras, the Cholas, the Pandiyas, the Rashtrakutas, the Gangas, the Pallavas, the Kadambas and the Hoysalas—can be credited with discovering this jewel in their crown'.' which confirmed my suspicion. 2nd source - "The location of the Nilgiris is unique that it was in the tri-junction of ancient Tamil kingdoms of Cholas, Cheras and the Pandyas. Hence, it was under Cheras, Cholas or local chieftains at various...". Nilgiris is at the tri-junction of Kerala, Karnataka and TN and not that of Cheras, Cholas and Pandyas. Even if it were to be, the tri-junction could well be on the plains off the heights of Nilgiri plateau which is above 2 km MSL. Is this concrete and credible proof for an international encyclopaedia? No! Couldn't find user's quote in any of the versions of 'Madras District Gazetteers: The Nilgiris'. Also, 'South Asia and Multilateral Trade Regime: Disorders for Development' by C. S. Sundaresan states - 'location of the Nilgiris was in the tri junction of the ancient Tamil kingdoms of Cholas, Cheras and the Pandyas, that it attracted a great political significance from the very early stages of its development'. User has twisted it to his liking and misquotes the source as — 'Hence, it was under Cheras, Cholas or local chieftains at various...' and says 'Nilgiris have been under the rule of Cheras, Cholas or Pandyas for centuries' which the source never says directly! Its clear that the user doesn't have W:NPOV.

I requested JorisvS for mediation where he clearly supported me -'Wikipedia policy requires that claims can be verified: WP:V. Another core content policy is neutral point of view: W:NPOV. Any content that violates these core policies may be summarily removed. Part of verifiability is that claims made in the article must be claims that the sources also make directly. The burden of evidence is on the editor who adds claims, not the one who challenges/removes them'. User mentions authors as S.K. Sahu and Nilamani Senapati as authors for this source 'Gazetteer of India : Nilgiris' who have commented on Nilgiris in Odisha and not Tamil Nadu. Not sure if they mention Nilgiris of TN also. Also the quote user has given is grammatically incorrect which increases the suspicion that it is not from the source. I give preference for facts and not any language in particular. Being a challenger of un-sourced, biased content, why should I have to go through all this explanation and waste my time? 3rd source - Cholas ruled from south India to Ganges, so they must have ruled Nilgiris also. Hilarious! Cholas ruled India's far south plains, and conquered up to Vengi kingdom of Godavari river delta, not all the way till Ganga in Bengal which were invaded but not conquered. Karnataka was ruled by the mighty Kalyani Chalukyas. All of Karnataka's highlands were thickly forested and inaccessible to southern plains of Kerala and Tamil Nadu except through Kolar which was the only known route. Only the natives of highlands knew the passes and secret routes to the plains and also controlled them thoroughly.

Inscriptions of Hoysalas, Gangas, Kadambas, Rashtrakutas, Dannayakas, Vijayanagara emperors, Wodeyars, Mysore Sultans have been discovered which is a concrete proof. But why no such inscription/manuscript/work mentions Chera/Chola/Pandya rule over Nilgiris and the date of their rule? Isn't this sufficient evidence for removing Tamil kingdoms? User asks for the specific wiki policy where in such sources are not acceptable. I request your help for suggesting the same. WP:V, W:NPOV. To conclude, any of the Tamil kingdoms' rule over Nilgiris is only a probability, but definitely not a certainty! If there is any concrete evidence, I will be the happiest person to have the disputed content included right away in the article.

I am moving the line 'A hero stone (Veeragallu) with a Kannada inscription at Vazhaithottam (Bale thota) in the Nilgiri District, dated to 10th century CE has been discovered.' to the article on Nilgiris.

NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon, I'm not ready to discuss this issue with user as he wants the disputed content to stay and then debate. I can't endlessly argue, I request your mediation and immediate intervention. I being a challenger of un-sourced, biased and parochial content, request you to decide on this issue. User has withdrawn the request without notifying me. Please let me know if anything else needs to be done for re-initiating this DR request here or if a new one needs to be raised. After I receive the confirmation that my request has been opened, I will notify the other user. NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been just barely adequate discussion at the talk page. The filing party has not notified the other party. My recommendation is that the two parties discuss for another 24 hours. If that discussion is inconclusive, one party may notify the other party and the other party may respond. I am leaving this thread open in order to permit more discussion at the talk page and then here if necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - This is a difficult case. One of the editors has asked me to mediate the case immediately, and seems to want to start mediation without intervening discussion on the talk page. There are two problems with that request. First, discussion here must be preceded by discussion at a talk page. This is just the way this board works. We don't have "pre-emptive mediation", which has been asked for in order to bypass discussion. Second, the request was for me to mediate this dispute. I am already mediating a dispute, and I only mediate one dispute at a time. (Other volunteers may work differently.) It is better to just ask, by filing or replying here, for moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Another note - There has been adequate discussion at the talk page. Another volunteer may accept this case. The parties will have to follow any ground rules set by the mediator. See the mediation policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon, there has been more than adequate discussion at the talk page. I do not see any point in discussing the issue with the other user any further as it doesn't seem to bear any result, is inconclusive and is still at square one from where we had started. Could you please help me take this case to another volunteer at the earliest as I am unaware of the process? Thanks,—NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I am, as requested, accepting this case for moderated discussion. Here are the ground rules. Be civil and concise. Civility is required (not nice-to-have) in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long posts (and some of the above posts are too long) are not helpful to identifying the issues. (I am aware that some editors think that if they write at greater length, it will be clearer or more forceful. That is a good-faith error.) Do not reply to other editors. Address your comments to the moderator (or to the community, which is the same concept). Comment on content, not on contributors. (The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, not to improve or challenge other editors.) Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion; it often gets nowhere. Do not edit the talk page while moderated discussion is in progress. It is also best not to discuss on the talk page, because comments on the talk page may be ignored here. Every editor should check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours, and should reply to questions within 48 hours. I will check every 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Please summarize, in one paragraph for each editor, what the issue or disagreement is, and what part of the article is affected.

Hi Robert McClenon, precisely and concisely, the dispute is regarding the line – 'various Tamil kingdoms ruled Nilgiris' in Ooty article's history section. There is conclusive proof for Chola rule over Nilgiris but not for Cheras and Pandyas which the term 'Tamil kingdoms' includes. Hence, better to replace various Tamil kingdoms with Cholas for now until reliable proof for Chera and Pandya rule are presented. For details, please refer above sections of this issue discussion as well as Ooty article's talk page. Thanks,—NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2016 (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

• Template:Anarchism sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Knight_of_BAAWA (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am having an edit skirmish with a user who insists that the page Anarcho-capitalism belongs in the "Schools of thought" category of the Anarchism sidebar; I do not. This is a long-running dispute which needs to be resolved. I believe it violates considerations of undue weight, as stated in my comments on the Talk page. It seems clear to me that the person who is arguing for its continued inclusion is doing so for purely ideological reasons (and I won't deny having the opposite ideological stance), and s/he has repeatedly refused or failed to provide sufficiently strong arguments as well as intentionally misrepresenting my arguments.

What should be the next step for a conclusive resolution as to whether or not this topic belongs on this sidebar?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have sought consensus on the Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

We need a final resolution as to whether or not Anarcho-capitalism belongs in the "schools of thought" section of the Anarchism sidebar. Note that the ideological war between the yea and nay sides extends far beyond Wikipedia.

I would like to see "Capitalism" (and possibly several other scarcely-relevant topics, particularly "Nationalism") removed from the "Schools of thought" section. They are mentioned in other places and, as fringe ideologies, that seems more like where they belong.

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

• Laura Branigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Devilmanozzy (talk · contribs)
• Thomas.W (talk · contribs)
• Born53 swe (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is over her birth place and birth date. Consensus was reached on the talk page, but they are still battling it. There needs to be a admin looking over this and taking care of it. The talk page is now in complete disarray. This is out of control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laura_Branigan

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laura_Branigan&action=history

A edit war has started.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

See the talk Page... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laura_Branigan#Consensus_discussion We had waited a good week, and Thomas.W and Born53 swe were instead chatting below the discussion. Today the edits I made got undone by Thomas.W with this summary "The RFC was closed prematurely and the discussion is still going on." No note of this by him on the talk page. This is getting old.

How do you think we can help?

At this point I really don't know. You need to get down there and read it for yourself. I done dealing with it.

• Volunteer note - On the one hand, there has been discussion at the article talk page after the RFC was closed on 4 April, and the other editors have been notified. However, the filing party appears to be requesting admin action, and this is not the place for requesting admin action. If there is edit-warring, it should be reported at WP:ANEW. This request should probably be closed, because it appears to be a conduct dispute (either edit-warring or editing against consensus). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It took a lot of effort to come down here and do this, much like this a few weeks ago. Please tell this will be resolved if I go to WP:ANEW. Devilmanozzy (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

If the edit-warring is still going on, the article is likely to be protected. Explain in your request that there already was an RFC and they are editing against consensus. Sometimes, when the filing is made at WP:ANEW, the other editors go away, in which case you can restore the consensus DOB. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2016 (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:Battle of Ia Drang#ARVN involvement (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Tnguyen4321 (talk · contribs)
• David J Johnson (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

We are discussing about whether South Vietnam should be stated in the infobox as a belligerent or not.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

talk page

How do you think we can help?

We should not state South Vietnam as a belligerent.

Why Ia Drang (or rather Why Chu Pong)? The NVA was staging an attack of the Pleime camp in the Chu Pong bases. The ARVN intended to destroy the three NVA 32nd, 33rd, and 66th Regiments with B-52 strike at the moment they regroup in assembly areas by December 1965. When the NVA decided for an earlier attack on 19 October with only the two 32nd and 33rd Regiments, the ARVN II Corps Command employed a delay tactic in repulsing the attack regiments back to Chu Pong where they rejoined the 66th Regiment to stage for a second attack of the camp. The ARVN II Corps Command requested the help of the 1st Air Cavalry Division in luring the enemy troops back to Chu Pong where they became suitable targets for B-52 strikes that went into action for 5 consecutive days from 15 to 20 November. The exploitation phase was assumed by the ARVN Airborne Brigade. This joint ARVN-US operation is narrated by BG McChristian, J2/MACV in "Intelligence Aspect of Plei Me/Chu Pong campaign (20 October to 20 November)" http://www.generalhieu.com/pleime_intel_J2-2.htm. Therefore, the two belligerents in this conflict are the NVA and the ARVN. The US only participated in an assisting role to the ARVN.

Nothing further to add. My views are on article Talk page and discussion should continue there. David J Johnson (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2016 (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:List of 2016 box office number-one films in the United States (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Fruitloop11 (talk · contribs)
• HENDAWG229 (talk · contribs)
• Ultraexactzz (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This has been going on for a month and we still can't come to an agreement.

It started over where Deadpool as the highest grossing R-rated film of 2016 should go. HENDAWG229 thought it should go in the first week of release. I disagreed and said the 3rd week adds to it's overall total at number 1 and putting it at the 3rd week would account for it's previous two weeks at number 1. He removed it over and over again and We got into this huge edit war about it, until he ended up being blocked by UltraExactZZ, (Who wold later become the admin that tried to lead us to an agreement) After he was blocked he waited a couple of days before editing again. Once he did he removed my milestone (without notifying me) and changed it to Deadpool became the second highest grossing R-rated film of all-time ($355.1 million) behind The Passion of the Christ ($370.7 million). I told him not to mess with my edits before we reach a resolution over it. He reported me for harassment to the Arbitration. They denied his case and locked the article for a whole week with his edit still on the charts. After that our admin got more involved with us, trying to get us to come to an agreement(Which he has done a very good job at doing) so the article wouldn't be locked again. I told HENDAWG229 I would be posting a chart of highest grossing films by rating of 2016, after the thread was unlocked. Once I did he posted that I needed to come to a consensus, which I think is pointless because we don't have enough users to form a consensus. I have tried to keep the milestone (and basically any edit I have made to the article) to the page, but the user keeps or has tried to find ways to remove my edits from the charts. This is my last resort. I don't know how else to do in trying to get the user to come to an agreement with me or let me keep my contributes to the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to compromise with said user. Telling him that adding a chart at the bottom of the page would be end the whole dispute over where the Deadpool milestone should go on the chart and add other rated films by rating (Which I wanted to do to begin with, but got caught up in the whole arguing about Deadpool) He refused and now wants it removed

How do you think we can help?

I think having us come to an agreement or removing the notes and the highest grossing films of 2016 and ratings all together is the only way to stop it. I have a feeling If I tried something new he would only complain and it and try to have it removed, So i can't really think of anything else that will stop the online dispute and arguing.

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

Users involved

• Yonk (talk · contribs)
• Cordless Larry (talk · contribs)
• BrumEduResearch (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

New Zealand's "Superdiversity Stocktake: Impact on Business, Government and on New Zealand".

I want to add criticism of the report. Other editors claim

1. the links I provided are "not notable" (not enough secondary coverage) 2."article is about concept not about New Zealand" 3. the article doesn't discuss conclusions of the report (so critique is out).

I have linked to New Zealand's TV One Q&A to add credibility to my source who is blogger and retired Reserve Bank of New Zealand analyst Michael Reddell (Croaking Cassandra). He links to a publication by a Wellington economics consultancy (Tailrisk Economics). This is a minority opinion compared to Chen's : "banks, companies, the Human Rights Commission, and the Ministry of Education"

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have suggested adding the claims made in the Superdiversity Stocktake with (brief) criticism.

How do you think we can help?

clarify what constitutes "notable' criticism and the role of secondary coverage (where public interest may be limited)?

Yonk wishes to add criticism of a report issued in New Zealand called the "Superdiversity Stocktake", which is mentioned in the article as an example of the use of the social science concept of superdiversity. My perspective is that we need to see some secondary coverage of this debate, but also that the article is really about the concept of superdiversity and is not the place to go into arguments about the impact of immigration on New Zealand. I'm not sure why this case has been opened, though. Yonk started an RfC on the article's talk page on 29 March, only to remove it today. I suggest reinstating the RfC and letting it run its course. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Just to note that I didn't receive a notification about this case being opened. I discovered it after seeing Yonk's edit at Talk:Superdiversity. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page, but the filing editor has not notified the other editors. It is the responsibility of the filing editor to notify the other editors. When the other editors are notified and if they agree to participate (since participation is voluntary), this case may be opened for discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2016 (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:William Lane Craig (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• BabyJonas (talk · contribs)
• Jess (talk · contribs)
• Epipelagic (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a long-running dispute over how this person should be characterized, and what kind of content should be predominant in the article. Me, and a number of others believe he should be characterized first and foremost by his professional and academic work, and secondly by his involvement in the subcommunities he is a part of.

Because this individual has doctoral degrees in philosophy and theology, publishes research primarily in philosophy and theology, and teaches philosophy at a university, I believe it is appropriate to characterize him as a philosopher.

I am concerned my interlocutor's emphasis on this person as a "Christian apologist" suggests an undue emphasis on the tinge and language of religious biography. I believe insisting on religious overtones over everything else in the biography is not appropriate for a broader audience.

I am not against referring to this individual's religious work, even in the lede. I just want the biography not to read with a narrow set of predominantly religious concerns.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

By considering the weight of the various points pro and con, and suggesting how consensus ought to develop.

• Volunteer note - There has been extensive discussion on the talk page by three editors, the two named parties, and User:Epipelagic. Epipelagic has not been included in the header of this case request and has not been notified. Jess has been notified. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify Epipelagic. Once that is done, the next step is to wait for comments from the other parties, since moderated discussion is encouraged but voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed that. BabyJonas (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I am opening this case for moderated discussion. I see that the other two editors have not made statements. Participation is voluntary, and if the other two editors do not make statements, I will close this case. If one editor makes a statement, we can continue. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. Overly lengthy statements do not clarify disputes. Comment on content, not on contributors. Every editor should check on this page and reply to questions within 48 hours. I will check at least every 24 hours. Do not edit the article while discussion here is in progress. It is better not to discuss the article at its talk page while discussion here is in progress, because discussion at the talk page may be ignored. Will each editor please state briefly how they want this person characterized in the lede paragraph and why, and also state any other issues that are in dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2016 (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:Armenian Genocide#Aghet inserted in the lede (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk · contribs)
• Diranakir (talk · contribs)
• Armen Ohanian (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue is whether the word "Aghet" (Catastrophe), used as a proper name, should be in the article lead as a name that Armenians use as an alternative name for the Armenian Genocide. There is an alternative Armenian name, "Medz Yeghern", already in the lead and Aghet would be used alongside it as a further alternative name. However, despite Numerous sources being presented showing Aghet is a name for the Armenian Genocide, including some stating that Aghet is the most common Armenian name used, Diranakir has on three occasions deleted Aghet from the lead. On the talk page the two editors opposing the insertion, Diranakir and Armen Ohanian, have based their argument for exclusion on what I see as "I don't like It" grounds. They have presented a mix of their personal I don't like it opinions together with a few web-based sources (opinion pieces published in online Armenian media) that express an opposition to the use of "Aghet". Diranakir and Armen Ohanian appear to want the article to obey the opinion of those few sources. I don't see any progress being made in the talk page. Both Diranakir and Armen Ohanian don't appear to be actually disputing that Aghet is a term for the Armenian Genocide that is used by Armenians. They just don't want it there (in the lead or anywhere in the article) because they don't like the word.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

On the talk page I have provided 12 references (all printed books) that explicitly refer to Aghet as being a name used for the Armenian Genocide, and have provided quotations from those sources. I have also provided some web only sources, but have not gone into those in detail, preferring to look for academic sources in published books.

How do you think we can help?

Have some third party voices explain to Diranakir and Armen Ohanian that personally disliking something is not a reason to exclude that something. And that sources which express dislike for the use of the word "Aghet" cannot be used as a reason to exclude that word from the article because they actually indicate that the term exists, is used, and is notable.

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the talk page. The filing party has notified the other editors. This case can be opened for moderated discussion by a volunteer if the other editors agree to moderated discussion (since moderated discussion is encouraged but voluntary). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: I'll be taking this case for moderated discussion. Although participation is voluntary, editors are encouraged to participate to come to a peaceful resolution. I'll open this case once the other participants indicate their willingness to participate. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 17:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: This case will be closed in 24 hours for lack of participation, (pinging the participants once Diranakir and Armen Ohanian) Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 21:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

NB, on 11 April Diranakir rejected the proposal of moderated discussion [1]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2016 (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

• Draft:Natalia Toreeva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Toreeva (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I'm writing the Draft:Natalia Toreeva, about the artist, the art group "School of Sidlin", and the time of repression at time of 1970s, which brought art to its high point. But I received 4th time of rejection, since it is not notable and need more rel. sources. I also do my contributions to another wiki pages related to the art and artists I knew at that time. Many of them already dead, and people are asking to write about that time of Art in USSR. But how I can contribute to other pages, if this draft can't be approved. One prev. editor sent question to Teahouse editors to look into it, and someone wrote that if the artist was part of the Art movement in USSR and now immigrated to USA it could automatically look as notability. I also looked in another examples, for ex. A. Belkin artist, it is very small input and was accepted. I understand, may be editing or grammar is needed to be improved, but reject the article for the same reason, looks the editors don't have enough knowledge in the art of USSR. And after the falling of USSR, this art is now under new beginning in Russia. And reject these kind of article is a big hole in understanding this art on the West.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I added more sources for info, added pics, and tried to talk with each person who rejected the article, but looks the same repetition answer from another prev. editors.

How do you think we can help?

If I compare with another example (A. Belkin) article, or other artists, whom I knew in St. Petersburg, and their articles were accepted, I tried to follow the same structure, but looks my article is longer than those. So you might want to reduce, or editing the article itself, but the content of the article about the artist and that time, is important part in the art history of USSR, so to reject the article is a big mistake, specif you ask my contrib. to Unofficial art of Russia article.

• Volunteer note - The requested subject of this discussion is a draft autobiography in draft space. Please read the conflict of interest policy and the autobiography policy. The submission of autobiographies is discouraged (less so in draft space than in article space, but still discouraged). Authors of drafts that are declined via Articles for Creation are invited to request advice from experienced editors at the Teahouse. The author has not identified or notified the declining reviewers, but draft articles are not the usual scope of this noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2016 (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

• Palace of the Shirvanshahs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Interfase (talk · contribs)
• HistoryofIran (talk · contribs)
• LouisAragon (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User HistoryofIran added Perisan spelling on the article about the monument in Azerbaijan. He explained his act as the Shirvanshas were Persiaized in the 11th century and had Persian identity even at the period when the palace was formed. I explained him on a talkpage that the building of the palace was built in 15th century during the lates dynasty of the Shirvanshahs, Derbendids, and there is no any sources claiming that Derbendids were Persians because the population of the region were Turkicizated after the conquest of the region by the Seljuq Turks and this process was continued in subsequent centuries during the migration of Turkic groups during the Mongol conquests in the 13th century.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I asked users to show any source claiming that the founders of the palace (Derbendids) were Persians. They still didn't show such source (only sources about Persianisation of Shirvenshahs in the 11 century which cannot be related to the latest Dynasty due to ethnic processes in the region).

How do you think we can help?

I think third persons who have experience in resolving such disputes may gave fairly decission and prevent further edit wars.

Actually we did show him sources, he just don't like what he is seeing. Just read the whole discussion, then you'll understand what I am saying. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You showed sources where there is no anything about the Persian identity of Derbendids in the 15th century, only about the Persianization of the Shirvanshahs in the 11th century (several centuries before palace construction and another dynasty). --Interfase (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

We already have shown you various sources - assuming that the identity/ethnos of the Shirvanshahs had changed with the advent of the Derbendids is pure WP:OR looking at the sources. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

All of the listed users need to be notified by the person who files a case before the case can be opened. HistoryofIran is apparently already aware of this case, but it is the responsibility of Interfase to notify everyone. KSFT^C 02:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page, but not within the past three weeks (as well as the other two editors not having been notified). The editors should resume discussion on the talk page. If discussion fails, and if proper notice of this filing is given, and all editors agree, moderated discussion can be started here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 02:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

1. I put all users' names involvlving on the discussion on talk page here as a link. So, they should be notified (and see notification on "Ypur alerts" link). 2. If you look at the discussion you can see that we came to the dead end on discussion, so moderated discussion is needed. --Interfase (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

We didn't come to a dead end, you just keep making the same disruptive revert over and over. We have already shown you sources, while you have shown nothing but your personal opinion. Furthermore, I didn't get notificed about this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2016 (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:Antisemitism and the New Testament#Update and sources (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Basileias (talk · contribs)
• Dontreader (talk · contribs)
• Nishidani (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

One editor will not work anything out on the talk page. He stated "Frankly I have no intention of negotiating with Dontreader...," (Nishidani).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to ask for content to be discussed on the talk page before entering.

How do you think we can help?

User Nishidani's aggressiveness probably needs to be addressed, the tone in which is interacts on the talk page shuts down mature and reasonable communication.

• Volunteer note - There has been sufficient discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other parties of the filing of this request. It should be noted that participation here is voluntary, and that an editor who does not wish to discuss on the talk page is unlikely to discuss here, although they are still encouraged to discuss anywhere. The filing party should notify the other parties, and then statements from the parties will be awaited. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2016 (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:Sudden infant death syndrome#study on use of fans (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Wpegden (talk · contribs)
• Doc James (talk · contribs)
• Zad68 (talk · contribs)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs)
• Ozzie10aaaa (talk · contribs)
• WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs)
• Drchriswilliams (talk · contribs)
• DHeyward (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I proposed to add a mention of a study on SIDS concerning the effect of fan use on the risk. One study has been done on this issue, so the link is not considered established. However, several high-quality secondary sources discuss the fact that the study was done. I believe it makes sense for the wiki article to refer to the fact that this study was done, in some form or another. I am NOT advocating that the wiki article assert that fans reduce SIDS use, which I think would be an improper dependence on primary sources in a medical article.

Several editors have objected, although now some editors are also agreeing that it is appropriate to mention the study in some way.

To me it seems that the main objections are: 1) If we mention this study, then some parents might think that by using a fan, they can ignore other SIDS recommendations.

To me, this objection is a violation of WP:MEDMOS. Specifically, we should not "emphasize or de-emphasize verifiable facts so that readers will make the 'right' choice in the real world." (In this case, the verifiable fact was that one limited study was done, which found a beneficial effect from fans.)

2) We should not mention the study, because it does not appear in the AAP policy statements on SIDS.

To me, this seems to be in disagreement with WP:MEDMOS, specifically, the directive that we are writing for a general audience, instead of an audience of patients and practitioners, which are the audience of the AAP guidelines. In particular, some members of a general audience (e.g., scientists, people without babies, etc.) will be interested in the state of research on connections with SIDS, even if they are not solid enough for clinical recommendations. The fact that several high-quality secondary sources mention the study on fans should suffice to justify its inclusion. If we restrict the article to only include items from the AAP policy directives, we are writing for a limited audience.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried hard to have a comprehensive and productive discussion on the talk page. I have tried to engage constructively with all objections raised there.

(On a separate note, Jytdog has said that he is now WP:SHUNing me, so I'm not sure whether or not he will participate.)

How do you think we can help?

Despite my (and presumably, others') efforts, the discussion on the talk page as been quite unfocused.

It seems like it should be possible to reach consensus on some basic questions, such as: should the wiki article only discuss AAP policy proposals on SIDS? When is it not appropriate to include verifiable facts which are discussed in high-quality secondary sources? And hopefully, this would start the process of drafting something we can all agree on.

Sorry but I don't think a DRN process would be a good use of time and I'm unlikely to participate here. We've already talked about it a lot on the Talk page and it's pretty clear there isn't consensus to include, I don't see what the benefit would be by arguing it again over here. Zad68 16:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This is blatant WP:IDHT from the OP, who has literally no support for the content they want to add and will not hear that. Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

as per prior comments [2] your edits were not WP CONSENSUS per Talk:Sudden_infant_death_syndrome,[3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

There was a discussion that was already underway when I came across it, 28 comments were already listed and so I thought a fresh voice might help. There are a number of parts of the Wikipedia SIDS article that aren't up-to-date or well written. But this was a discussion that appeared to centre around the relative merits of making use of a study that had looked at whether fans might alter risk. SIDS is a diagnosis that is made post-mortem and our understanding of some of the risks has been changing over time. There have been attempts at systematic review of the available evidence, with one of the most prominent examples of this published by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2011. There are aspects of SIDS that are more straightforward to analyse, so there are some recommendations that have some weight of evidence behind them. We should not be giving undue prominence to research that is flawed or where there is sufficient doubt about the validity of the findings. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Not in the lead. Not authoritative in any way and not suggesting that fans mitigate the risk of SIDS. Otherwise fans are great. So are humidifiers and dehumidifiers. --DHeyward (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer note – The listed users have not been notified on their talk pages. It is the responsibility of the user who files a case to notify all the involved users. KSFT^C 15:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I have put in the notification templates now. Wpegden (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, there seems to be some question raised by Zad above regarding WP:TE problems here. I think maybe a better first step than DRN here might be to file an RfC as per WP:RFC and notify any interested WikiProjects or other groups regarding that. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and put in a RfC. To be clear, the reason I though it was appropriate to request DRN is that there have been these accusations starting which I don't think are grounded in what has actually happened, so that a moderated discussion would be helpful. For example, Jytdog's comment above that I have "literally no support for the content [I] want to add and will not hear that" can be clearly seen to be false from the talk page, where WhatamIdoing is now very supportive, and Drchriswilliams has indicated that he is open to the content in certain sections but not others (which I am completely fine with). Wpegden (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with John Carter. RFC normally comes after DRN if DRN doesn't help. KSFT^C 19:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok sorry I went ahead and filed an RFC in response to his suggestion. I'm not as familiar with some of these conventions as I should be. Wpegden (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2016 (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

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom and User talk:15zulu (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Editor FIN (talk · contribs)
• 15zulu (talk · contribs)
• Cassandro (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon retired from the House of Lords under House of Lords Reform Act 2014 on 31 March 2016. According to the Act, the retirement took effect at the beginning of the date (i.e. on midnight). Therefore, he was not a member of the House of Lords at any point of his retirement date, which is merely a technicality, because the beginning of a date is the same moment as the end of the preceding date. I originally put 30 March as his term end date on infobox, because this was the last day, when he was a member of the House of Lords. 15zulu disagreed with me on which date should be given as the term end date. He thinks that it should be 31 March, because this is the official retirement date. Thus, we have a disagreement on whether to use the resignation date or the last day when a person actually held the mentioned position as a term end date in an infobox. Often these are the same day, but when a resignation takes effect on midnight, these can be different.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

First, we discussed the issue on 15zulu's user talk. Then he added the topic on WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom talk.

How do you think we can help?

You might give us information on practices or opinions on which date should be used as the end date for a term of office in an infobox.

All sources give one date, 31 March 2016. The current discussion at the project page has Cassandro and me stating that we should use the date as reported by sources and only one user, Editor FIN, saying we should use a date that's not in any sources regarding Armstrong-Jones. Editor FIN has also failed to provide any examples on Wikipedia or elsewhere where the end of term is before the retirement date, instead arguing that it's my burden to prove. Since he wants a date which is different than all the sources, than it's his burden to convince other that we should use this other date. 15zulu (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - First, this case is misfiled, in that, although the parties have been notified, the case is not listed correctly (probably because of an attempt to list two talk pages at once). Second, the filing part is asked to read the essay on lame edit wars. I personally will not accept a case over an off-by-one date. (Anyway, compromise is not possible, since 30.5 March is not a day.) I don't object if other editors will accept this lame case. My suggestion is to take this case to the Help Desk and see if someone can propose an answer based on the Manual of Style. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.

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:Surface Book (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• TranslucentCloud (talk · contribs)
• 92.29.150.105 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue is emerged after a brief edit war. Some unregistered editor kept adding the information about some past technical issue of Surface Book and Surface Pro 4. To put it short, for some users the "sleep" function of these devices was not functioning properly. This issue was resolved with a routine software update in the February 2016. I think, that this and such information has a non-encyclopedic nature and should not be included into Wikipedia. Some other editor insists it should. My opinion is based on WP:IINFO and WP:UNDUE Wikipedia policies, other editor is yet to have to provide his rationale. This issue is still unresolved, and I do not want to participate in the edit war, so I temporarily ceased my Wikipedia activity.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Trying to settle the case on the aforementioned Talk page. Asked for a third party opinion, but unfortunately it didn't helped to resolve the issue.

How do you think we can help?

Provide your guidance how to deal with such issues now and in the future.

Volunteer comment – DRN is for content disputes that haven't reached a consensus on talk pages. You need to discuss the issue before bringing it here. If the problem is with another editor's behavior, you can bring that to the administrator's noticeboard. I am not opening or closing this case right now. KSFT^C 20:46, 20 April 2016 (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:Tony1#Edits on Anthony Marinelli (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 009o9 (talk · contribs)
• Tony1 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Disclosure: I am a paid editor.

A user is on a campaign to reduce interwiki-linking as expressed on his personal page I have no opinion on the matter and excepted accepted those edits to Anthony Marinelli.

Following the guidance in MOS:DATEUNIFY, I notified the user and reverted (only) the References section to the expected "xx month xxxx" date format to conform with accessdate and archivedate parameters. (The dmy format is also the default in the various referencing tools.)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The user then reverted this edit, claiming that the subject of the article is American.

I pointed out that the second paragraph of WP:MOSNUM agrees with me on this, and that the dmy format is also the first listed in MOS:DATEFORMAT. Additionally, the subject of the article also holds Italian citizenship.

I waited a day, and with no response reverted the References section once again to conform.

This user reverted today without justification.

How do you think we can help?

1. Can we inform this user that databases (Wikidata) and external APIs may be expecting the reference dates to be listed in a expected and sortable format?

2. Do we need to modify the citation interfaces to suit the preference of this single user? I am going to continue to use the interface which prefills dmy in the accessdate parameter.

3. Perhaps we could defer to the guidance in WP:MOSNUM defer to the original text which was dmy in the first sentence.

Volunteer comment – There has been very little discussion on the talk page. Tony1 has only commented once. Also, this case seems to be mostly about his behavior, not the content. It's been less than two days since your last comment on his talk page, but if he continues to refuse to discuss the issue, you can bring that to the administrators' noticeboard. I am not opening or closing this case right now. KSFT^C 20:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment - I will be closing this case as incorrectly filed and premature. It is incorrectly filed, because it doesn't cite an article, and because the other editor wasn't notified. If there is a content issue, discuss it on the article talk page (and if discussion fails, follow a dispute resolution procedure). As noted, if there really is a conduct issue, first read the boomerang essay, and then consider reporting it to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2016 (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 state leaders in 2006 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of state leaders in 2007 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of state leaders in 2008 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of state leaders in 2009 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of state leaders in 2010 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of state leaders in 2011 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Neve-selbert (talk · contribs)
• Zoltan Bukovszky (talk · contribs)
• GoodDay (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute going on between I and Zoltan Bukovszky over the necessity of the inclusion of acting state leaders on articles such as List of state leaders in 2006, 2007, et al. serving concurring during the tenure of an incapacitated president. Both I and GoodDay would like to remove these state leaders from inclusion as we believe that since there had not been vacancy at the time their inclusion is merely trivial as the de jure president had always been, for example Fidel Castro or José Ramos-Horta, etc. regardless of their temporary incapacity. Zoltan wholly disagrees with this assertion and remains strongly of the view that acting state leaders serving concurrently should indeed be included fully (equally bulleted below the de jure president temporarily incapacitated). I soon came up with a compromise of a footnote, i.e. giving mention to these leaders albeit in a footnote neatly tucked away if a reader was interested. Zoltan then proceeded to dismiss this option as a compromise. We are now stuck. I, for one, believe there to be a major consistency flaw, e.g. both Ronald Reagan and Hugo Chávez were widely perceived to have been incapacitated during their incapacities in 1981 and 2012–13 respectively—yet neither had used Acting presidents unlike Castro and Ramos-Horta. The impression that this may give to readers may or may not be worthy of note—although it remains my view that this is an excessive use of WP:WEIGHT to display these acting de facto leaders on par with the actual de jure president that has become merely incapacitated (not suspended) on a temporary basis.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A compromise option, i.e. including the acting de facto state leaders serving concurrently in a footnote, has been endorsed both by myself and GoodDay. Zoltan duly dismisses this option as a credible compromise.

How do you think we can help?

A thorough review of the compromise option could perhaps prove to be a good idea. Contrary to Zoltan's viewpoint that the footnote option is a "deletion of relevant information", the footnote does actually give a greater background and/or insight to the (constitutional, etc.) situation at hand than the current status quo that is without any such footnote.

- These articles are about state leaders, so if someone served as acting president or acting prime minister, then they should naturally be listed in the article.

- Footnotes can be used to explain the background and reasons of the incumbent's leave of absence, if necessary.

- As per our previous discussion Neve-selbert wants to include an acting president when the substantive president is undergoing an impeachment process, but not when they are incapacitated for medical reasons. This distinction is irrelevant because both causes lead to the same end result: office holder on leave of absence, and their powers temporarily exercised by the acting leader. On the other hand GoodDay only wants to include acting leaders where there is no substantive office holder - which to me appears inconsistent (sometimes the acting leader became the next substantive office holder upon the previous incumbent's death, resignation or impeachment).

- Wikipedia editors shouldn't try to overwrite history based on what should have happened. If Reagan and Chavez did not have acting presidents then none should be invented for them, but if Castro and Ramos-Horta had acting presidents during their incapacity, then those should be included.

- Deleting or hiding acting leaders in a footnote would bereave the article of people who actually led their countries, sometimes for quite a considerable time (in the case of Raúl Castro, Phoumi Vongvichit and Gerald Cash it was several years). ZBukov (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

We should be having this content discussion at a designated article talkpage, which would cover all List of state leaders in Year articles & thus seek a consensus. Then if that fails, have an Rfc. Other editors haven't gotten a chance to give their input on this matter. Going to DRN, is too early. GoodDay (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Responding to request - Incapacitated means in this case, not being able to perform one's powers & duties, while still holding the office. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion at User talk:Zoltan Bukovszky. Is that sufficient, since the discussion appears to be about six article pages. The other editors have been notified. Will another experienced volunteer please answer the question of whether this noticeboard can discuss an issue involving multiple articles? If not, the next step is probably a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment by non-moderating volunteer - In some countries, including the United States, there is a formal procedure for designation of an acting head of state. In the United States, this is defined by the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In the case of Ronald Reagan, there was no Twenty-fifth Amendment designation when Reagan was shot, so that he continued to act in his own authority. When Ronald Reagan underwent surgery, he did issue a Twenty-fifth Amendment designation of Vice-president George W. Bush as acting President, but nothing newsworthy happened while he was unconscious except that he underwent surgery. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Ya mean of course Prez. Ronald W. Reagan passed his powers & duties temporarily on to Vice Prez. George H. W. Bush in 1985 :) PS - the 25th amendment's third clause was also invoked briefly in 2002 & 2007, where Prez. George W. Bush temporarily passed powers & duties onto Vice Prez. Dick Cheney :) GoodDay (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This dispute already has obviously been extensively discussed on a talk page, and I think what is missing is what each party's definition of "incapacitated" because I think it may be at the root of the problem. Would each side please state their definition of "incapacitated"? Joel.Miles925 (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The whole notion of an "incapacitated" leader is wholly debatable. Indeed, many would consider Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe or Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand as incapacitated leaders, despite the fact that they are both officially "capacitated", as of this writing. My point is, the definition of "incapacitated" really depends on your own POV. For example, Bush was only incapacitated for a several hours in 2002 and 2007 and whether or not the international community recognised Cheney as the legitimate acting leader of the USA for that short time period is uncertain. Furthermore, I believe that the main culprit in this dispute is the consistency involved in respect to situations like these. As GoodDay noted in the talk page discussion, there was never a vacancy in the office of e.g. President of East Timor in 2008 or President, Prime Minister, or First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba in 2006–08. Considering his reasoning alone, my principal judgment would be to do away with these acting leaders serving concurrently as it creates confusion as to who was the actual official leader of that given country during that given time period. Having considered the arguments of the opposing side, I thought a footnote would be a good compromise option (instead of listing the acting leader equally bulleted underneath the temporarily incapacitated de facto one). This proposal was also rejected by the opposing side. All in all, my definition of an incapacitated leader is rather less trivial than one may expect—many leaders are incapacitated from time to time, and many leaders do not feel the need to have an Acting president to temporarily stand-in for them (and if they do, it usually goes unnoticed by the mainstream media and the international community, e.g. Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel in 2016), so therefore the whole notion of there being two presidents of one country at one time is rare and a frankly quite bizarre concept that does not adequately fit in a consistent manner on par with other similar situations that occurred have previously. My judgment is sound: a footnote should be apt enough for these special situations and nothing more and probably nothing less.--Neve–selbert 18:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I do like the idea of a footnote, but the problem is that we can't get all parties involved to agree. I will confirm that all parties have been sufficiently notified (ZBukov), and if so we should probably begin considering options that everyone would agree with (assuming all editors appear). Joel.Miles925 (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Each country's legal system probably has a definition for "incapacity", and it's not something I or we at Wikipedia would have to make a decision about. We are in no position to overwrite a country's decision to install or not to install an acting president. If Zimbabwe has not installed an acting president, then Neve-selbert's impression about President Robert Mugabe's state of health is irrelevant because it will not "create" an acting president. And looking for a common definition of incapacity is wholly beside the point, because leaders can go on a leave of absence for a host of different reasons (e.g. criminal investigation - Moshe Katsav, clinical depression - Kjell Magne Bondevik, constitutional impeachment - Traian Basescu, medical emergency - José Ramos-Horta, etc). And regarding acting leaders all we can - and should - do is note and duly include them in the list. ZBukov (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE, the sheer inclusion of these acting presidents, etc. serving concurrently on par with the official presidents bulleted above is really quite simply, in my humble opinion, a result of undue and excessive weight. The footnote option gives us the best of both worlds in many respects, i.e. these temporary stand-in leaders are mentioned, while tucked away neatly in a footnote.--Neve–selbert 20:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Non-Moderating Volunteer Note - The filing part, User:Neve-selbert, has been indefinitely blocked. Unless the two other parties wish to discuss with each other, it would probably be advisable for the moderator or coordinator to close the case. If the filing party is unblocked and wishes to re-open discussion, they can refile. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: (non-moderating) - The moderator volunteer (Joel.Miles925) has not edited since 14 April 2016 and no objection against closing this case has been heard yet. Hence, this case will be closed in 24 hours for lack of participation. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 03:34, 21 April 2016 (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:Boyce Watkins (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stevietheman (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Stevietheman has repeatedly removed a direct quotation with regard to the Lil Wayne/ Dr Boyce Watkins controversy. First Stevietheman has argued that citations require notability and then that the citation violated [Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons biographies].

Stevietheman seems to be confused about rules for citations. Direct quotations from primary sources do not require notability nor do they require secondary sources.

Stevietheman has also violated the three revert rule in an attempt to dominate the dispute. I have made attempts to talk on the page and on his talk page with no response.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried updating my edits to remove any potential bias and requested advice on how to incorporate the quotation. I have also tried to inform Stevietheman of the rules.

How do you think we can help?

Perhaps multiple third parties should attempt to find a way of inserting the quotation in an unbiased manner that reflects the nature of Dr. Boyce Watkins quote. This quotation provides relevant biographical information and other quotations by Dr. Boyce WAtkins help imbibe readers with a sense as to who Dr. Boyce Watkins is. IF this goes against the rules of Wikipedia, I would be happy to leave this issue alone.

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:Boyce Watkins (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Stevietheman (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Editor believes that quotations from primary source materials from living people also need secondary source materials. I have posted a source with a video of Dr Boyce watkins making a statement directly related to the appropriate topic of the wikipedia section. The citation was appropriate, verifieable, and reliable. The editor seems to want to dominate the page in an attempt to exert some sort of control. He has fabricated his own rules and insisted that they must be followed

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to explain the rules to stevietheman. I have also made edits that could have been perceived as problematic.

How do you think we can help?

I believe if primary citations from reliable and verifieable sources require secondary sources as well this rule needs to be made explicit. Otherwise a third party should find the best way to enter the quotation and explain as best as possible that Stevietheman is not entitled to create his own rules.

This is a WP:BLP and therefore we have to be especially careful. The editor wanting to add a quote from a video is selectively pulling a quote they think has context but also appears to be an attempt to place the subject in an unflattering light, to paint the subject a particular way. They believe just because the subject said something in a primary source that it can be added, just because it relates to other content. The problem is that they are subjectively deciding the context of its inclusion. If what Watkins said here is so noteworthy, it would have been covered in secondary sources somewhere, like the other similar content was, showing its contextual relation. When did this quote from the subject's uploaded video become newsworthy? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: "The editor seems to want to dominate the page in an attempt to exert some sort of control. He has fabricated his own rules and insisted that they must be followed." No such thing has occurred. I have referred to the policies/guidelines of this site in my disagreement with the inclusion of this material. But if you want to talk about exerting control, the IP editor wanting to decide the newsworthiness of something on their own is a problem, and also there's an issue where even in the middle of our discussing this, the IP editor kept reverting back to their version. The proper approach would be to rollback to the previous version and keep it there until we had reached some form of resolution. That and WP:BLP requirements are why I kept reverting back. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:06, 23 April 2016 (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

• University of Northern New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mdupont (talk · contribs)
• Neutrality (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The Commission_on_English_Language_Program_Accreditation has been busy whitewashing their website to try and hide the fact that they accredited the fake university. I caught them with multiple archives of the website after I noticed they removed the main listing. I have provided screenshots of the google cache, prints and downloads of the original page and multiple archives from different web tools of the old content. Neutrality still does not want to admit this as evidence.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

none

How do you think we can help?

I would like to know how I can reference a web snapshot as proof of whitewashing. There must be some precedent on this.

•  Volunteer note: This dispute has not been discussed thoroughly yet; only evidence of discussion is on the filing party's talk page. In addition, this dispute is relatively simple and seems to be resolvable by candid non-mediated discussion and maybe a third opinion, so there is likely no need for DRN. File again if a) discussion fails to resolve the dispute and b) extensive discussion has taken place. Esquivalience ^t 02:52, 14 April 2016 (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

• Template:Anarchism sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Knight of BAAWA (talk · contribs)
• Interrexconsul (talk · contribs)
• Eduen (talk · contribs)
• N-HH (talk · contribs)
• FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk · contribs)
• Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am having an edit skirmish with a user who insists that the page Anarcho-capitalism belongs in the "Schools of thought" category of the Anarchism sidebar; I do not. This is a long-running dispute which needs to be resolved. I believe it violates considerations of undue weight, as stated in my comments on the Talk page. It seems clear to me that the person who is arguing for its continued inclusion is doing so for purely ideological reasons (and I won't deny having the opposite ideological stance), and s/he has repeatedly refused or failed to provide sufficiently strong arguments as well as intentionally misrepresenting my arguments.

What should be the next step for a conclusive resolution as to whether or not this topic belongs on this sidebar?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have sought consensus on the Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

We need a final resolution as to whether or not Anarcho-capitalism belongs in the "schools of thought" section of the Anarchism sidebar. Note that the ideological war between the yea and nay sides extends far beyond Wikipedia.

I would like to see "Capitalism" (and possibly several other scarcely-relevant topics, particularly "Nationalism") removed from the "Schools of thought" section. They are mentioned in other places and, as fringe ideologies, that seems more like where they belong.

This edit-war against anarchocapitalism has been ongoing for at least a decade. In that time, it has been decided on the anarchism talk page and the template talk page time and again to be inclusive in spite of the feelings of those who do not like capitalism. And this time is more of the same, which is just hatred. In fact, 24.197.253.43 called the inclusion of anarchocapitalism on the template page "vandalism". Should you think I am misquoting him, I assure you that I am not. To wit: "I do not apologize for the reversion war with User:Knight of BAAWA as I consider the inclusion of "Anarcho-capitalism" to be vandalism. S/he clearly has an ideological axe to grind and their claims of neutrality are laughable." And we have the usual from Eduen with scarce-quotes, and other sundry who are just lumping in with hate instead of trying to make the template better.

This is simply yet another bad-faith edit on the part of those who have an ideological axe to grind against anarchocapitalism. Period. Nothing more. Wikipedia is supposed to be inclusive and objective, yet time and again those with an ideological axe to grind against anarchocapitalism refuse to accept that, preferring instead to exclude due to their own biases. Now I'm not saying that I'm not biased: I am. However, I hold to the inclusive idea of Wikipedia. Otherwise, for instance, on the christianity page there'd be edit wars with the protestants vs the catholics or jws or some other sect trying to remove mention of one or the other. You can see where this leads: chaos for Wikipedia. Far better to be inclusive.

Further, it seems those who do not like anarchocapitalism do not understand what "fringe" means on Wikipedia. They think "fringe" means "minority position", when it means something much different. Quoting from "What Fringe is Not", we find "WP:FRINGE has nothing to do with politics or opinions. (For example, a small political party may be a fringe party, but it is not appropriate to cite FRINGE when discussing such parties.) Politics and opinions may be on 'the fringe' of public perception, but the matter of our FRINGE guideline deals directly with what can be proven or demonstrated using the scientific method by academics, scholars, and scientists. Political opinions about recent history, future predictions, social opinion, and popular culture cannot be fringe because the basis of the opinion is not scientific or academic." and "WP:FRINGE is most often abused in political and social articles where better policies such as WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE are appropriate. Citing WP:FRINGE in discussions and edit summaries is often done by POV pushers in an attempt to demonize viewpoints which contradict their own."

We can see that fringe is being attempted, and was abused already by Iterrexconsul, whereupon I had to quote him the entirety of What Fringe Is Not on his talk page to get him to understand.

So let us embrace inclusivity and objectivity. I do hope the other editors will agree that this is a good thing. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The editor Knight of BAAWA has continuously fought for the inclusion of "Anarcho-Capitalism" on the template for the side bar for Anarchism, specifically under the "Schools of Thought" section. However, the vast preponderance of scholars contend that, despite the name, anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. The greatest objections most scholars have to it being considered anarchism is the fact that it not only condones, but encourages the concept of private property, which one of anarchism's central tenets is to oppose. The key issue at hand is that of all groups of people, there is only one informed group that would define anarcho-capitalism as an anarchist school of thought, that is its own adherents (which Knight of BAAWA has clearly show he/she is one, frequently calling all who disagree "haters"). Every other reputable source that has more than a passing knowledge of anarchism, both adherents and independent scholars, instead label it as being a type of libertarianism. I would contend that the relationship between Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarchism is the same as that of National Socialism and Socialism. While they both share perhaps a vague concept of the role of government (Ancaps and anarchists saying none, National Socialists and Socialists saying centralized), the only other similarity is in the name, and in fact once examined at any depth they are revealed to be in fact very very different indeed. So, I would propose that Anarcho-Capitalism not be included as a school of thought of anarchism. However, I do believe the debate as to its nature is relevant and can be included in the sidebar under “issues”. Interrexconsul (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Basically most of the general sources on anarchism do not include this strange combination of words called "anarcho-capitalism" as a form of anarchism and as a matter of fact don´t even mention it. The few works that mention it tend to say that it is a part of right wing politics and radical economic liberalism and, as such, contrary to one of the main characteristics of anarchism which has always been and continues to be, anti-capitalism. Even though we have different editors who remove that thing from this template, as can be seen by anyone in the page of edits of the talk section, user Knight of BAAWA keeps bringing it back and it is a sort of personal crusade of his to do this. This happens even though everyone tells him more or less the same thing. Mainly that anarcho-capitalism is not included in general sources as part of anarchism and that it is such a minoritarian position historically and geographically that it does not deserve inclusion within "anarchists schools of thought" even thogh that does not mean that the wikipedia article "anarchocapitalism" should be deleted. I don´t think it should be deleted since it does have a significant literature but mainly one located very clearly within US economic liberal and right wing problematics and agendas. As such political agendas historically considered by anarchism as enemies to fight againts even to the point of resorting to high levels of violence as this very anti-capitalist large anarchist political action shows.--Eduen (talk) 06:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Per Eduen and Interrexconsul. There's a clear dispute about classifying Anarcho-capitalism (and similarly National Anarchism) as a form of anarchism in authoritative sources, and even among anarcho-capitalist writers themselves, and hence WP should not classify it that way definitively, while nonetheless acknowledging the connection. It's quite a simple problem in that respect, but the debate is being made additionally difficult by one editor repeatedly insisting it has to be simply and definitively classified that way regardless, merely on their say-so, and constantly berating anyone who questions that on an objective basis as a "hater". Even compromise proposals are simply vetoed and any changes edit-warred out. N-HH talk/edits 07:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I have nothing to say, except that my involvement in this issue has been minimal, and that I reserve the right to have little to nothing to do with it in future. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, while I stand by the comments I have made on this issue in the past, I do not see myself participating any further in the dispute. I do not wish to be part of the dispute resolution process. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to ask, "Who are these people?" With the exception of Eduen and Knight of BAAWA, each of whom is a long-term editor of this template, neither the filer nor any of the other "users involved" ever edited the template or its talk page before this week. So maybe somebody ought to ask what's really going on here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, Esquivalience, I don't know how you concluded I've "shown apathy regarding this dispute." Unlike the johnny-come-latelies who showed up this week to try to tear down this template, I've been editing it and protecting it from vandals since 2013. I think if the template can include black anarchism ("a loose term sometimes (and only recently) applied in the United States to group together a number of people of African descent (mainly from a Black Panther Party background) who identify with anarchism") and infoanarchism ("coined in a TIME Magazine article called 'The Infoanarchist' in July 2000") as anarchist "schools of thought", it ought to include anarchocapitalism as well. Nothing apathetic about my edit history at the template or anything I've written about it. If this charade is going to proceed, I'd like to continue to be part of it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for my semi-blind inference (the wording of your initial comment seemed like you did not want to participate further), but now all parties have made statements and have no objections to dispute resolution (except FreeKnowledgeCreator, who has explicitly stated that he does not want to participate), so it may commence. Esquivalience ^t 02:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Personally i do not have any problem with taking out inforanarchism also from "schools of thought". Black anarchism has more of a line of wirtten work, intelectuals engaged with it and actual practice. On the other hand "infoanarchism" seems to me is a vague concept with few theoretical development. It could very well only be included in "concepts"--Eduen (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

This user for one is not a "johnny come lately" thanks, but has edited on politics topics for around nine years. I started an RFC a while back on this very issue, on the Anarcho-capitalism page itself (which concluded broadly in favour of our position). If the arguments against removal are simply ad hom attacks like that and insinuations about motive, plus "we can't remove this from the schools of thought, as otherwise we might have to remove other things too", it's all a bit weak. Anarcho-capitalism needs to be considered on its own merits. And if others currently included should also not be there, per the authoritative literature on anarchism, they should indeed come out too. Otherwise we are just saying WP should keep misleading information otherwise we'd have to look at removing even more, which is an odd way to go about creating an encyclopedia. N-HH talk/edits 09:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: I will be opening this case for moderated discussion once and if all the parties show willingness to participate. Participation is encouraged. Calm, civil discourse, without personal attacks, is required. All parties are urged to refrain from edit warring or performing any editing of the sidebar while it is still under this dispute. Esquivalience ^t 11:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: FreeKnowledgeCreator's participation in this dispute was minimal, so I do not believe that he should be listed as a party. Esquivalience ^t 20:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: In addition, Malik Shabazz has only contributed to the discussion a few times, and thus should not have been listed as a party unless they wish to participate further in discussion. He/she has also shown apathy regarding this dispute.

It appears that all of the involved parties have made statements. But some roll call first: FreeKnowledgeCreator and Malik Shabazz (who appear to have only made a few comments), do you two wish to participate in dispute resolution, discuss further on the talk page, or exit the dispute altogether? Esquivalience ^t 01:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Y Commencing: FreeKnowledgeCreator has withdrawn from the dispute altogether, and Malik Shabazz has shown an explicit willingness to continue participation, so dispute resolution may commence. I will post an opening statement in no more than 24 hours once I have looked into this issue in more detail and its surrounding context. Esquivalience ^t 03:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I have read the discussion and surrounding context. It appears that this dispute and discussion boils down to whether placing anarcho-capitalism as a school of thought in the infobox represents due weight or undue weight and whether anarcho-capitalism is an anarchic viewpoint at all, according to the general scholarship.

I believe that a closer examination at the outside viewpoints relating to these issues may help in formulating a solution. Can the parties present specific, prominent sources which either discuss or convey a viewpoint on anarcho-capitalism and its relation to anarchism? Esquivalience ^t 01:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure where you want this, and you may have picked up on these already, but as a starter this talk page edit of mine has a couple. There's a specific section on the main Anarcho-capitalism page on the relationship (indeed there's a whole separate page too, although I am not familiar with it and I suspect it's probably a bit OTT and hence AFD-able). Obviously one should treat the section as warily as any other WP content in terms of accuracy/balance, but there are links to outside sources there specifically addressing the point. N-HH talk/edits 09:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding due weight, my argument is that "Anarcho-capitalism" is an unorthodox new idea with no historical presence to speak of. In contrast, several Anarchist tendencies such as Anarcho-Syndicalism have had a relatively enormous presence in history and the real world over the course of the past 150 years and through the present day, from the First International to the Russian and Spanish Civil Wars to the recent Occupy movement. Further, Anarchist philosophers such as Noam Chomsky (who is, as perhaps the top expert of Anarchist theory in the world today, of the opinion that "Anarcho-capitalism" is not a form of Anarchism) and Emma Goldman are nearly household names and are widely referenced outside of specifically Anarchist circles. In contrast, "Anarcho-capitalism" has had no historical presence beyond theory and today exists almost entirely on the Internet, with no prominent adherents who are referenced outside this topic. To feature it so prominently would be comparable to featuring an extremely obscure branch of Christianity such as Branch Davidianism at the top of the Christianity sidebar, or String Theory on the Quantum Mechanics sidebar. Because of its lack of real-world presence, and its disagreement with fundamental principles shared by Anarchists such as opposition to private property in the capitalist sense (note that Mutualism is somewhere between tolerated and accepted, due to its history and compatibility with Anarchist concepts of property), I argue that "Anarcho-capitalism" is more appropriately placed in the "Issues" section, where it already can be found. For similar reasons, I also think that the Naturist, Vegan, Black, Existentialist, and Infoanarchist entries are not worthy of a place in the "Schools of Thought" section, although these have received relatively little discussion. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Also regarding due weight, given the fact that it is mentioned in sources outside of anarchocapitalism itself (such as the Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought) of the anarchism and anarchocapitalism pages as a school of anarchism, it belongs in the schools. Otherwise, we find once again that the catholics would try to edit out the protestants and vice-versa for the christianity article or template. Simply because something is not as old as other schools does not make it any less of a school. Otherwise, jws, mormons, and charismatics (the last having only been around since 1967!) shouldn't even be in the denominations category for the christianity template. The upshot is that this resolution will have consequences FAR beyond this one template. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, you are misrepresenting what I'm saying. I'm not arguing legitimacy or fact, but notability and weight. By any measure, "Anarcho-capitalism" is a speck compared to mainstream Anarchist thought, history, and activity. 24.197.253.43 (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

So too then is the charismatic denomination for christianity. Internecine conflicts never end well. And I correctly represented what you are saying. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: Pinging Eduen, Malik Shabazz, and Interrexconsul to see if they have any more comments regarding this issue (aside from their summary of dispute). Esquivalience ^t 00:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe I have any more to add to this that hasn't already been said in one way or another. I continue to believe that Anarcho-Capitalism is not in fact a "school of thought" of Anarchism, and that it shouldn't be included as such in the sidebar, yet I do believe that it, and the controversy surrounding it may be of interest to someone reading about anarchism, thus I believe it should be under the "issues" section. Interrexconsul (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I think i have stated my main points already regarding "anarchocapitalism". I see it alongside some reliable sources, as belonging to right wing politics and economic liberalism/neoliberalism. It is mainly a radical, perhaps extreme, form of neoliberalism which only has in common with anarchism its anti-statism. So called anarchocapitalists exist in real life politics mostly just in the US besides conservatives and neoliberal politicans and activists and sometimes it is hard to see if they do anything at all besides writing books on economics and commenting things on internet forums. Yet anarchism also has anti-parlamentarism in common with fascism, anti-capitalism in common with maoism, and "progressive values" in common with social democracy. Nevertheless we can clearly say that anarchism retains its specific character besides all of those positions with which it might have one superficial point in common yet too many differences to as to constitute something very different. This is no different with the particular ideologies of economic liberalism and neoliberalism, or as these as known in the US "Libertarianism".--Eduen (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thus we see the hate, viz. the scarce-quotes and the use of "so called". Again: this is all because of some people who want to edit in bad faith. They desire not to improve, but to exclude and push their narrow POV which involves hatred of those who do not believe as they do. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I would like to note that throughout this entire process, before and during dispute resolution, Knight of BAAWA has persisted in assuming bad faith in anyone who disagrees with them. Interrexconsul (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I assume good faith until it's clearly shown otherwise, such as calling the inclusion of anarchocapitalism as "vandalism". Surely, you can't expect people to believe that such a person would edit in good faith! That stretches the bounds of believability! - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Non-moderating volunteer note - Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2016 (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:Battle of Ia Drang#ARVN involvement (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• David J Johnson (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I think the ARVN should not be a belligerent while Tnguyen4321 doesn't

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

this request once

How do you think we can help?

remove South Vietnam from the box as a belligerent

I have no further comments - apart from what I said several days ago. David J Johnson (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2016 (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:Riley Martin (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Rockypedia (talk · contribs)
• Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This person's death was made public on Jan. 5th, 2016. The death was stated as having happened "a few days before Christmas" (see http://www.tmz.com/2016/01/05/riley-martin-dead-howard-stern-show/ ). Shortly afterwards, an anonymous IP added "Dec. 22 2015" as the date of death to Martin's page, with no source. Numerous websites published the story without a date of death specified. 21 hours later, the New York Daily News published "Dec 22" as the date of death, and attributed the source of the info as a statement from Howard Stern - however, the statement that the article linked to did not specify a date of death, nor had Stern announced a date of death.

Legacy.com subsequently published Dec 22 as the date of death, but as Legacy gets all of its info from newspapers (they state this themselves on their website), I believe they are a tertiary source, and got this particular bit of info from the NYDN.

Another editor insists on adding Riley Martin to the Dec 22 section of "Death in December 2015" page, but as the date of death is not reliably sourced, I believe that would be inappropriate.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None, other than engaging the other editor in a discussion; however, since he has resorted to profanity, and calling me a "jerk", I believe that is probably a dead end at this point.

How do you think we can help?

I'm hoping that Legacy.com is first established as being a tertiary source, that draws its info from newspapers, and as such, should not be used as a source, and instead the newspaper in question can be considered. After that step, useful discussion as to whether the NYDN date of death is reliable can ensue.

Unwilling to provide viable proof the IP sourced the DOD that these publications ran with. Insists Legacy recycled NYDN's article, was unwilling to prove this. His entire argument is based on assumptions and that doesn't fly here. Rusted AutoParts 05:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been sufficient discussion at the article talk page. However, the filing party has not notified the other party of this request. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other party. This case is now waiting for notice to the other party and for agreement by the other party to participate in discussion here (since discussion here is encouraged but voluntary). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It's fine, I found it on my own. Rusted AutoParts 05:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer CommentWhat about saying "His date of death is currently believed to be December 22"? This doesn't confirm or deny anything. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The date of death is known to have been "a few days before Christmas", so I think a date of December 2015 is probably sufficient. As Legacy.com simply aggregates info from newspapers, it's not a reliable source, and the newspaper(s) actually publishing the info should be used as a source. The New York Daily News has two dates on its website - the one published on Jan 6th says "Dec. 22" (that's the one that appeared 21 hours after the Wikipedia anon IP entry appeared) and the one published Feb. 1 says "early January", so I don't see how NYDN can be seen as reliable in this case. No other trusted newspapers published a date. On the Howard Stern Show, the "few days before Christmas" was stated, and that's the phrase that appears in the link that the NYDN links to in the first article. Basically there's so much doubt surrounding the date of death that I don't even think "date of death is currently believed to be December 22" would be accurate. Better to leave it as December 2015. Rockypedia (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer Comment I think "Believed to be December 2015" would work. User:Rusted AutoParts, any input? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I honestly do not care anymore. Rusted AutoParts 19:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, So, let's close this. Is that okay with everyone? @User:Rusted AutoParts User:Rockypedia User:Robert McClenon ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I will close this case if the filing party agrees to close it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Does closing it mean we've agreed to leave it as is? Rockypedia (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It can be closed as resolved if there is agreement. Is there agreement? If there is disagreement, then moderated discussion can be requested again. Is there agreement? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that what's currently in place should be left. Rockypedia (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2016 (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:Houdini and Doyle (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kiraroshi1976 (talk · contribs)
• User: 86.160.202.23 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Some episodes of show have aired online, but not yet on terrestrial platforms. One user insists that information from said episodes should not be added to the page until the episode airs on terrestrial television, claiming the show was primarily created for same. The other user notes that (a) the program has widely aired and is available to millions of viewers, so there is no reason to reject the information, and (b) other programs that air online have their information added regardless of whether they have had terrestrial airings.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We've debated it back and forth, but seem to be at an impasse.

How do you think we can help?

I feel Kiraroshi1976 may be more willing to listen if he feels that other editors have a consensus that disagrees with his. And, while I doubt you'd convince me that I am wrong if the consensus goes against me, because I do feel I have the right of things (I wouldn't be debating it otherwise), I'd still recognise that there was no point continuing the debate and drop the matter.

The episode has not aired on television. The article does not include online viewing. It only states Fox, ITV, and Global. It has not even aired on Fox or Global yet. I realize that there could be online versions of an episode, but that should be covered in the Broadcast section once the episode airs. There is no official online network for the series. If there was, I would not have an issue.- Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. However, the filing party has not notified the other editor. The filing party is required to notify the other editor. I strongly advise the filing party to create an account. It is difficult to engage in dispute resolution from an IP address, especially since IP addresses shift. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but am waiting for notice to the other editor and for a statement by the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Which other editor? Kiraroroshi1976 is aware that I have opened a dispute - do I need to direct him/her to this specific page? I had assumed that the discussion would take place on the entry's talk page, which is why I not bothered to direct him here. However, assuming that you want him directed here, I will do so. As for engaging in a dispute resolution with an IP address, I don't see why that should be a problem. I have no desire whatsoever to create an account, and no need to do so in order to make a case. 86.160.202.23 (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Another volunteer note: I've given the required notice to Kiraroroshi1976. If s/he chooses to join in — participation in moderated content dispute resolution is not mandatory — and if a volunteer chooses to moderate the case, the discussion will take place here, not on the talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

::To respond to each of the points made above: "The episode has not aired on television." But the episode has aired, so not airing on TV is irrelevent. Other shows air online first and then sometimes, but not always, on TV - Ripper Street would be a prime example. Wikipedia does not wait until the terrestrial airing of the show before including plot summaries.(talk) 00:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I am opening this case for moderated discussion here. Here are a few ground rules. First, every participant is expected to check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours, and to respond to all questions by the moderator within 48 hours. I will check at least every 24 hours. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Overly lengthy posts do not help clarify the issues. Comment on content, not on contributors. Any comments that are either uncivil or about contributors (rather than content) may be hatted. Do not engage in threaded or back-and-forth discussion. Comments should be made to the moderator and the community, not to other participants, because back-and-forth discussion tends to go on and on without result. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I see that the main issue appears to be whether episodes that have been broadcast via certain media but not others should be mentioned. Is that the only issue, or are there others? Why should or should not these episodes be included? How does a viewpoint relate to the guideline on spoilers? Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

That appears to be the only issue remaining. I believe the other editor now acknowledges NowTV is a valid, legitimate and authorised broadcaster for the programme online (and if I have that wrong, he can correct me). I feel that once the episodes have been made publicly available, they can and should be included, just like other shows that air online; he/she seems to feel it only counts once it has been broadcast on terrestrial television, despite it being available on multiple platforms. Spoilers should be irrelevant to the discussion, because of Wikipedia:Spoiler ("It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot"), but that was never raised as an issue anyway. It was only a disagreement about what constituted an episode having "aired." 86.160.202.101 (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

One editor has stated their position, and agrees that the only issue has to do with whether to include segments that have been broadcast by one medium and not another. I am still waiting (for the next 24 hours) for a statement from User:Kiraroshi1976. Do they have anything to say about the scope of this case, or about their reasoning for excluding certain episodes? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Now that a sufficient source for Online programming was supplied, I have no problems. I updated the page to reflect the Online programming based on the source. Those episodes can be updated to a small summary. I believe the issue is now closed. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

In that case, I too consider it closed. 86.160.202.103 (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2016 (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:Growth of religion#Pew (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bolialia (talk · contribs)
• Jobas (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User: Jobas and I are having a content dispute on Growth of religion Wikipedia page on whether to keep the relative factors of Muslim population growth or not. We have tried to discuss on the article's talk page but were unable to reach any consensus so seeking a resolution as per Wikipedia norms. Here is the diff[4] for quick understanding. Thanks, Bolialia (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We solve the problem and get to final solution.--Jobas (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

Experienced editor on Wikipedia's content policy can help resolve this.

Accroding to pew study page 70: The number of Muslims around the world is projected to increase rapidly in the decades ahead, growing from about 1.6 billion in 2010 to nearly 2.8 billion in 2050. Muslims are expected to grow twice as fast as the overall global population. Consequently, Muslims are projected to rise from 23% of the world’s population in 2010 to 30% in 2050.41 This significant projected growth is largely due to the young age and high fertility rate of Muslims relative to other religious groups. No mention here for the other factors.

The study Pew Global muslim population study do show the factors of population growth (including Muslims) that you pushing in the article, These are factors of Muslim population growth, But the study do not mention or cliam that these are all the factors why Muslim population is growing faster than non muslims. While in the user here adding these factors as the reasons why Muslim population is expected to grow at a faster rate than the non-Muslim population, Which wrong since the study do not cited that.--Jobas (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this DRN can be closed as we have reached a consensus. Bolialia (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2016 (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:Steel-cut oats#discussion on groat (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• MrX2077 (talk · contribs)
• Mutt Lunker (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

1.1.What is a groat? There is a lack of an explicit definition of the word 2.2. I included Matt Lunker talk page where we had "extensive discussion of the matter"; I placed it on his page because he was the one who took exception to my contribution. Please note, that I made three "good-faith attempts" to tailor the definition to accommodate his concerns, and every time an adverse determination was made, the article was reverted back to the previous version. 3.3 Maybe I was not clear, every time I try to meet his criteria, he shoots me down, as far as he is concerned if you want more information, one should click on the groat wiki-link; Before Wikipedia or even the internet was introduced to the general public, I found that articles employed a type of Socratic method, namely before discussing a matter in depth, one would define the terms that would be used through out the article. I understand, why a wiki-link would be used if one wanted more information. But if it over-used, it promotes a form of intellectual laziness, where a person does not take the time to develop their ideas so it can become more accessible. Now for a person who is just beginning to understand the subject matter, it is like asking some to look up a word they do not understand, and then find out it is explain in terms of other words they do not understand (sort of like a nested loop). I was under the impression that Wikipedia mission, is to make knowledge accessible to all, but it is hard to do if the other party decides the matter is closed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

spoke to him on his talk page and also used mediation page

How do you think we can help?

I want to place an explanation of what a groat is

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

• Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ThatPerson903 (talk · contribs)
• LL212W (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I edited the Splashh page adding a new label and put them in the right order in a better format. LL212W came and keeps reverting the edit (which also contains other changes to the page) claiming it is vandalism. It is not vandalism, and they are now saying I will be blocked if I edit again.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on my talk page

How do you think we can help?

Please provide a suggestion for what should be done here. Or inform LL212W (not sure if they are a bot or person) that I am not trying to do vandalism.

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

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

• American Board of Criminal Lawyers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Michael Ehrmant (talk · contribs)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This page was deleted for no reason at all. Nothing was raised on the talk page and this was a legitimate article with qualified sources, like the San Francisco Times.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The page was just deleted and I raised my concerns on the COI page.

How do you think we can help?

Make sure that people who have been on Wiki for years don't bully newcomers.

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:Stockton Beach (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• DESiegel (talk · contribs)
• JimMarlor (talk · contribs)
• AussieLegend (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a local urban legend that the film "Mad Max" was partly filmed at the "Stockton Beach Tin City". A local newspaper did an investigative journalism piece two years ago, and concluded that this was not the case, and that it is a myth. The main internet Mad Max fansite has also chimed in stating that these scenes were filmed at "Avalon Beach" in Melbourne. Despite this, the user AussieLegend has continuously refused to include these contrary claims in the Wikipedia page, insisting that the myth be presented as fact. This has been ongoing for two years. Can we please be allowed to include both sides of the story to provide a NPOV?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Two years of edits and Talk Page comments by myself (as an anonymous editor), my boyfriend (as an anonymous editor), local historian Graeme Steinbeck, and the user "DESiegel". We have pointed out that the evidence in support of the claim is thin (local tourist company claims, a retracted statement from a politician, and a caption from a photo site), while the newspaper investigation is rigorous.

How do you think we can help?

Provide guidance to include both sides of the story. Also, remove two incorrect references that have been provided in support of the claim: one is from a book (but on reading actually claims that Mad Max II - a different film - was filmed at Broken Hill, many hundreds of miles away), the other is a parliamentary claim from a politician about the film being made there, but in the Newcastle Herald article, he apologised for "misleading parliament" and retracted it.

Let's include both sides of the story. A rigorous newspaper article should be at least as weighty as a caption from a photo site or a claim from a local cruise operator.

JimMarlor has grossly misrepresented the duration of this matter. In November 2013 Wikitout began disruptively editing Stockton Beach. He was subsequently indef-blocked but resorted to serial sockpuppetry in order to continue disrupting Wikipedia. After he was blocked he approached an editor at a local newspaper that resulted in an opinion piece sourced to a blocked editor and the owner of a self acknowledged fansite, neither of which are reliable sources. An editor subsequently tried to use the puff piece as a source for a claim that filming did not occur. It was added and removed once in January 2014 and discussed over a period of less than 3 hours. Then there was nothing more until yesterday when a series of related IPs tried to use the unreliable opinion piece and the fansite as references to oppose the claims in the article. DESiegel isn't even involved in the current discussion and hasn't edited the article or talk page since January 2014. JimMarlor's attempt to involve him appears to be canvassing. Using IPs, JimMarlor has posted on the article's talk page as 3 different people, "Blake", "Jim" and "John Page". He has indicated that he is willing to edit-war,[5] and that he has created at least 20 accounts with which to do so.[6][7] Accordingly, I have opened an SPI report that may be seen here. My summary of the current dispute is that Blake/Jim/John Page/JimMarlor is unwilling to accept that NSW state parliament Hansard,[8] and a news article from The Newcastle Herald,[9] are reliable sources,[10] while claiming that a poorly sourced opinion piece (which was most definitely not "investigative journalism"!) and a fansite are acceptable sources. JimMarlor relies far too much on unreliable sources. For example, the "local historian" that he mentions above was Wikitout. One of his most ridiculous claims was that a wind turbine on Kooragang Island had been removed in 2013.[11] This is a photo of the wind turbine that I took on 17 February 2014 on Kooragang Island, 2.5 months after Wikitout had said it had been removed with the edit summary, "Look out the window dopey". --AussieLegend (✉) 12:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - The purpose of this noticeboard is to resolve content disputes. It does not resolve conduct disputes, and the ability to resolve content disputes in a civil manner depends on the ability of the parties to comment on content, not contributors, and to be civil and concise, and to avoid introducing conduct issues. Allegations of sockpuppetry should be reported at sock-puppet investigations. I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time, but am recommending that it be declined because it appears to be impossible to separate content issues from conduct issues including sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note that JimMarlor has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Wikitout. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:16, 9 May 2016 (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

• Aly Saad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Arjayay (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An Editor (Arjayay) is removing all references and big bulk of the article data, although in many other articles, a publications section exists (such as Ahmed_Zewail, Albert Eisntein, and many others) and wants to enforce his own article structure otherwise he would keep removing the data.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

tried to explain and use the talk section of the article

How do you think we can help?

talk to the editor or review the article and give your own suggestion ?

Aly Saad is not an encyclopedia article, but a resume/CV, The IPs preferred version here comprises a one line lead, followed by long lists of "Awards", "Memberships", "International World Wide Research Programs" and "Publications and researches"

I have tried to explain to the IP (several different IP addresses, all in Italy, mostly SPAs), that we do not allow Resumes/CVs as in this diff where I asked them to see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé. I also asked them not to re-add the "Publications and researches" and to remove, or integrate into prose, the lists of "Awards", etc.

The IPs response, as in [12] this diff was:-

"biased removal of data COI, please check Ahmed_Zewail, Albert Eisntein, and many others, and stop vandalizing the article as a the CV of the professor is way bigger than this."

I am unclear why I have been accused of COI, as I have simply tried to enforce the guidelines, whereas the IP appears to have the COI in promoting Aly Saad
We know Other stuff existsis not an acceptable argument.
The IP appears to be accepting that this is a CV, albeit not his full CV.

Unfortunately, there are several people called Dr Aly Saad, and/or Professor Aly Saad, making it difficult to draw a quick conclusion as to how notable this particular man is, and there are no Independent, reliable sources cited - only one reference to his university website (In Arabic, which I do not understand) and long lists of papers. The article needs a prose description of who he is, and what he has done, supported by independent reliable citations, to ensure he meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and the removal of the promotional, CV-style, lists - Arjayay (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note I don't think there has been enough discussion on talk pages for dispute resolution. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• it is obvious that this is not a "Resume`"
• the obvious word "Some" , found before publications, shows that this is not a full list
• "other stuff exists" is not applicable because it is not not one or two exceptions, having a publications section is normal to be found in any biography article, reflecting the interests of this particular person and what they have added to the science, "In Wikipedia discussions, editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These "other stuff exists arguments can be valid or invalid." " ^[1]
• if the European Heart Journal/Oxford University Press is not a reliable reference, then what is for you ? (A Scientific journal does not necessarily post pictures of authors or scientists inside their articles)
• obviously you are not a specialized person and do not understand that these are not just normal or randomly selected publications but rather full studies of the human heart.
• it is normal that a biography contains bits of information mentioned in the CV of the same person and vice-versa ....
• if you delete data from this article because it is not fit "fro your own point of view" , then you better go modify all other articles i have mentioned, you will find hundreds, and even then, you will not be able to, which simply shows, that you have COI with the other articles, and not this one.

I remain unclear why I have been accused of COI, unless this is to draw attention away from the the IPs own COI, but have no further comment - Arjayay (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

If there are many many articles having the same or a similar structure of the involved article, and you tend to ignore them all, this is being biased and shows you have a COI for all the other articles(you might like Albert Einstein or Ahmed Zewail that you are willing to ignore their page structure even if you think it is against the Wikipedia's Policies), in other words, you are misusing your editing tools, or maybe all the other article editors are wrong and you are the right one (yet again, the list is so long for all those editors and administrators to be wrong) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.6.111 (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2016 (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.