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:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#MBK Rental Living (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• RaddatzD (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have been a wikipedia registered user for 10 years. I have donated money to wikipedia. I posted an article for a MBA school project a couple days ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBK_Rental_Living). This article is similar to other apartment companies such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irvine_Company and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_Residential Two users have marked it for deletion. They seem to get rewarded for deletions because there is a badge for deleting articles on their information page. That doesn't seem like a positive thing to me. They stated it looks like an advertisement. Not sure what is promotional about the article. There is no call to action in the article. The article is purely informational. When I look at a wikipedia article for Facebook, or Amazon, or Google, they look more like an advertisement. I have followed the guidelines of wikipedia and made it similar to any other company page of its size. I am trying to contribute, but I have been harassed with pretty nasty emails from these two users. I will stop donating to wikipedia if wikipedia tolerates other users to harass other users. They seem to be more interested in getting more badges than to contributing to the community.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have politely asked for feedback on the article from these two users who have deleted the article in other to gain points.

How do you think we can help?

Please post the article. Or let me know what is wrong with the article. Please ban these two users from contacting me and harassing me. I will continue to donate to wikipedia with articles and money.

---

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 Formula One#2014 and 2015 teams and drivers tables (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Corvus tristis (talk · contribs)
• Tvx1 (talk · contribs)
• Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs)
• DeFacto (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute about table (teams and drivers) formatting.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the Wikiproject talk. Suggestion to implement 2014-2015 format to 2016-2019 articles.

How do you think we can help?

You can give neutral opinion according to the WP guidelines. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

In late 2013 a discussion was started to find a new way to order the team's and drivers' tables in the F1 season articles. The discussions went on for weeks and weeks until finally we agreed on a satisfying format which was ultimately used in the 2014, 2015. For some unknown reason we simply forgot to apply the format once the 2016 got underway. Three months ago was held regarding the removal of a particular column from said tables in some of the season articles. When a decision was made in favor of doing so, user Corvus Tristis took the task on them to remove the column where needed. However inexplicably they also decided to change the table format for the 2014 and 2015 articles, ignoring the consensus resulting from the above discussions. Hence, I reverted. Corvus Tristis has resorted to edit-warring with multiple users on the mentioned articles and initiated a discussion at WT:F1 where they and Prisonermonkeys tried to declare the 2014 consensus invalid between the two of them, principally claiming an edit consensus from an other article. I feel this clashes with the basic principles of Wikipedia with regards to consensus. No one has complained ever about the tables in the contested article and I just don't understand their pressing need to instigate a change.Tvx1 17:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I've forgotten my password, so I'm semi-retired.

Short version: the team and driver tables in the 2014 and 2015 Formula 1 championship articles contained the ability to sort the various columns. The system was introduced in 2014 as the sport changed the way it numbered its cars; the sortable function was included as a compromise to give readers flexibility. However, the sortable function stopped being used from 2016 onwards.

The question is why the sortable function was discontinued and whether it should be revived (and if not, whether it should be removed from the 2014 and 2015 articles). Personally, I don't think it's worth it. The markup required is very complex (and parts are probably redundant given the experimentation needed to implement it) and there does not appear to be any tangible benefit to it. There certainly hasn't been any demand or desire to reintroduce it. 1.129.109.150 (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

My involvement in this started when I noticed from my watchlist that the 2014 Formula One World Championship and 2015 Formula One World Championship articles had been modified. Reviewing them I saw that tables had been converted from sortable, which they had been for some time, to non-sortable. Seeing no discussion on their talkpages, I reverted the articles back to their long-standing state per WP:BRD and WP:EDITCONSENSUS. My edits were reverted and a short discussion took place on my talkpage. A couple of days later, as the reverter hadn't convinced me that they had a consensus to change and after I asked them to self-revert back and they hadn't - and everything had gone quiet, I reverted them back. My view is that there is currently no consensus to change these articles. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment: Quoting Tvx1,

  Edit consensus cannot overrule community consensus from such a massive discussion anyway.

  There was huge discussion leading to that table format and we should not act like it doesn’t exist.

  Where is the prior discussion? It has not been linked to by any party. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I provided links in my summary.Tvx1 23:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Is it fair to say that the dispute is more about how one interprets consensus than about the formatting of the list itself? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I thought the dispute was more about consistency, which means nothing for the two of the users. But yes, they don't want to hear anything, excepting the outdated consensus. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

So one party is saying, in effect – and please correct me if I'm wrong – that the prior discussion precludes future consensus; and another party is saying that that consensus is already outdated. You can see why I asked.

I recommend said parties at least admit that the consensus is gray – neither precluded nor outdated – before we proceed. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean that consensus about "satisfying format which was ultimately used in the 2014, 2015" is outdated and that the other party doesn't want to have future consensus and doesn't want to implement the "satisfying format" in 2016-2019 to avoid inconsistency either. Another party's opinion on inconsistency is "issue which just doesn't exist". Corvus tristis (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't claim there can't be future consensus. I claim a strong consensus was achieved after lengthy discussion and cannot simply be ignored. I also claim that consensus does not have a preset timeframe during which it remains valid and after which it ceases to exist. It's certainly not up to two people to decide among the two of them in a local consensus that they can completely ignore such a strong consensus. If these users want a change they need to do achieve a proper consensus through a proper discussion as per wikipedia's policies. They haven't done that at the moment. There also isn't any editing within the contested articles or discussion on their talk pages indicating that a change of table style is wanted. The articles have been stable for years in the version following the consensus in the discussions back then which directly applied to those articles. I don't see anything justifying changing the stable version of that article. Why fix something that isn't broken in anyway? Lastly the filer constantly undermine themselves with the "consistency" argument since this whole thing came up through them deciding to change the table style without any form of discussion when they were actually introducing inconsistency with regards to including a tyre column in these tables in these articles.Tvx1 13:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, the opposite side has introduced inconsistency with 2014-2015 tables in the first place, it was earlier than removal of the tyre column. The lengthy discussion isn't a valid reason to use different style for just two seasons, if it is still valid then the opposite side should implement the format in the other post-2014 articles. And yes, I'm trying to fix the problem through the discussion, but it isn't possible when the opposite side sees nothing outside "Why fix something that isn't broken in anyway?" You may say it, but it wouldn't fix inconsistency anyway. I'm glad that now Tvx1 at least admitted that inconsistency exist. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Non-moderator volunteer questions - First, User:Prisonermonkeys - Why don't you register a new account and declare it as an alternate account rather than popping up as a Ninja IP? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: @Robert McClenon — because I'm still in two minds about continuing my Wikipedia career. So far it's a losing battle, but I don't think I'll be around much longer. 1.129.108.50 (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Second, this appears to be a case of forum shopping, of trying to use both an unofficial RFC (Straw Poll) and Dispute Resolution. This doesn't seem to be good faith. Can we limit one form of dispute resolution, or is the objective to wear down the other side by multiple requests? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: @Robert McClenon — because that's how "consensus" is formed at WP:F1 these days. It's not about collaboration, it's about a siege mentality. Both sides in a dispute bunker down in their respective positions and try to wait the other out. Everything drags out as people start circling the wagons and "consensus" is formed by the last person standing. I don't want this to sound like a personal attack, but I think the main problem is Tvx1. We have achieved a consensus before only to do nothing with it because he has prevented it and people who disagree with him are often referred to ANI on trumped-up accusations. There's currently a discussion on the 2018 season talk page that is a prime example of this. Almost everyone is in agreement that that the order of a table is the worst possible order for us to use, and despite the clear desire for change, nothing has happened because no-one is willing to back down and no-one is willing to back down because if they do, it will be brought up to discredit them in future. WP:F1 is completely dysfunctional when it comes to forming a consensus. 1.129.108.50 (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Robert McClenon, if you look at the discussion Prisonermonkeys is referring to you'll see that another user pointed out to them completely independent of me that their claim that "almost everyone agrees with them" is incorrect. That discussion has no further relevance here. Also, Prisonermonkeys has filed much more ANI reports there than me. If you look at my history you'll see that I rarely report anyone there. I'm willing to partake in dispute resolution, but I'm not willing to take in a barrage of unfounded personal attacks in the process.Tvx1 12:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer comment:

• As far as I can tell, no editor has addressed the substance of those prior discussions, merely that they're old (and therefore outdated) or old (and therefore we should let sleeping dogs lie). To be clear, having skimmed through the whole discussion on DRN and the talk page, I still don't know what the substance of the prior discussion was. All I know is that it existed.
• That the prior discussions were never linked to on the article's talk page by any party is bizarre. It reads like one side saying "I don't even need to link to the prior discussion; it's enough for you to know that it happened", and another side saying "I don't even need to read the prior discussion; it's enough for you to know that it's old."

This is not a content dispute. If it were, we'd be discussing content. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Well I didn't link to the discussions during the discussion at WT:F1 because only three people initially participated. Of them me and Prisonermonkeys had taken part in the referred debate and I incorrectly assumed that Corvus Tristis (then known as Cybervoron) had done so as well. It was an honest human mistake. DeFacto later joined the WT:F1 discussion, but they were indefblocked back in 2014. I have provided the links here in the mean time. I'll try to give a short summary of the substance of those prior discussions. Prior to 2014 the teams and drivers' tables in our F1 season articles would be ordered be car number. Back then the FIA assigned those numbers and drivers within one and the same team would receive sequential numbers. This allowed us to create an entirely sequential table by ordering by car numbers. In late 2013 the FIA decided to no longer assign numbers, but to allow the drivers themselves to choose their own numbers. As a result we could no longer create an entirely sequential table by ordering by driver numbers. Thus a discussion was started to find a new satisfying way of ordering the tables. The discussion was difficult and took a number of weeks to conclude. Eventually a new system and style was agreed upon and we implemented it without further complaints. For some reason however the exact style was never implemented in the more recent articles. The contested articles' table style though remained stable for years until Corvus Tristis unilaterally changed the table style when doing a related edit. I reverted to the consensus version and shortly afterwards we arrived here.Tvx1 17:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Pakistani general election, 2018 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Pakistani general election, 2018#Recent changes about military (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Pakistani general election, 2018#ISI and judiciary's involvement in pre-poll rigging (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There have been reports in international independent media regarding involvement of Pakistan's military, ISI and judiciary and this content have been part of the article for a long time but recently User:Mar4d made some changes which alludes that allegations are just by one party PML (N) and not by independent reports. They also keep removing the sourced text regarding Pakistan's Chief Justice's collusion with military and ISI. There is also a part regarding head of EU observer mission's report regarding unfairness of elections but they add the text "particularly due to corruption cases against outgoing PML (N)" which is not exactly what the source says. Also, at the top part of pre-poll rigging section, they are adding the text that all the allegations about military's involvement in pre-poll rigging are promulgated by PML (N) despite those being published by independent sources and without a reference to PML (N). I am willing to add that part but in a modified version so it does not look like the allegations were all driven by PML (N) such as it is shown in my reversions. Khan and military's denial they are adding is not regarding pre-poll rigging, if they can bring a source which is specific to pre-poll rigging, i am willing to include that as well.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed on talk page

How do you think we can help?

I need involvement of just one neutral and uninvolved editor who are not coming from Pakistan to decide this matter as i fear that attempts to censor or coatrack this information is going on which happens anytime if there is content published which negatively reflects on Pakistan military, ISI and judiciary.

---

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:Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal#Suspected perpetrators (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• MartinezMD (talk · contribs)
• Dralgos (talk · contribs)
• Mock wurzel soup (talk · contribs)
• My very best wishes (talk · contribs)
• Nicoljaus (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Disagreement about listing suspected perpetrator in this high-profile poisoning. I am saying that Russia is the prime credible suspect. Editor DRALGOS states if we list Russia, we have to list US and British intelligence. I say that Russia's government has given a litany of alternate suspects, nice summary here - https://www.businessinsider.com/theories-russia-is-using-to-deflect-blame-for-sergei-skripal-attack-2018-3#11-non-state-actors-who-wanted-to-cause-an-international-scandal-did-it-11 and that their lack of consistency makes it not credible. This for me is an issue of undue weight, and other potential suspects are not equivalent.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have had numerous discussions. Many editors have make recurring edits to the susp perp parameter on the infobox. I believe that myself and DRALGOS are the primary editors with this issue and other editors having an opinion but being less verbal about it.

How do you think we can help?

I think a neutral outside party can look at the issue, give an opinion or potentially find a policy we've overlooked, to address the disagreement. I'd like the issue of potential undue weight addressed.

"Suspected Perpetrators" means there is no proof, so allowing the listing of some and not others can only be POV. Russia has claimed the UK to be suspects Source Source. I advocate this section remain deleted. DRALGOS ^♕ 15:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

"Suspected Perpetrators" has been removed from the infobox. I suggest we leave it that way. Wikipedia claims not to publish speculation and "suspected perpetrators" is speculation. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• User talk:Dralgos I agree, allowing the listing of some and not others can only be POV. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• User talk:My very best wishes The "Reliable Sources" are also publishing conspiracy theories because there is no evidence. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• User talk:My very best wishes What is the reason for not regarding RT (TV network) as a reliable source? Is it just anti-Russian bias? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

From the lead of RT "RT has been frequently described as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government[11][12][13] and its foreign policy.[11][13][14][15][16][17] RT has also been accused of spreading disinformation[17][18][19] by news reporters,[20][21] including some former RT reporters.[22][23][24] The United Kingdom media regulator, Ofcom, has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality and of broadcasting "materially misleading" content" - not reliable. Now we're not supposed to be continuing a discussion here until a volunteer mediator has had a chance to pick up our case. Can we hold off on further debate until then? MartinezMD (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought everybody had gone to sleep so I was just trying to wake them up. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

User talk:My very best wishes There is also a consensus between User talk:Dralgos and me. Admittedly, your consensus has three members and my consensus has only two members but consensus (which is a concept that can mean anything people want it to mean) is not the same as a majority vote. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

In case it has become buried under a heap of words, my position is that we should leave out any reference to "suspected perpetrators" on the grounds that it is speculation. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Please follow WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. This is very simple. If there are multiple RS telling it was committed by the Russian GRU people, we include it. Yes, they tell it, and it has been already included. If there are multiple RS telling it was committed by the British intelligence, this should also be included per policy. But do we have such RS? This is probably the subject of the disagreement? This is easy to resolve. Let's allow user Dralgos to provide such sources. So far, he was able to provide only something like RT (TV network), which does not qualify as an RS here. In other words, nearly all independent RS tell that suspects were Russian agents. Other "versions" are conspiracy theories. My very best wishes (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I think there is actually a consensus between users MartinezMD, Nicoljaus and me on this subject. Therefore, I suggest closing this case. Everything can be decided on article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The investigation of this case is carried out by the British police. Russia did not open its own investigation. Officials in the UK can speak out about suspected_perpetrators, as they have access to the data of the investigation. Officials in Russia do not have legal access to the materials of the investigation and their statements do not have serious weight. So, the statements of the Russian side and the sources affiliated with them should not be treated on equal ground with the British ones.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep back-and-forth discussion to a minimum. Personal attacks are not permitted.Robert McClenon (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Russia has tried to open its own investigation but the UK government has refused to co-operate and will not provide samples for analysis. The only reason Russia's "statements do not have serious weight" is obstruction by the UK government. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC) As a result, Russia has no access to the investigation data, as I say earlier. So, the statements of the Russian side and the sources affiliated with them should not be treated on equal ground with the British ones.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Very convenient for Russia-haters. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Well, sapienti sat.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC) "Enough has been said for the wise". Is this a hidden attempt to call me stupid? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Your words, not mine.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC) I'll take that as a "yes" and remind you of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Personal attacks here were only in my address.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC) What does that mean? Is it another hidden insult? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• My Korean Jagiya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Hotwiki (talk · contribs)
• Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Editor User:Spacecowboy420 have removed all supporting characters and guest cast in the article. Then when he gets reverted, he then tagged the article for being a fansite and not being neutral, which in my opinion are both false.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Edit summary, edit warring page, talk page of the article

How do you think we can help?

Third opinion.

When I saw the article and the huge cast list, I trimmed it to the main characters only. Unfortunately the editor who filed this request has proven less than easy to deal with in regards to discussion and compromise. I made two edits on the article, so he responded with a 3RR report [[16]] This 3RR report was filed before any attempt to discuss the article on my user talk page or the article talk page. Every attempt at compromise has been met with comments such as "you clearly didn't watch the show " " you are clearly wrong" "try researching first" "You clearly have an agenda here" "See in you content dispute page" " You have an agenda here, and given the track record of your edit history and block history, I'm not surprised. You'll be reported for this."

It seems pretty clear from the 3RR report and this request here that the editor involved has no desire to communicate or compromise and that they are far more interested in more combative form of resolution.

The actual content is quite easy. See what the current standards are for similar articles and make sure this article is in line with that.

But, that's going to require the other involved editor to calm down a little and stop looking for a fight. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll take this on. Here are the ground rules:

1. Be polite. If I believe that you are being rude, I will ask you to stop. If you do not, or attempt to argue around it, I will abandon the case. Assuming good faith is part of being polite.

If both editors would please respond to these questions individually:

1. Why does it matter why the supporting cast is/isn't listed?
2. In what way is the fansite notice justified/unjustified?

--Xavexgoem (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Polite should be easy and productive, so thanks.

1. The cast list is extensive. While I can understand that in an extremely notable production (for example, who played minor roles in Star Wars is highly notable) this production is obviously not a major production. As per MOS:TV - "Remember to follow the notability guidelines when creating a cast list: not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed" and I feel that a lot of the cast fails notability.

There are currently about 60 lines devoted to minor cast members with details such as "Khaine dela Cruz[6] as Paolo "Pao" Kim The son of Ji-hu and Cindy. Gia tutors him in school, while his uncle, Jun-ho takes care of him." Neither the actor nor character nor additional content is notable.

I'm not doubting the accuracy of the content, or reliability of the sources. I just don't think it's encyclopedic or beneficial to the reader.

Have you seen the show? "I'm not doubting the accuracy of the content" would seem to indicate that you haven't. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Not exactly my type of TV show. But then again, I also edited the Leprechaun article and I haven't seen one of them either. I don't think that disqualifies me from editing the article, in fact it probably makes me a far more neutral editor than someone who already has a bias towards that show. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

2. The fansite notice is justified because only a fan of the production would be interested in which minor and actor played which minor character, in a minor show. If this show was as notable as Game of Thrones it would be an entirely different case. But it isn't, so it isn't, Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

My answers: 1. Why does it matter why the supporting cast is listed? Because the supporting cast is billed in the credits of the show and plenty of articles can verify their appearance in the show so as the guest actors. Also leaving them out of the cast section would just make the cast section incomplete. Would the visitors of the article who have seen the show want to see an incomplete cast list especially the supporting cast who are billed in every episode of the show? I don't think so. 2. "In what way is the fansite notice unjustified?" Basic descriptions of the characters don't make it a fansite. In fact, the section was larger but I trimmed it down to 1 to 2 sentences because there were spoilers. So to tag the article as a "fansite" is just unjustified. Also there are only two other sections, premise and ratings which are very brief in description. - Hotwiki (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Question for Hotwiki - in light of your comment stating "Also leaving them out of the cast section would just make the cast section incomplete." how do you feel about MOS:TV - "Remember to follow the notability guidelines when creating a cast list: not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed" - don't you consider your statement to be a direct contradiction of MOS:TV that is supported by consensus? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, the characters are notable within in the show which I've already explained in the article's talk page. Not every person needs to know them first just to be listed in the article. It's not like they are just a bunch of extras that have no role in the show. I surely don't know every character mentioned in the Game of Thrones article, and shows that I haven't seen, but I'm not gonna protest to remove them from the characters section especially if I don't know the content/story of the show. The article is fairly small as well for you to be removing content which ate written in neutral tone. Hotwiki (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

"the characters are notable within in the show" yes, I'm sure they are. But, I'm notable within my office, however including me on a wikipedia article would fail all notability tests, so " notable within in the show" doesn't mean that it's suitable content for wikipedia.

But, we shouldn't try to inject our own opinions into this discussion, we will be far more productive if we stick to guidelines formed by consensus:

MOS:TVCAST "... indicate the name of the cast member and his or her noteworthy role(s)" "...indicate noteworthy characters" - when I perform a notability test on one of the main characters - Guadalupe Immaculada "Gia" Asuncion-Kim - that character is most certainly notable, with content from reliable media sources. However, when I performed the same notability test on a minor character - Amanda de Gracia - there is a huge lack of content from reliable sources, indicating that this character does not pass a notability test and as per MOS:TVCAST should not be included.

I think WP:NOTWHOSWHO is very relevant for this discussion. "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be." that pretty much sums up the problems of the huge cast list - the TV show is notable. The main stars and main character are also notable. The minor characters who are of no interest or relevance to anyone but a fan of the show, are most certainly not notable. And again, MOS:TVCAST is based on notability. If that is something you have an issue with, then perhaps you can try to gain consensus to change MOS:TVCAST?

"The article is fairly small..." you're correct. Rather than trying to pad it out with a huge cast list that dwarfs the rest of the barren article, you should be looking for content. If the content is not there to support a good sized article, then perhaps it should be merged with another article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Could a potential compromise be:

1. Limit the cast to main and supporting (removing recurring and guest), and formatting their entries per MOS.
2. Remove the fan-site/plot summary notice. I feel that the reduction caused by #1 justifies this.

I would also think that there are articles out there remarking on the Philippines/South Korea crossover, which would be an excellent way to expand the article. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

That would be a very fair and reasonable compromise. As a good faith gesture, I have removed one of the templates. The other template was not added by me, so I don't feel that it's my place to remove it. Thanks, Xavexgoem good work. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The recurring cast members are important since they pretty much appeared in the majority of the shows. Removing them would not only make incomplete, but potential editors would add them back due to their significant role. While the guest actors are also essential since they didn't just appear in a single role. Also some of the guest roles were officially billed by the show as "special participation" in the end credits. The improvement that I suggest for the section is more references. Hotwiki (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

It's true that another editor could come along and re-add them, but this dispute is between you and Spacecowboy420. I'm floating a compromise that would resolve this somewhat amicably between the two of you. It's not perfect for anybody, and I'm trying to get you two to meet half way. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

As per the advice given, I have removed the recurring and guest cast. I have reformatted the content. Perhaps if any cast that a really really notable need to be put back, they can go back once there are reliable references showing notability. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You just removed the four other South Korean cast members (three of them were credited as "special participation") other than the lead actor. Hotwiki (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Can they be re-added? I believe he's referring to the state of the article where 13/14 supporting cast members were listed, instead of 10. The diff where they were removed has proven hard to find, but you can find the revision here. --Xavexgoem (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Those South Korean actors should be readded as they were officially billed in every episode in a special participation role. Prior to the recurring cast/guest cast removal, I already removed two other guests for compromise. Actors like Jaclyn Jose and Raymart Santiago are also notable actors in their respective country and should remain in the article.Hotwiki (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead and re-add them, following the style that Spacecowboy420 used. I trust this will be the last change that is needed? Xavexgoem (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I've readded 1 recurring cast member and 5 guest cast members, two are notable Filipino actors and four are South Korean actors. While the other three recurring cast members and 9 guest actors weren't readded. I guess that's a good compromise? So what happens if other editors readded those names? Hotwiki (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Add those cast members seems fine to me. I've edited the descriptions a little. If other editors make unsuitable changes, then they get reverted and it is explained to them that the current version is based on consensus. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Not really an consensus,but a compromise between two editors as stated by Xavesgoem. This dispute is only between us. If other editors feel like they need to mention these deleted names, I'd be agreeing to it.Hotwiki (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair :) Can we consider this closed? Xavexgoem (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm closing this case as a success! Good work, all! Xavexgoem (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Houston Independent School District#controversy over strip searches (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 2601:642:4001:D1B2:2022:3CAB:320A:C1B5 (talk · contribs)
• John from Idegon (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User believes that court decisions are not proper citations. Another user believes they are. Changes are extensively cited using court documents.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to discuss, tried to identify the exact problem, tried to ask for further information on the topic if available, tried to limit the scope of the article, John from Idegon will accept nothing except full deletion. As discussed on the talk page, the changes to the article cite a case that is almost exactly the same as one already existent and documented in the same way on wikipedia.

How do you think we can help?

I believe that a neutral third party would be able to suggest changes to publish the important facts without trying to wipe out the information entirely.

 Clerk note: @John from Idegon:, @2601:642:4001:D1B2:2022:3CAB:320A:C1B5: I see that you both have stepped over the WP:3RR rule, please refrain from editing the article further before resolving the matter or it may be locked (and you may be blocked). -- Luk ^talk 21:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Closing. IP, please feel free to talk to me on my talkpage if you have any questions about our policies. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Emma Husar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Merphee (talk · contribs)
• The Drover's Wife (talk · contribs)
• HiLo48 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Over the past few weeks there has been extensive discussion on the Emma Husar talk page although no discussion had taken place since 8 July although edits had been made since and the discussion was obviously ongoing and editors had simply disengaged for a while. I decided to bring the matter here rather than edit war and it is clear we have reached a roadblock to resolve it between ourselves after today's editing and comments made. We had been discussing content on the talk page when today the Drover's Wife came and deleted two sections with a number of reliable sources attached all while trying to resolve the dispute. I have also been abused and accused by both editors for trying to voice my concerns. This is a politician's article and as such personal opinions and allegiances can creep in to the editing process which should not be happening. I am willing to accept the outcome of the formal dispute resolution process.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the article talk page. Tried to compromise by editing the content in dispute and removing a section that through consensus was deemed trivial and should not be included.

How do you think we can help?

Independent advice and perspective to apply Wikipedia policy appropriately in the article.

This article has been subject to repeated attempts from one user to add negative trivia: a one-day, one-newspaper story from two years ago about her deleting Facebook posts and a one-day, one-newspaper story from a year ago about her being friends with an alleged domestic abuser. Neither of these things are significant, and weren't remotely treated as such in reliable sources. The user was attempting to claim that her deletion of Facebook posts had been the cause of a change in Labor Party policy until it was pointed out that no source had actually said this; since then, he's just resorted to demanding the material's inclusion without any real attempt to justify why. This isn't a POV dispute - a major negative story broke about this MP today and I'm the one that included it because it was actually relevant. The Australian Politics WikiProject seems to face ongoing problems with enemies of people on both the left and right attempting to add random negative trivia to their articles in the hopes of smearing their opponents, and it's endlessly frustrating to those of us trying to enforce policy regarding WP:BLP and clean up the mess.

I would also note that this user's entire Wikipedia presence seems to be aggressive, tendentious editing of BLPs with a poor understanding of BLP policy, and has also had to be pulled up elsewhere on attempting to make serious claims that weren't supported by reliable sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I have nothing to add on the content dispute at this stage. I believe I have made my position clear on the article's Talk page. But I must point out that the claim in the Dispute overview saying "Over the past couple of weeks there has been extensive discussion..." is quite wrong. In fact, there has been no discussion at all for almost two weeks. Until today, nothing had been added on this topic since 7 July. The Drovers Wife presumably noticed this when deciding that there was clearly only one editor opposed to deleting the material, the person who has lodged this dispute, and no-one else was contributing. I was, in fact, about to do the same thing myself, for that very reason. HiLo48 (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

One of the sections removed from the article had 3 reliable sources attached. The other section had 2 reliable sources attached. So it is completely untrue The Drover's Wife minimising things by saying a single source for each section. True in the last 12 days since 8 July, no discussion had taken place. However it was very clear the conversation was ongoing and content should not have been removed while we are trying to resolve it.Merphee (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

That should say 13 days, not 11. HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

We've already been through this on the talk page: a newspaper story and the video attached to the newspaper story are not two different sources for these purposes, and a report in the local weekly rag doesn't add much to significance on BLP issues. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The material in question appears to be this. That text is not suitable for dispute resolution because it is plainly inappropriate coatracking and should be reverted per WP:BLP. An article on notable person A does not include muck about non-notable person B, particularly when the charges were dismissed. There is no encyclopedic reason to record nonsense about a politician hugging a condom or making an unwise joke. Johnuniq (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

There is also another editor involved Snorets who has reverted The Drovers Wife's deletion. There is obvious need to have this resolved formally as no consensus has been established. And it is definitely not as simple or trivial as you suggest Johnuniq. And the drovers Wife, you are incorrect about the sources that you deleted in the middle of our discussion. They were all from major newspapers in Australia and all 5 of these reliable sources were independent.Merphee (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

You did well if you really did find five independent, major newspapers in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing my attention to that other editor, who has made precisely one edit to the article, today, after this dispute appeared here. They registered on 20 May, have made a total of 26 edits in all of Wikipedia and, like Merphee, have nothing on their User page. Even in that time they have earned a warning on their User talk page. I see some work that needs to be done on some of the articles they have edited. I shall get onto it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Johnuniq are you an administrator? The disputed section which was unjustifiably removed by The Drover's Wife is this "In 2016 it was revealed that the Communications Electrical and Plumbing Union (CEPU) donated to Husar's federal election campaign. The State Secretary of that union, Jim Metcher, had been charged in 2007 with 6 counts of assault against his wife and children but the charges were dismissed on medical grounds.[17] In her maiden speech Husar named Metcher among those people who assisted her political career. She stated "Without your support I would not be here". [18] There has been no justification to delete it apart from it possibly reflecting poorly on Husar which is npo reason not to include it. The Drovers Wife has edited it further and so have I. It is very well sourced and should definitely be included.Merphee (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with WP:COATRACK, as Johnuniq pointed out. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes I have thanks. Comments regarding coat racking were relating to the Husar FB comments section. Once again The Drover's wife you don't discuss the content issue at hand. While I see the point with the removal of the Facebook posts I certainly do not with the section I've included directly above that you ignored. It would be good if we could focus here instead of deflecting with personal attacks and presenting policy that I have already read.Merphee (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be good. This was discussed exhaustively on the article's Talk page. You are offering nothing new. This won't achieve anything. HiLo48 (talk) 07:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does need resolution. Unlike the FB posts that Johnuniq deleted and the other section I deleted from the article, the section above is very consistent with policy and just because it may or may not reflect poorly on Husar is no reason for us not to include what many reliable sources published on the matter. That's what Wikipedia is all about, what the reliable sources say. The section above had also been reworked by The Drovers Wife and I had added a further reference and reworked it further. There is no reason at all provided by anyone why it should not be included apart from you and the drovers Wife not liking it. Nothing we discussed extensively as you say applies to this section and I am puzzled as to exactly why you personally don't want it included in this politician's article.Merphee (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's ten year test. HiLo48 (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

My answer is yes the section would be relevant and what you pointed out is just a guide not a policy. You have provided no reasons to not include the section in its current revised form. Apart from you not liking it, or it may reflect poorly on Husar have you got anything else based on actual policy? I note that both you and The Drovers Wife are ok including such sections in other politician's articles but not Labor or Greens politicians for some reason. It's puzzling why you object to this section with no reasons provided.Merphee (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

You have said all that before, and it's been replied to many times before. HiLo48 (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Uninvolved Opinion 1. I don't care who is making the edits, how long they have been editing or what blocks they may or may not have. My opinions will be about the content only. 2. The content on Jim Metcher is about Jim Metcher not about Emma Husar. It doesn't belong on the article. It is a very clear case of Coatracking. 3. The content on Facebook photos is about Emma Husar, but notability needs to be shown. And even then, it still isn't really suitable unless it's a fucking huge news story. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes it was a "fucking huge news story" and it was relevant as it at least contributed to permanent Labor Party policy banning candidates from using social media.Merphee (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Then there will be no problems demonstrating notability. That's why shit like this is easy. If it deserves to be here, there will be sources. If there aren't, then it doesn't. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh please don't give him that tool. Yes, there are sources, just as there are heaps of sources for when our Prime Minister ate a raw onion. Notability is about more than sources. HiLo48 (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous with the PM's raw onion he ate for lunch analogy. I haven't seen The Australian or the SMH or ABC or Herald Sun or Channel 9 news write extensive news stories on him eating an onion HiLo. Husar's FB deletions were notable however were reported on by several major sources and contributed to significant internal policy reform regarding candidate's use of social media prior to elections. This is why sources like The Australian and other major (non tabloid) newspapers covered the story. It is notable and it contributed to policy change. It should be included. Thanks Johnuniq for being independent in this discussion and relying on policy rather than whether or not an editor wants or likes an inclusion because it may or may not reflect poorly on a politician. I don't see anyone holding back or deleting sections from Donald Trump's article solely because it may reflect poorly on him.Merphee (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't a "fucking huge news story" - it wasn't even a big story on the day it ran. One newspaper wrote one story, and then the local free weekly repeated it. Merphee makes continual claims of "several major sources" covering the story and has never been able to produce them, and claims that the Facebook posts "contributed to policy change" though this is not backed up in one single reliable source, period (apart from attempts at WP:SYNTH on Merphee's part). As has been pointed out ad infinitum, it isn't being removed because it may reflect poorly on anyone, it's being removed because it's utterly trivial. The difference between this and today's scandal about Husar (which certainly does reflect poorly on her) is that today's scandal is actually substantive - and that's why I added that to the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Merphee, I'm still interested in these " major (non tabloid) newspapers". The Australian is Murdoch, same as the Herald Sun (clearly a tabloid). Murdoch's stock in trade is writing negative articles on anyone but Liberal Party members. SMH is OK. Please find me those other independent newspapers. HiLo48 (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Please stop with the subjective stuff regarding Australian newspapers HiLo. That's your opinion only. I don't believe it and most Australians don't believe it. The Australian newspaper is used in most politicians and other notable Australian person's articles. Again you deflect. Nothing new to add.Merphee (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

It didn't even get significant coverage in tabloid newspapers. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

What utter Rubbish. I provided many quality sources, you are just trying to muddy the water. The whole idea of reporting here is to get 'independent' opinions like Spacecowboy420. The 2 of you hold identical opinions which in this case are not based on policy. The section meets every policy criteria and should be included.Merphee (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

You said "major (non tabloid) newspapers". Name them. Now. Here. And while you may like The Australian, most people who like it also acknowledge its right wing leanings. HiLo48 (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The Australian newspaper for starters. Are you trying to tell me The Australian is not a reliable source?Merphee (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I shall just point you at The Australian#Editorial and opinion pages. It fits very well into the Murdoch stable. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes you wrote that section in The Australian article. I believe such massive statements like the one you wrote need to have reliable sources. Unfortunately the source you used was The Monthly which is a far, far left wing private magazine publication that is widely known to be heavily biased. Regardless my question is this. Is The Australian newspaper a reliable source to be used in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons articles. I have posted it at that noticeboard to get some independent opinions. There's not much use arguing with you HiLo as you don't seem to accept any content additions unless they are ideologically consistent with your point of view. I'd rather put it out there and collaborate to improve articles.Merphee (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Talking about me won't help your case. And suggesting I wrote that section of the article is ridiculous. The issue is not about BLP articles in general. It's how The Australian treats Labor pollies when compared with Liberal pollies. It would be quite naive to think they get equal treatment. HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

This whole discussion between you two about The Australian is pointless, because The Australian article doesn't remotely amount to substantive coverage: it's a list of politicians who've gotten into Facebook gaffes with a three-line bit about Husar. There is absolutely no basis for demanding inclusion on account of that utterly-in-passing reference, regardless of what anybody thinks about The Australian as a source. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

This whole discussion is about you trying to censor these controversies from Labor and Greens politicians pages but then The Drovers Wife you insist the most ridiculous and poorly sourced crap is pushed into other right wing politicians articles like you did at David Leyonhjelm just to make them look bad. We need to be treating all articles equally and apply policy equally, not because of an allegiance to a particular party or ideology.Merphee (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

No one is trying to censor any controversies. Actual negative stories (like the bullying scandal) go in, trivia goes out. David Leyonjhelm's comments made national news for some time and are still being referenced in mass media on nearly a daily basis now. These barely made the news on the one day they were covered. This is equality. People wanting to throw in whatever grab-bag of trivia they think is going to smear politicians they don't like is extremely frustrating - so those of us neutral editors have to clean up this stuff on Emma Husar's article at the same time as deal with exactly the same shenanigans being pulled on arch-conservative Marcus Bastiaan's article. And inevitably the people responsible claim that the people chopping the trivia about their pet targets are just wanting to hide the twooth. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

It's fun to be accused of bias by supporters of both sides. It has happened to me every Australian election since I joined Wikipedia, and for US and UK elections as well. It's a fact I'm quite proud of. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer comment:This is too far gone for content DR. I recommend WP:BLPN to get more outside voices, although I fear WP:ANI is in the future. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

I feel compelled to add that I only posted this here because I was specifically asked to by someone who appeared to have much more experience than me on the Admin noticeboard.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Sarah Jeong (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ikjbagl (talk · contribs)
• Citing (talk · contribs)
• SWL36 (talk · contribs)
• Innisfree987 (talk · contribs)
• ESparky (talk · contribs)
• Truthsort (talk · contribs)
• PackMecEng (talk · contribs)
• Dialectric (talk · contribs)
• Abecedare (talk · contribs)
• Jason from nyc (talk · contribs)
• Brandizzi (talk · contribs)
• Openlydialectic (talk · contribs)
• AttackHelicopter51 (talk · contribs)
• XavierItzm (talk · contribs)
• Sangdeboeuf (talk · contribs)
• Drmies (talk · contribs)
• Wumbolo (talk · contribs)
• Demigord (talk · contribs)
• Proustfala (talk · contribs)
• Mracidglee (talk · contribs)
• Gciriani (talk · contribs)
• Nodekeeper (talk · contribs)
• Exsurge Domine (talk · contribs)
• Apokrif (talk · contribs)
• Tutelary (talk · contribs)
• Saturnalia0 (talk · contribs)
• Galobtter (talk · contribs)
• GRuban (talk · contribs)
• Neptune's Trident (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Someone is making edits to a locked, controversial/contentious page without waiting for community consensus on any issue other than that for which this person is notable. Many of the edits to the (locked) page are things I personally would have argued against as being non-notable fluff pieces of information designed to boost the Wiki page of a currently controversial figure, while completely avoiding any mention of the controversy. For example, why are we adding additional information boosting this person's (controversial) hiring without consensus, but adding that there is controversy about the hiring requires unanimous approval?. The page should be reverted to an earlier state so that all of the changes can receive proper consensus on a contentious page.

Additionally, there seems to be some Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing, whether intentional or not, where some users continually post requests for changes that have no secondary source backing, ignoring the reliable sources posted by others, and also "oppose" changes that are well sourced and cited, written in as neutral a language as possible. The discussion is beginning to feel less and less productive, and more and more partisan.

First request for administrator attention: Talk:Sarah_Jeong#Request_for_administrator_attention_Re:_article_protected_status

Second request for administrator attention: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sarah_Jeong:_Potential_disruption_and_potentially_inappropriate_(as_controversial_and_non-notable)_edits_to_a_protected,_contentious_page

P.S. I did not know who to list, so I listed all named users who have edited the talk page or main article page since August 3.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page, two requests for administrator attention

How do you think we can help?

I have no idea, this is my third time asking for help with this and I was directed to dispute resolution.

Not sure what the problem is--last time I looked at the talk page editors were trying to reach a compromise on the wording. Obviously some editors want to trash the article and smear the subject with incendiary language, and that's not cool: you'll find significant amounts of what appears to be right-wing slacktivism on the talk page. It's also worthwhile noticing that this "controversy" is all of two, three days old, and yet here we are already. I wish the warriors who are so happy to jump all over this woman (GamerGate-style) would be made to consider WP:NOTNEWS--and perhaps a barrage of warnings for DS would be warranted. For their consideration, and that of good-faith editors who wish to expand our project: "Sarah Jeong, The New York Times, and the Gamergate School of Journalism", "Sarah Jeong: New York Times journalist who tweeted 'cancel white people' is victim of 'dishonest' trolls, claims former employer", "The attack on Sarah Jeong reveals less about her tweets than the hostility of the internet", "The “controversy” over journalist Sarah Jeong joining the New York Times, explained", "An Asian American woman’s tweets ignite a debate: Is it okay to make fun of white people online?", "A note from the editorial leadership of The Verge: Newsrooms must stand up to targeted campaigns of harassment". All these discuss this manufactured controversy (that seems to be a consensus among the more reliable media), the American-Asian woman at the heart of it, and GamerGate. I hope ArbCom and others are watching. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer comment - I'm not sure DRN is a good venue, given the full prot, the requests for admin attention, the number of involved users coming and going, and the pace at which the article is moving. There's just not a lot of room for us to maneuver. I think the dust needs to settle a bit before DR is appropriate. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:2018 York University strike#Citation validity (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SprayCanToothpick (talk · contribs)
• Isingness (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Initially, all information on one of the several smaller parties was selectively removed from a civil conflict wikipedia page. The removal was under the basis that the citation conflicted with WP:UNDUE. A third opinion was called in who analyzed the sources and page, and said that the citation is a reliable source and didn't conflict with WP:UNDUE. Despite this, all information on the party was removed again (along with the removal of all information on several other smaller parties) under a different basis, WP:RS.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Contacting a third opinion, and also offering to compromise with the opposing position.

How do you think we can help?

Find a way that both positions can compromise regarding the information of the smaller parties involved in the civil conflict wikipedia page.

---

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:Shrine#Islam (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Batreeq (talk · contribs)
• MontyKind (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am attempting to correct the Sunni Islam view of Shrines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrine#Sunni_Islam). I have:

1. Quoted the primary sources (Hadith—Prophetic narrations)
2. Quoted and cited secondary sources, mainly:
   1. Classical Islamic scholar commentaries by Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj and Muhammad al-Bukhari upon the quoted hadiths.
   2. Oxford Islamic Studies Online.

The other user claims that this is a violation of WP:OR, despite me explaining that I have cited and quoted secondary sources. My constructive edits to the article are being reverted because I am simply replacing currently-cited content with alternate, more accurate, currently-cited content.

The following allows for Wikipedia articles to be edited (content is not set in stone):

• Wikipedia:Be bold
• WP:FIXED and WP:STONE

The user has also falsely accused me of committing vandalism and making unconstructive edits (WP:THREATEN): [19].

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

• Explained that I have cited secondary scholarly sources, with the above examples.
• Screenshotted a cited source and marked it up to clarify which is the primary and secondary source.

How do you think we can help?

By reaching a conclusion grounded in community policies and guidelines as soon as possible.

---

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.

---

 III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1533748653}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Backup#Third opinion (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• DovidBenAvraham (talk · contribs)
• JohnInDC (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Continuation of existing dispute, now over a footnote; look at "17:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)" comment, then go to the "13:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)" comment and keep reading through the "02:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)" comment. The disagreement is about whether a two-sentence footnote—as revised in the "01:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)" comment—whose first sentence does a routine calculation to reflect a source's written statement, and whose second sentence points out—using only a statement in that source and a statement in a preceding source—the reason why the two sources reach different conclusions, constitutes "buying advice" prohibited by some never-linked-to Wikipedia rule.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Requested a second Third Opinion. Erpert suggested DRN.

How do you think we can help?

Is the proposed revised footnote per the "01:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)" comment "an interpretive footnote explaining mathematically why ..., and ... an editor's narrative interpretation of material not expressly stated ..." (per John's "02:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)" comment), or is "The first sentence ... a routine calc. entirely from the text of the ref" and "the second sentence ... merely complies with 'If equally reliable sources disagree, present all ... inform'n'" (per Dovid's "01:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)" comment)?

Here's the more-coherent rewrite of the footnote that JohnInDC still objects to:

The third manufacturer reference cited in this sentence states that the 2010 industry average transport shock tolerance specification is drop-testing at a height of 36 inches (51 inches ÷ 140%) onto industrial carpeting. That contrasts with "You can do everything right with your drive, but drop it on a hard floor [emphasis added] as you pull it out of the safety deposit box, and like that, you’re off to the recovery service", which is the potential transport vulnerability in the PCWorld reference cited in the preceding sentence.

The first sentence in the rewrite is a routine calculation entirely from the text of the reference, which—as I have pointed out in my "04:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)" comment—does not make it an inference according to WP rules. The second sentence in the rewrite highlights an apparent Conflict between sources, but I have not made a personal observation—merely complied with "If equally reliable sources disagree, present all of the information" accompanied by pointing out that the apparent disagreement results from two different definitions of drop testing. Note that I have made the first sentence of the rewrite klunkier by avoiding mention of the name Iomega as the author of the third reference; that should make scope_creep [another WP editor who thinks every mention of a manufacturer's name is advertising] happy.

Look at the last two or three sentences of the "Magnetic tape" and "Optical storage" and "Solid state storage" and "Remote backup service" paragraphs of this "Storage media" section of the article. Every one of those sentences is stating an advantage or a drawback of its particular type of storage media, and I didn't write those sentences. I split the former next-to-last sentence of the "Hard disk" paragraph because its existing "buying advice" was at least partially obsolete, but my new next-to-last sentence—which would end with the rewritten footnote—just presents the same kind of information that the equivalent sentences in the other paragraphs also present. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is the pertinent article text, showing the proposed footnote in context (I've stripped the wikilinks, and shorthanded the refs):

One main disadvantage of hard disk backups vis-a-vis tape are that they are potentially more easily damaged, especially while being transported (e.g., for off-site backups) <PC World ref>. However, as the technology of ramp loading and the accelerometer (sometimes termed a "shock sensor") has migrated over the last few years from laptop computers down to individual hard disks, three manufacturers' descriptions of their portable hard disk technology <Western Digital ref>, <Toshiba ref>, <Iomega ref> indicate that the transport vulnerability has been reduced.<proposed footnote here>

Note: The third manufacturer reference cited in this sentence states that the 2010 industry average transport shock tolerance specification is drop-testing at a height of 36 inches (51 inches ÷ 140%) onto industrial carpeting. That contrasts with "You can do everything right with your drive, but drop it on a hard floor [emphasis added] as you pull it out of the safety deposit box, and like that, you’re off to the recovery service", which is the potential transport vulnerability in the PCWorld reference cited by the preceding sentence.>

The footnote is arcane & confusing, excessively detailed, borderline OR and Synthesis, and does not further illuminate the text. The footnote is incoherent to anyone who doesn't delve into the references; and, anyone who does delve into them will find the information right at hand. The existing, unadorned references simply, and directly, support the article text, and do not need to be further interpreted, reconciled or explained by this note, or by any other.

These concerns are substantially the same as those I expressed to a disinterested editor in a recent Third Opinion review on a similar issue at the same article, see Talk:Backup#Third_opinion, which resulted in removal of the extraneous text. JohnInDC (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I have revised the underlying paragraph to more accurately capture what the refs say, and short-circuit the whole footnote problem by eliminating the supposed conflict that the footnote was intended to address. I've set out my reasoning on the article Talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

IMHO the real problem with this paragraph is that JohnInDC rewrote a sentence in it on "17:54, 26 July 2018‎", and now complains that the footnote in the rewritten sentence would be "arcane & confusing, excessively detailed, borderline OR and Synthesis, and does not further illuminate the text. The footnote is incoherent to anyone who doesn't delve into the references; and, anyone who does delve into them will find the information right at hand. The existing, unadorned references simply, and directly, support the article text, and do not need to be further interpreted, reconciled or explained by this note, or by any other."

The sentence used to say (omitting refs) "However, as the technology of ramp loading and the accelerometer (sometimes termed a "shock sensor") has migrated over the last few years from laptop computers down to individual hard disks, three manufacturers' descriptions of their portable hard disk technology indicate that the transport vulnerability has been reduced." After JohnInDC's rewrite, it now says "To ameliorate this concern, several manufacturers produce portable drives employing ramp loading and accelerometer technology (sometimes termed a "shock sensor"), which exceed industry averages in drop tests." The words "which exceed industry averages in drop tests" aren't mine—they're his.

The second sentence in the first section in the Iomega article says "The baseline shock tolerance specification for Drop Shock Technology requires that sampled drives subjected to drop testing must be intact and working after a non-operating shock of 900G @ 1ms and an operating shock of 250G @ 2ms – the technical equivalent of a 36 inch drop." That 36 inch drop is exactly the 2010 industry average I calculated from the first two sentences in the second paragraph of the second section of the Iomega article (the "drop testing at a height of 51 inches" in that same paragraph is for their "semi-rugged" Drop Guard Technology that "features special internal cushioning that protects the hard drive inside the case, increasing its shock resistance"). The HGST 2007 white paper claims "1,000 Gs of non-operating shock.", vs. the 2010 industry-average "non-operating shock of 900G @ 1ms" for Iomega Drop Shock Technology, but that's only 11% over the industry average—a difference that would be hardly worth mentioning even if it didn't constitute "buying advice".

Thinking it over, I think the original fault was mine for imprecise wording of the sentence. I should have written something like "... the transport vulnerability has been reduced as other manufacturers adopted these mid-1990s-to-2000 inventions"—as the HGST ref clearly says they have. With this alteration, the purpose of my proposed footnote becomes clear; it is to aid the reader in answering an IMHO key question "Will the data on my non-"rugged" portable HDD be safe if I drop it out of my 36-inch-high pocket or purse?" The best answer—but one that will be OR for a WP editor pending a comprehensive reference—seems to be "Yes, if the drop is onto nothing less resilient than an industrial carpet" (per the 2010 Iomega ref) but "Maybe no, if the drop is onto a hard floor" (per the 2016 PCWorld ref cited in the preceding sentence). DovidBenAvraham (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

We should probably conduct further discussion at the Talk page, rather than here, particularly before a volunteer has weighed in. JohnInDC (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem with that was that on "17:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)" you had created a new Talk page section below the "Third opinion (reprise)" sub-section. I've now taken the liberty of deleting that section header, so the volunteer will find our discussion related to the DRN in the sub-section where he/she is going to look. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no problem. I created that new section on purpose. The volunteers here can easily follow the discussion. You and I are the only two people talking, and the new section follows immediately on the prior discussion. I've restored it, and please don't edit others' Talk page contributions. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

DRN volunteers: The new Talk page section JohnInDC has created is here. Please consider that a continuation of "Third opinion (reprise)", which is where I understood all discussion being considered in Dispute Resolution was to take place. JohnInDC, I would take it very ill if this comment is altered in any way without my consent; I would take that as evidence that you were trying to conceal discussion from the volunteers. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness's sake. Please AGF. Further, as it happens, this particular discussion began about 15 paragraphs above the link you've provided, in the prior section. JohnInDC (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Please believe that I hated to write my "21:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)" comment above. But I still don't understand why you inserted a new Talk page section, since my experience filling out the form for this DR included specifying a Talk page section where the volunteer(s) would find the dispute described. I'd simply like the volunteer(s) to see all of my side of that description.

I'm having trouble finding "... 15 paragraphs above the link you've provided, in the prior section." That prior sub-section would be Talk:Backup#Third opinion (reprise), except that—even counting one-sentence paragraphs—there simply don't appear to be more than 8 paragraphs in that sub-section. Perhaps you meant somewhere in Talk:Backup#Third opinion; I would say "... this particular discussion began ..." with my "05:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)" comment on the Talk page. (BTW, IMHO it's best to specify locations on Talk pages with a comment time-date in quotes; the surrounding quotes make it easy to plug the time-date into a Web browser's Find box.) That would be consistent with your idea that this dispute is simply a continuation of the one in the Third Opinion.

In a broad sense, your idea is correct. I'm still trying to solve the problem posed in the third sentence of the last paragraph of my "06:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)" comment above. (To understand the problem's significance, look at this video—with the sound turned down—that shows the comparative sizes of "ruggedized" and non-"ruggedized" portable HDDs. You'd never be able to fit a "ruggedized" HDD into your pocket or purse.) The fact that I'm trying to solve it is a result of what may be my atypical reason for being a Wikipedia editor; I want to, consistent with avoiding OR or Synthesis, help readers to find answers to questions about current software and hardware. I hurt me to have a backup administrator say, as one did a couple of months ago on the Retrospect Forums, "I can see that a Wiki article about Retrospect might be of use for others, although I personally never trust information that comes from a Wiki article and I certainly would not use that info for something as mission-critical as backups." On the other hand, it made me feel good that my friend was able to answer, on those same Forums, an administrator's question about the cost of using Retrospect's cloud backup facility by pointing him/her to the last paragraph of the Amazon Glacier#Cost section. An average 600 people a day view the Backup article; although some of them are "fight fans", most of them simply want useful information. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer comment: Who requested the WP:3O, and what was the result of it? I need an editor to the dispute to answer before I continue. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is the 3O request, by DovidBenAvraham, concerning pull quotes embedded in certain refs. The result was, “The quotes do not add value to the reader”. See, a little below this link. DBA should speak for himself, but I understand that he considers the current disagreement about the utility of a footnote to raise different issues, or perhaps simply that the outcome should be different. As for me, I believe the original 3O presented the same concerns, and laid the issues to rest. JohnInDC (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk page discussion about the footnote begins with the paragraph beginning “My compromise solution”, if you’d care to search for the text. JohnInDC (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

So it was in fact up in Talk:Backup#Third opinion, which is two sub-sections above Talk:Backup#Storage_media_– hard drives. Please consider using quoted time-dates to refer to comments in the future. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Time stamp text varies according to time zone and user preference, and is hard to search. (E.g., your 24 hour, GMT "05:42, 17 July 2018" is my 12 hour, EDT "1:42 am, 17 July 2018".) Plus Talk page comments are rarely in straight chron order, so you can't just scroll up or down to the right place. I find short text snippets easier in identifying comments, plus it can sometimes be used to provide a tiny bit of context. JohnInDC (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I had no idea that time stamp text was a user preference. In fact I don't think I've looked at user preferences since 2015. I thought that UTC on WP was a consequence of our belonging to that out-of-date military alliance, or our losing the war to Britain in 1783. The worst part of this lack of knowledge is that I've been wrapping time stamp text in quotes but leaving out "(UTC)". DovidBenAvraham (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad I could help. JohnInDC (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I requested it (sorry for not answering immediately; it was nearly 1 a.m. here in New York City). The result of the WP:3O is described on the article's Talk page starting with barkeep49's "03:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)" comment. Basically I tried for another two weeks to put a revised set of quotes into the refs that JohnInDC would accept. Then, as described in the article's Talk page in my "05:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)" comment, I switched to adding a footnote at the end of the article sentence that cites the 3 refs. JohnInDC hasn't liked either my original or my proposed revised footnote, which is why I have requested Dispute Resolution.

The dispute is a tricky one, as I described it in my " 06:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)" Talk page comment (duplicated above at "06:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)" on this page). It is greatly complicated because JohnInDC insists, in his "10:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)" Talk page comment, "You misunderstand. I rewrote the sentence to conform to the refs and am happy with it.". I tried to tell JohnInDC, in my "23:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)" article Talk page comment, that he has fundamentally misunderstood the refs. His response was to be insulted about my mention of "less-intellectually-gifted readers of the paragraph making the same mistakes you did"—which I admit could have been more gently phrased, taking it as a personal attack. IMHO one or more volunteers are going to have to tell either John or me that that person has misunderstood the refs. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'll take a closer look at this. I hate to be a bear, DovidBenAvraham, but could you please link diffs instead of timestamps in the future? It's a bazillion times easier to keep track of what's going on. Instructions are here. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer question - User:Xavexgoem - Are you acting as moderator, or are you only asking questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment - The discussion above is long and not concise and nearly incomprehensible. Overly long posts do not always clarify the content issues. Please try to be concise so that volunteers know what the issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we've sorted this out - see these exchanges. I've asked @DovidBenAvraham: to withdraw the request here, inasmuch as he started the ball rolling. JohnInDC (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we've sorted this out, basically by eliminating the footnote in favor of improving the second of the two existing sentences—and adding a third sentence that highlights the still-existing vulnerabilities of non-"ruggedized" HDDs. Please withdraw the request, and thank you to the volunteers for their efforts. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Excellent! I am closing the case. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Pastirma#Suggested compromise. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Seraphim System (talk · contribs)
• 74.70.146.1 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute over the use of SPS and reinsertion of poorly sourced content and possible WP:SYNTH. Before proceeding to an RfC, I think a moderated discussion would help us have a source-based discussion to arrive at a compromise.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have discussed on the talk page, but the editor has not responded to queries for reliable sources in addition to the SPS, or made a clear proposal about the content that he wants to add and how he feels the sources support that content.

How do you think we can help?

I would specifically like to discuss, in an organized manner, the content the editor wants to add and which sources he feels support that content. I think it's important for the article's internal consistency and accuracy that an orderly source-based discussion take place, which hasn't happened. Particularly with regards to the use of SPS and whether there are other sources that support inclusion.

---

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:Andrew Jackson#Recent edits (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Display name 99 (talk · contribs)
• Historian7 (talk · contribs)
• Quarkgluonsoup (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Quarkgluonsoup made a series of edits to the Legacy section of the article. This editor changed some language and moved significant amounts of text from the main body to the footnotes section, all without explanation. In June, this same user had made similar language changes and not simply moved but deleted the text, also without providing an edit summary. This change was undone by a different user.

I reverted the most recent changes, but had my revert undone by Historian7. This user allowed me to restore the original language of the article but insisted that the text remain not in the body but in the footnotes section. I objected to this and, after a second revert of mine was undone, initiated a discussion on the talk page.

Historian7's arguments were that the text that was moved seemed "peculiar and bloggish" as well as "obviously superfluous." He noted that they were added relatively recently and said that they didn't seem to have consensus. I objected to this by pointing out that consensus is not necessarily needed before making a change to an article while further adding that this "obviously superfluous" text was approved during the article's FA review. Some of it was actually added during that time period at the request of a particular reviewer who thought the Legacy section should be expanded. In my opinion, moving some of the text from the Legacy section into the footnotes section makes the article confusing to navigate. It would be better just to delete it, even though I don't think that should happen either. Also, if the text was superfluous, it should've been deleted. It's all still there. It just looks awkward and confusing.

Quarkgluonsoup recently returned to the page. Without talk page discussion or even an edit summary justifying all of the specific changes, he re-added the language changes to the lead which I opposed and which Historian7 refused to support. I reverted this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There have been some reverts. I initiated a discussion on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

It seems obvious that none of us are going to change our minds. I would appreciate someone making a determination based on their own judgment and the merits of our arguments.

Update: Quarkgluonsoup recently re-added the language changes to the lead which I objected to on the grounds of inaccuracy. A discussion has been opened on the talk page. Display name 99 (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Discussion is long enough and all parties have been properly informed of the DRN request however we still await Historian7 and Quarkgluonsoup to add a short summary of the dispute as they see it in the sections above.
• Additional information - This article is a Feature Article and a Level 4 Vital article for People. The article was semi protected indefinitely on 11:11, 25 August 2010 by HJ Mitchell for excessive vandalism. Full log found here.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment - I have familiarized myself in a general way with the dispute and glossed over the discussion. This apears to center on the Legacy section and recent changes to the narrative with a number of edits. I will continue reading the discussion and history. Please do not begin a discussion until all parties have made a summary.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Template talk:United Kingdom in the European Union (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• The Vintage Feminist (talk · contribs)
• EddieHugh (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Link to exact thread: Template talk:United Kingdom in the European Union#Redirects.

There is a dispute over whether Healthier IN the EU and Scientists for EU should both be included in the template under the "Calls for second vote" - the argument against being they both "land" at Mike Galsworthy#Scientists for EU and Healthier IN the EU contradicting advice given at WP:NAV "Avoid repeating links to the same article within a template". Also there is a dispute as to whether Britain for Europe should be included as a redirect to Opposition to Brexit in the United Kingdom#Britain for Europe (Britain for Europe was previously an article in its own right but was deleted after an AfD WP:Articles for deletion/Britain for Europe, it was then a redirect to Anne Weyman (vice-chair of Britain for Europe)).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The matter has been discussed extensively on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Perhaps volunteers can weigh up the arguments on both sides and judge how the template compares with regard to standard practice on Wikipedia.

There's not much of a dispute. I made a proposal – "that Britain for Europe be removed from the template and that we adopt a wait and see approach to what else gets added to the template. If more redirects appear, we can revisit the matter" – but it awaits a reply. This was a compromise proposal. Strictly speaking, the template in question should be used on the Mike Galsworthy article, because it is linked to in the template. If that were done, then the WP:NAV suggestion quoted above ("Avoid repeating links to the same article within a template") would apply. The same applies to Britain for Europe: it redirects to Opposition to Brexit in the United Kingdom, which is already linked to directly in the template. WP:NAV is 'only' an explanatory supplement to a guideline, so we're stuck with working things out by ourselves, given the apparent absence of policy/guideline instruction. I therefore fall back on common sense, putting the reader first and NPOV, which to me mean that there should be only one link to an article in any template, to avoid confusing the reader (common sense and reader first principles) and to avoid giving the impression that the template/Wikipedia is advocating/expecting another referendum (reader first and NPOV). EddieHugh (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: This is the second time this DRN has been taken out see: User talk:TransporterMan#Recently closed DRN and I think EddieHugh may be on holiday as he doesn't appear to be editing at the moment, can this DRN stay open a while to see if he begins editing again? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC) No longer relevant. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• The opening post proposes "removing clutter" including Britain for Europe, Healthier IN the EU and Scientists for EU. I have stated my objections to this and the response has ultimately been to propose removing Britain for Europe.

Both Healthier IN the EU and Scientists for EU redirect to Mike Galsworthy#Advocacy for UK membership of EU. There is currently an AfD for Mike Galsworthy. The quote from WP:SELFRED "Avoid linking to titles that redirect straight back to the page on which the link is found" is unfounded Scientists for EU does not redirect straight back to Scientists for EU and Healthier IN the EU does not redirect straight back to Healthier IN the EU. So I don't understand why it's being quoted.

Also relevant to this DRN is WP:Articles for deletion/Britain for Europe and this discussion User talk:EddieHugh#Template:United Kingdom in the European Union.

--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer comment: Does the addition of the new articles Healthier IN the EU and Scientists for EU change the dynamic of this dispute? Xavexgoem (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Xavexgoem I posted my comment above without noticing yours. I've reverted the two links back to redirects, I think the AfD needs to be settled first. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018#"Connected legislation: world and cross-border trade" section - WP:UNDUE (edit | subject | history | links | "Connected_legislation:_world_and_cross-border_trade"_section_-_WP:UNDUE watch | logs)

Users involved

• The Vintage Feminist (talk · contribs)
• Qexigator (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I regard the section European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018#Connected legislation: world and cross-border trade as WP:UNDUE.

This para: diff is fine (apart from the wikilinks to the WP:UNDUE section below) and all that is needed for these other pieces of legislation. At no point have I suggested that the other legislation shouldn't be mentioned at all.

The other editor says It would be well to desist missiing the point of this revision, consider the sections and article content as a whole, and avoid the risk of pointless edit warring. There is no good reason to impede the further improvements.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Please see the following WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Qexigator reported by User:The Vintage Feminist (Result: Stale)

How do you think we can help?

I would be grateful for a neutral set of eyes on this.

---

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.

---

Yes, I have discussed this issue on the article's talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Radcliffe Line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kautilya3 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Link to exact thread: Talk:Radcliffe_Line#Discussing new edits.

This article had been quite stable for 9 months since October last year (when 2 out of three editors agreed to my contributions). Until this large scale consensus-less edit by Kautilya3.[21] The edit summary claimed that content which I added in October under the final negotiations section were a "bloat"

To be specific the content involved the Muslim League-Congress dispute. The Muslim League position was to keep the two mainly Muslim provinces of British India, Punjab and Bengal united, and the opposing Congress demand was to divide these two provinces along religious lines (so that non-Muslim minorities could obtain half the territory of these Muslim provinces). Their dispute was the subject of the final negotiations between the disputant parties in the lead-up to partition of India.

Eventually, due to threats and pressure by Lord Mountbatten and the Congress, the Muslim League gave in to the harassment and agreed to partition those 2 provinces along religious lines and this is how the Radcliffe line came to be drawn through Punjab and Bengal as the international border between the Indian and Pakistani sides of these former united provinces (Punjab and Bengal). These were the only 2 provinces where the Radcliffe line was drawn (the rest of the Indo-Pakistan border such as Sind-India is not called Radcliffe line). Had there been no division of Punjab and Bengal there would have been no Radcliffe line.

The arguments Kautilya3 has offered on the talk page to exclude this sourced content are pedantic and are based on (A) a claim that the League-Congress dispute over the unity/division of the (Muslim) provinces Punjab and Bengal was not the subject of the final negotiations between the Muslim League, Congress and British and (B) acts as if the main subject of the final negotiations was the status of just one district Gurdaspur.

Another dispute is the weight this one district, Gurdaspur, has in the final negotiations section when it was not even the main subject of the negotiations. Its later designation to India did prove controversial and that controversy already has a separate section in the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The matter has been discussed on the talk page. [here].

How do you think we can help?

The pedantic arguments used to justify large scale removal of sourced content from the final negotiations section can be addressed. Secondly, the weight of content on just one district Gurdaspur in the Background-Final negotiations section needs to be assessed. -- Dilpa kaur (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to participate in this WP:DRN case. But I can't do so at the moment due to private reasons. If it is possible to keep the case on hold for about a week, I might be able to get back. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Please keep discussion to a minimum until a volunteer opens discussion.

• Volunteer note - There has been article talk page discussion. The filing party has listed and notified one editor, but not other editors, and the other editors should also be notified. Also, discussion at this noticeboard is voluntary, so please do not tell another editor that they will have to take part in discussions here. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - The filing party has listed and notified one other editor, but not other editors. All of the editors should be listed and notified. Failure to list and notify all of the editors will result in this case being closed as incompletely filed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of TV programs using outside broadcast (1950-90) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• WikiDan61 (talk · contribs)
• Coolabahapple (talk · contribs)
• Ajf773 (talk · contribs)
• Narky Blert (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

WikiDan61 raised a dispute about the lack of information regarding what specific episodes of specific shows used Outside Broadcast filming. Since there is a lack of available archive material of this on the internet and books, I have only been able to include simplified hypothetical information, especially on long running shows like EastEnders, The Sky at Night and Coronation Street which have unbroken continuous runs with no gaps between seasons. He has since placed a Deletion request, despite my case for the defence.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I had placed a message on the talk page, stating my case for not deleting the page. However no one has responded to my message and I have been ignored.

How do you think we can help?

I would like the Deletion Request to be rescinded based on the statement I have raised with you. I have received a number of attacks from WikiDan61 over several of my articles in the past month, mostly citing errors on Citation which I have since corrected. However the attacks have continued to the point where I consider this to be personal campaign to discredit my articles.

This is not an issue for dispute resolution. This is an active AFD discussion that Goldmic90 is unhappy about. Nothing to see here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Presentation High School (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• John from Idegon (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

John from Idegon (talk · contribs) removed two sections on the Presentation High School page, one on extra curricular activities that had been on the page since 6 Nov 2016, and one on sexual abuse allegations that was authored 8 Feb 2018. The section on sexual abuse had original been authored by Annalisa Smith (talk · contribs), but I had edited it on the 30 March 2018 to make the tone neutral and objective and provide reliable sources.

I have argued for the inclusion for both of these sections, because I believe the content is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines, while the other editor argues that they are not acceptable contributions. The other editor has said that he is unpersuaded by my arguments, that my edits are vandalism, my content is "unsubstantiated garbage", has declined to continue to address the arguments I've made in the Talk pages further, and says that they believe they have the consensus to delete the content due to fact that the content has been removed by two other IP's who did not participate in the Talk.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have responded to the editor's arguments, provided sources, and asked them to consider editing rather than wholesale deletion.

How do you think we can help?

Guidance on what content is appropriate and how the disputed content might be edited, if necessary, in order to drive consensus.

I will not be participating here as this is premature. The discussion has been ongoing for only three days, there have been no 3O requested, and no notifications made. Request this be closed. John from Idegon (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer comment: Is this related to the Houston Independent School District school case? Xavexgoem (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Xavexgoem can I get your advice on how the correct way to proceed with resolving this dispute is now that John from Idegon has given his explanation. Because the editor is arguing that there are two other editors involved giving him consensus numerically, I assumed that 3O was not an appropriate or required step. Thanks much on however you can advise! 24.155.229.89 (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I recommend a WP:3O. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Closing this, as one party will not participate. However, it should be noted that this is the second case in a week where John from Idegon has been a party. This in and of itself is not a problem, but between the two cases, I've seen comments and edit summaries by him that read:

• "Do you even know what extracurricular means?"
• "Apparently you do not understand the concept of primary/secondary/tertiary sourcing."
• "Are you under the impression that there is some fact checking process involved in filing a lawsuit?"
• "Please understand this: YOU are causing this problem." (on blocked editor's talk)

...And that perhaps part of the reason for these DR requests is comments such as these. I tend to agree with his interpretation of policy, but perhaps it would do everyone some good to explain policy in a way that doesn't cause this level of frustration. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Geordie#Mostly unsourced In popular culture section (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Amsgearing (talk · contribs)
• Easeswily (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Rewritten over view: User Amsgearing is deleting unsourced, poorly-sourced , and trivial information from a section of an article on Geordie. The section is called In Popular Culture.

The other user called Easeswily is reverting those deletions en masse.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Easeswily has tried highlighting the guidelines in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blanking_sections_sometimes_violates_policies. Easeswily has tried to show how he has used the wiki guidelines on editing on the talk page. Easeswily once suggested a 3rd party but Armsgearing did not want it and reverted.

How do you think we can help?

I (EasesWily) honestly do not know how you can reasonably sort this by a dispute resolution??? I am genuinely not in an edit war here. I do not want to waste my time edit warring. I just edit and disengage. I genuinely believe the problem here is 'section blanking.' I have attempted to resolve this going by using the wiki guidelines set here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blanking_sections_sometimes_violates_policies

There has been no "section blanking"; Easeswily is falsely claiming this in an effort to preserve an entire section full of unsourced and poorly-sourced trivia. Each of my edits was done on one item and the reason for deletion was explained in each edit summary.

I've been meticulously going over the material on the page, and removing things that are either unsourced, poorly sourced to unreliable sources, or in clear contravention of WP:POPCULTURE, as I stated before on the talk page. Meanwhile, Easeswily is a single-purpose account who briefly admitted to sock puppetry before editing that admission out of the talk page discussion, as you can see in the diffs I provided. Now he's attempted to intimidate me on my talk page and here as well.

I also did a little digging in the Geordie page history. I believe, based on the types of edits made, there's a good chance Easeswily is the same person as either Renamed user 9 or Mr KEBAB, both of whom edited the Geordie page extensively and are currently blocked. There may be more sockpuppets (as he said himself, "I have many accounts"), but I don't have time for the detective work required. Amsgearing (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. There's been no nefarious socking in the dispute (illusions of consensus, evading 3RR, etc), so it won't be addressed should this open. Xavexgoem (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that there was, in this particular dispute, but I do believe it's relevant that the complaining party stated outright "I have many accounts", then edited that assertion to hide it, and that previous editors of this section in question have been blocked from editing, one of them for sockpuppeting. So, I think it's reasonable to look at context: it's highly likely that this editor has been blocked indefinitely from editing under other account names. Amsgearing (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk page reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Geordie#Mostly_unsourced_In_popular_culture_section

Wiki guideline references I have followed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blanking_sections_sometimes_violates_policies.

Hello I have been sent here by an admin called Luk from this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism I originally went there to report section blanking by a user. I think I should have come here first

Here are some of Amsgearing's rapid section blank diff refs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geordie&type=revision&diff=852867854&oldid=852849528 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geordie&type=revision&diff=852823291&oldid=844557419 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geordie&type=revision&diff=852849528&oldid=852823291 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geordie&type=revision&diff=852990158 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geordie&type=revision&diff=853000412&oldid=853000110 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geordie&type=revision&diff=853130677&oldid=853000110 (2 August 2018)

In good faith I also did offer the user Amsgearing a chance to 3rd party his mass of edits... In good faith, I also made a compromise edit, were I deleted some inlines that were not cited, I deleted two or more lines of trivia and I preserved 11 cited inlines. I explained my edit, as you can see on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Geordie#Mostly_unsourced_In_popular_culture_section In good faith I was willing to go through the section with him. He then reverted and section blanked the page, again, as you can see by the diffs left on the geordie talk page. This is 'section blanking verse preservation' and I genuinely do not believe anyone can be reasoned with in good faith if they section blank. Example once you try to reason with 'one thing,' they remove numerous more inline cites and then blank the full or almost the full section and own the page... Section blanking is incredibly hard to deal with and reason with, with good faith. This is because section blanking moves so fast and hides key bits of information that might get lost...

Also I briefly explained my experience on wiki to Amsgearing. Amsgearing then falsely accused me of sock puppetry after I briefly explained my experience on wiki. He then lied to the admin Luk that I attempted to remove this statement, the diffs show I did not remove any statement... He lied on this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism, I believe this was prejudicial to my reason about section blanking. He has also lied about the citations he has removed... One example, claiming the authority Dobson was not referenced in the The Plague Dogs book when he was. He has ignored my earlier good faith offer to 3rd party this and went onto continue rapidly 'section blank.' A LOT of data has been rapidly removed here, I emphasise a lot as almost a full section of knowledge has been removed in hours. I honestly do not know how you can reasonably sort this by a dispute resolution??? I am genuinely not in an edit war here. I do not want to waste my time edit warring. I just edit and disengage. I reason the problem here is 'section blanking.' I have attempted to resolve this going by using the wiki guidelines set here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blanking_sections_sometimes_violates_policies. And on the talk page I have explained how I have used the guidelines fairly. I want good faith, but how can there be good faith if someone section blanks? To me, it seems impossible because of the fast pace of the section blanking. Easeswily (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer comment: Filer, can you please rewrite the above so it is based solely on the content dispute? Absent the back-and-forth between you two, what is the actual problem? The summary is almost entirely editor behavior.

This is the first step. Thank you. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Xavegoem and thank you for the comment.

The problem is he has rapidly section blanked the section In popular Culture, in the Geordie article.

Where do I start explaining the content nuances? He has removed almost all of it... I do not think this is a case where you can start explaining content nuances yet... To discuss content nuances we would need to have the information preserved so we can discuss all the fine nuances piece by piece. The content has been section blanked. And he is reverting edits.

He has removed 11 cited inlines that where authoritve on the subject; the citations were notable. They were verifiable. Granted one or two may have been problematic. However the vast majority added knowledge to the section. I offered to discuss most of this with him. In good faith I even suggested an edit to start on, but he reverted.

Example of the things he has removed, everything: cites from a book, newspapers, websites, lyrics. All cites are verifiable and validate premises... I hope you can help though. Btw I've redited the overview I hope that helps.Easeswily (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't care about what you or the other editor has done; we're going to start fresh and move forward.

There is – quite literally – no valid reason for editors to argue if it's not about the content of an article. I have no doubt that the reason you two are here is to improve the article, so let's start with those nuances so I can understand what this is actually about. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC) Also: all revisions are saved in the history; nothing is truly wiped. The version you prefer is available in full here

My reason for editing the article was to improve it, following guidelines in WP:POPCULTURE. The other editor simply reverted my edits en masse. Now he's lying about me "section blanking" (that never happened) and he's restoring material that was previously added by now-blocked accounts (one of them for sockpuppetry) so I think it's reasonable to find it hard to believe he's editing in good faith. Amsgearing (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - User:Easeswily - Try listening to User:Xavexgoem. See WP:TLDR. Your posts are so long as to be incomrehensible. Also, this is not a forum for conduct disputes. This dispute may have to be closed due to its excessive length. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

You're free to re-request this, but only if you don't bring up the conduct of the other editor. I don't believe the sock allegation at all – what sockmaster would admit to having socks? It completely defeats the purpose. If it's such a concern, please go to ANI. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Persian people 

Users involved

• LouisAragon (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

-An image depicting a 17th century Persian tavern-keeper is being repeatedly removed by the user from the page image gallery. Discussions to inquire more about his reasons for doing so have led to a standstill.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to comply with the user's demand to discuss the issue on the article talk page. He at first tried evading the discussion by constantly moving the post around on the talk page, and now is engaged in obstinate behaviour towards addressing the challenge. He avoided responding for 48h, making me think the matter has been settled, but he began lashing out when the image was added again.

How do you think we can help?

The user is not acknowledging the fact that Wikipedia is a platform for the benefit of the public. He is obstinate towards resolving the issue and is more interested in knee jerk reactions. He has raised multiple red-herrings not really within the purview of my challenge. Perhaps your involvement will get him back to the discussion in more civil manner or resolve the issue by determining whether his reasons for removal are just to begin with.

Declining: This was an email sent from one editor to another, as documented on the talk page:

[redacted]

This is a case for WP:ANI. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Saudi Arabia (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Nabataeus (talk · contribs)
• OxfordLaw (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I tried to improve what appeared to be messy and random overview of Saudi Arabian history where every kingdom/state has its own sections with two sentences maximum capacity, which was indiscriminately dumped into the article from their respected pages long time ago without any effort to make it consistent and appealing for the average reader.

My improvement were mostly re-writing and inclusion of informations into an encompassing section labelled "Pre-Islamic period". I followed WP:MOS and added a chronological narrative to the version that was reverted.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We extensively discussed it in the talk page, without any outcomes

How do you think we can help?

Addressing what manual of style should be followed (for reference, see the differences between the disputed versions, this [22] and this version [23]), or if we should make separate sections for every kingdom (some don't exceed two sentences). Best regards.

Volunteer comment Hi guys, can I ask, is the key dispute on the page effectively whether to use an uninterrupted historical narrative or brief sections based around historical periods? IE: is the dispute, according to both of you, just centered around the format of the information or is there any substantial difference on content? Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

^Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. There have been multiple editors, some of whom have not been listed yet. The other editors who have been discussing should be listed and notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

If you ask me yes, it revolve around that. However, it may be different story for Oxfordlaw (there's slight confusion). He think I deleted some kingdoms/states, but that's not the case. I re-wrote the article and only deleted Kindah and Thamud (see [24] extremely brief and inappropriate sections), just to find the right way to include it in the future in the narrative. I just grew weary and decided to submit it before my browser crush. He reverted me, and I said it is better this way instead of the old version that was dumped without minimum caring, if he have any edition or any deleted information that he want to rightly restore he could absolutely add it. Nabataeus (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I asked those editors opinions randomly, they are not part of the dispute, I don't want to bother them, if you still want me to notify them given that, then I'll do it. Nabataeus (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer comment Thank you, I've put a note on the Saudi Arabia talk page advising the users of the page about the existence of this discussion.Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer comment: I'll take a look at this, pending a summary from OxfordLaw. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, your input on the appropriate manual of style ought to be used in this case would be appreciated (notice I have no problem with content, as long as it stay relatively consistent). Nabataeus (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer question - User:Nabateus - Please explain about asking other editors randomly. Were you trying to get opinions that agreed with yours? Did you pay attention to their views? How did you select them to ask them randomly? They probably need to be included, unless they are just part of an effort to do an end run around consensus. Please explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I pinged users I engaged with in old disputes over some articles to extract their neutral opinions on the issue (I am relatively new user, so not acquainted with anyone and those were the one that I could think of). However it was in void, since Oxfordlaw disregarded their insights, so I asked for 3O who said separate sections shouldn't be made which resulted also in nothing, so I asked an admin intervention, who directed me to this page as a last resort. Nabataeus (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment - User:OxfordLaw has not yet responded. Participation here is voluntary. Does the other editor wish to take part in discussion here? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea, he was notified, so I can't force him to discuss. You could see his perspective in the talk page. The issue revolve around the manual of style, I have no problem with his addition/content as long as it is consistent and well organized (similar to many countries articles). "articles should still follow good organizational and writing principles regarding sections and paragraphs." Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout.

I should emphasize that the pre-Islamic section was dumped indiscriminately in the article long ago from other kingdoms pages. The two competing versions can be seen [25] and [26]. Your opinions on the betterment and improvement of the article would be appreciated.Nabataeus (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Al-Ahbash (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Samsparky (talk · contribs)
• McKhan (talk · contribs)
• MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs)
• Softlavender (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue is regarding weather Al-Ahbash's schools are supported by Al-Azhar university

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We extensively discussed it in the talk page, without any outcomes

How do you think we can help?

I think you can help by looking at the verifiable references as opposed to those which are not verifiable between these two edits [27]

This is a nonsensical, bad-faith effort. We had an WP:RFC with a very clear outcome, which matches all of the reliable sources on the subject. The filer, Samsparky (talk · contribs), a COI POV SPA, needs a topic-ban from this subject. Softlavender (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer comment: Samsparky, why does this matter so much to you? --Xavexgoem (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Note: McKhan was not given a talkpage notification of this discussion. Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm opening this case provisionally. My intention is not to have a discussion with all the editors yet; I'm gauging what I can realistically accomplish. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Good question. Well the answer is that if people look up ahbash on wiki they are being given wrong information about us. How to address this? Well if you let me edit while including the more recent and reliable sources i can make the article more accurate. If not i will need to warn people that wiki is not an accurate source of informationSamsparky (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Briefly, what have other editors said about the sources that you're using? Xavexgoem (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me all three were previously given a notification and they reverted my edit to their talk page. So i want to ask why are these 3 so interested in this ahbash page? The information in the article is wrong, academia essays evidently shown. Al Ahbash is famous for its close connections with the University of Al Azhar in Cairo, which allowed for recognition of Kiev Islamic University of DUMU's diplomas by the Al Azhar educational structure. [28]Samsparky (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

They have not commented on the sources, other then giving straw man arguments. Its concerning because most of the sources in their proposal are not reputable, and sentence is not even in context following WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.Samsparky (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm closing this. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Happy Panda 25 (talk · contribs)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I added that the program has a PhD program and then discussed the areas that the program has areas of study. It was deleted that it was spam and COI. I am just trying to learn about these programs and the school does have a PhD program, so it is inaccurate not to have it listed in the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I added discussion to the talk page and Jytdog won't even respond. I posted to their talk page about the request for a 3rd party reivew.

How do you think we can help?

checking the validity of my references and inclusion of this added information

This is due to a mistake I made and due to my delay in responding. Please see here and here at the article and here on the talk page. My apologies for my incorrect edit note to which the OP is reacting, and for the delay in responding.Jytdog (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

---

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