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

• Industrial and organizational psychology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Iss246 (talk · contribs)
• Sportstir (talk · contribs)
• WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs)
• Psyc12 (talk · contribs)
• Ohpres (talk · contribs)
• ‎Patriciamoorehead (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am a long-time contributor to WP with more than 12,000 edits. I regret that I approached the Noticeboad previously but did not follow through. I was hoping to work out a compromise. I wrote in the industrial and organizational (i/o) psychology entry that occupational health psychology (OHP) is partly descended from i/o psychology as well as health psychology and occupational medicine. The idea that one discipline contributes to the emergence of another discipline is found in many places in WP (e.g., health psychology's relation to clinical psychology). I used the appropriate citation to support what I wrote. User:sportstir almost daily reversed my edits until WP editor WhatamIdoing indicated that what I wrote was appropriate. Sportstir, then instead of eliminating my edits, modified my edits to make it seem as if OHP is wholly descended from i/o psychology and eliminated any reference to health psychology and occupational medicine. Such an edit gives a distorted picture.

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

Talk:Industrial_and_organizational_psychology, Talk:Occupational_stress

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Another neutral editor or other neutral editors could review the dispute and arrive at a decision we can abide by. I would like a decision regarding the dispute Sportstir and I have regarding occupational stress as well.

A bunch of editors all worked to appease Iss246's many demands that only his wording is acceptable. We all decided on the wording and developed consensus but Iss246 kept overturning the consensus and put his version back in against the consensus. Sportstir (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I've also noticed Iss246 plays tricks as well as creating new accounts like brand new editor Ophres that then suspiciously comes into the discussion to support Iss246. They have also lied about me following them. I have only encountered Iss246 at these couple of articles. My problem with Iss246 is not so much what he is adding, although there seems top be an agenda, but the way they bully other editors and demand only their wording be used and no one else can change it or add to it.

I would really like to hear from other editors like Psyc12. It is Psyc12's wording in both articles, not mine that Iss246 has an issue with. I repeat. I did not write the edits that Iss246 keeps reverting. They were written to appease Iss246' demands and to resolve the conflict and I just put their suggestions into the article. I admit this guy Iss246 has pissed me off and I'm really not invested in these topics but I saw him bully other editors to get his own way and play games to get anyone blocked who objects to any edits they make. I should have walked awy earlier and thought these issues had been resolved but 6 weeks later Iss246 came back to the article to go against the consensus. Sportstir (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir is now accusing me of playing a trick by creating a sockpuppet named Ophres. Not true. What goes around comes around. I think Sportstir is acting like the now-barred Mrm7171 (who went by other names too), another WP editor who also followed me around, undoing my edits. I think the more important matter is to get closure on the i/o psychology edits and the occupational stress edits. Iss246 (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I have two thoughts:

1. There seems to be some "territorial" behavior going on (not just on Wikipedia). Some people seem to feel like these related fields are in competition with each other, so some people from one field feel like they should downplay or avoid mentioning the competition. Wikipedia editors are encouraged to WP:Build the web between related articles (even between subjects much less closely related than this). If you are accustomed to "silo" thinking, then our methods of contextualizing and linking broadly probably do not come naturally.
2. It would probably be appropriate at this point for Sportstir to carefully think back and let us know if there might have been any previous accounts at the English Wikipedia, and especially whether any of them are blocked/banned. This whole discussion, and this whole effort, sounds very, very, very similar to the one that ended a couple of years ago with a series of CheckUser blocks. There is a process in such cases for getting permission to edit again, but creating another account and pushing the same problematic viewpoint isn't it.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

OHP is not in a rivalry with i/o psychology. I wanted to point out that OHP is descended from i/o psychology and two other fields. That is not a rivalry. I have a source for that fact.

Regarding the issue of a banned WP editor. Sportstir reminds me of the banned Mrm7171, who also shadowed me very closely. Iss246 (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing did you notice editor Ohpres who only joined Wikipedia with a brand new account and username to boost Iss246's version and then made identical edits and opinions to Iss246. Is that allowed? To create a new account in the middle of discussion and pretend it's a new editor? Is that allowed WhatamIdoing? Sportstir (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I am confused. I suggested a compromise that I hoped would resolve the conflict about the I-O Psychology article between ISS246 and Sportstir, and I thought we all agreed. PatriciaMoorhead actually made the edit. Today I see that the edit has been reverted and the article is back to the disputed way it was originally. I agreed with ISS246 that the article should link to the occupational health psychology (OHP) article with a brief mention, and I agreed with Sportstir that this is a tangential issue, and it is not worth going into detail about which disciplines led to OHP--that can be covered in the OHP article.

I suggested replacing

With the development of Karasek's demand-control model and the University of Michigan's person–environment fit model in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]

With

The I-O concern with worker health and well-being overlaps with the emerging field of occupational health psychology (OHP). [Spector, P. E. (2016) Industrial and Organizational Psychology Research and Practice 7th Ed. Hoboken, NJ

Psyc12 (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir, I propose another compromise. It is in two parts. One part is in the i/o psychology entry and the other part is in the occupational stress entry.

1. In the i/o psychology entry, I propose to modify this sentence:

"With the development of Karasek's demand-control model and the University of Michigan's person–environment fit model in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]"

I would rewrite that sentence as follows:

"In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]"

2. You wanted to place "particularly" in before "industrial and organizational psychology" in the following sentence: "A number of disciplines within psychology are concerned with occupational stress including clinical psychology, occupational health psychology, human factors and ergonomics, and industrial and organizational psychology."

I wanted to avoid naming one discipline above all the others, which the word "particularly" would imply. Because I do not want readers to think that i/o psychology was the one preeminent field in research on job stress, I would leave the sentence without the word "particularly."

And then I turn to the opening sentence of the occupational stress entry: "Occupational stress is psychological stress related to one's job."

As you know, I tried to change the expression "psychological stress" to "psychological distress." I would not make the change.

The compromise allows both of us to get some of what we want. Iss246 (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Iss246 this was the edit that Psyc12 made on 15 February as a compromise to appease you and we could all resolve this.[[1]] Psyc12 wrote "Restated to better reflect what sources said, while acknowledging prominence of IWO psychology" Please stop now falsely saying I was the one who made the edit and the wording "particularly" I just agreed. Psyc12 has again reiterated that position. Sportstir (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir, it does not matter who made the edit. Singling out i/o as preeminently more important than OHP, ergonomics, human factors is not sourced. I am offering a compromise. Iss246 (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Iss246 the only editors who have commented here on actual content and us resolving this is you, me and Psyc12. I have gone with Psyc12's suggestions to appease you. However your compromise is virtually the same wording that you demanded of us before and you keep putting back in the article against consensus. This applies to both the articles we are discussing. What do you want to do here as you are the only editor who is supportive of your wording and I'm confused why it matters so much to you to be frank? I thought the wording Psyc12 suggested was perfectly good in both articles and well sourced too. Can I suggest letting this go? Sportstir (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Sportstir, WhatamIdoing commented here too. Why don't you reach out to Psyc12. Ask Psyc12 to respond in more detail. I will reach out again to Ohpres and PatriciaMoorehead. We need more input. Iss246 (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I conduct research on occupational stress. I find iss246's edits to be balanced. I'm not sure I understand Sportstir's obstinacy. It is not controversial that Occupational Health Psychology emerged out of several disciplines/areas of research, including occupational medicine. What is so problematic with this observation in Sportstir's eyes? We should be able to find a solution rapidly.

• User:WhatamIdoing - Are you a principal in this dispute, or are you trying to resolve the dispute? If you are trying to mediate or moderate the dispute, you can be added to the list of volunteers. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Robert, I only know about this dispute because Iss246 requested a third opinion from me. I do wonder whether it would be more pointful to have a chat with the CUs at this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing and user:Robert McClenon, I would appreciate if you and some other WP editors intercede and help resolve the disagreement between Sportstir and me. Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• • • User:WhatamIdoing - This is not SPI. If you think a CheckUser is needed, please file a sockpuppet investigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I am willing to try to moderate this dispute if the principal parties agree that they will accept me as the moderator. Please read the rules. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements make the author feel better, but do not make the other parties any better informed. Comment on content, not contributors. That means talk about what you agree or disagree about rather than who you disagree with. Respond to my questions in the section for statements by the editors. Do not respond to each other. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion when answering my questions. If you want to engage in back-and-forth discussion, do it in the box I have provided. I am not an expert on the subject matter, and do not intend to do research on the subject matter. It is up to you to provide me with any answers. Now: Each editor should state, in one paragraph, what they want either changed or left the same in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir and anyone else - Tell me what you do want, not what you don't want. Enter it in the section for your comments, not for my statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon, I apologize if I said this already, I accept you as a moderator of the dispute outlined here on the Noticeboard. Iss246 (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon, I would like a much shortened, last sentence in the section occupational health and well-being in the i/o psychology entry to read as follows:

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.^[1]

1. ^ Everly, G.S., Jr. (1986). An introduction to occupational health psychology. In P.A. Keller & L.G. Ritt (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book (Vol. 5, pp. 331-338). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.

I would also like the last sentence of the second paragraph of the occupational stress entry to read: "A number of disciplines are concerned with occupational stress including clinical psychology, occupational health psychology, human factors and ergonomics, and industrial and organizational psychology." Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

There is not just myself who disagrees with Iss246's wording as at least three independent editors have commented on the talk pages. We have all made concessions and changes to make this editor Iss246 happy yet they still only demand their wording and ignore the reasoning editors have provided. At what point does an editor step away and accept consensus Robert McClenon? Sportstir (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Iss246 has proposed a rewrite of the last paragraph of the Historical Overview. Is it correct then that the difference of opinion is that the other editors want the Historical Overview left as is? Is that the difference of opinion? If so, please explain, in one paragraph, why it should be changed as proposed, or why the change should not be made. If you disagree about something else, state what. Please be clear and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon, the other editors are not of one mind. WhatamIdoing and Ohpres agree with me. Psyc12 agrees with Sportstir. I only want two things. One is that the i/o entry notes that OHP is descended from i/o along with health psychology and occupational medicine, which I sourced. Sportstir wants to leave out health psychology and occupational medicine making it seem that OHP is wholly descended from i/o, which is wrong and would mislead readers.

Second (this was part of a compromise I offered Sportstir regarding the i/o edit), I would also like to strike the word "particularly," which Sportstir had modified the words "industrial and organizational psychology" in the the last sentence of the second paragraph of the occupational stress entry because the word "particularly," in the context in which Sportstir inserted it, made it seem as if i/o psychology plays the dominant role in research on occupational stress. The three papers Sportstir cited to justify using the word "particularly" do not give i/o psychology the dominant role. The dominant theories in occupational stress, the demand-control model (Karasek's theory) and the effort-reward imbalance model (Siegrist's theory) were developed by sociologists. A third, and almost as prominent theory of occupational stress, is conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll's), which was developed by a clinical psychologist. I am for small edits that are more consistent with our best estimate of what the truth is. I would like to add sociology as one of the disciplines concerned with occupational stress but I hesitate to do that while in the midst of a dispute with Sportstir. Iss246 (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing did not agree with your wording Iss246 only that we could consider adding a comment about your area of work. The only editor who agreed was this brand new editor Ophres that started a new account in the middle of our discussions and then edited exactly the same way as Iss246. So there are at least 3 other editors who disagree with Iss246. Psyc12 also put the word "particularly" in the occupational stress article not me yet you try to make it seem as if I did. The current wording in the industrial organizational psychology article that the majority of editors apart from Iss246 was also written by Psyc12 but Iss246 tries to state it was mine.

This is Psyc12's edit and I agreed with it as a compromise to Iss246.

IO psychology's concern with occupational health and well-being overlaps with the emerging field of occupational health psychology.^[1]

1. ^ Spector, P. E. (2016) Industrial and Organizational Psychology Research and Practice 7th Ed. Hoboken, NJ

The article is very long as it is. Weighing it down further with irrelevant material is not helpful. Sportstir (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Do not tell me what you think other editors think. Each editor should provide their own proposal, in Third Statements by Editors, of what you think the last sentence of the Historical Background should say. Do not reply in the section for the moderator. Reply in the Third Statements by Editors, but only for and about yourself. One proposed statement per editor. After we get the historical summaries, we can talk about why we want them. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I propose two things.

1. The i/o entry should not, as Sportstir proposes, make the claim that occupational health psychology (OHP) derives from i/o psychology because such a claim would mislead readers. The genealogy of OHP is this. OHP is descended from i/o and health psychology and occupational medicine. I have sourced that information. Sportstir wants to leave out health psychology and occupational medicine making it seem that OHP is wholly descended from i/o, which is wrong and misleading.

2. My attempt to compromise with Sportstir on the above matter involves the occupational stress entry. The second paragraph of the lead includes a list of fields in which researchers have studied occupational stress. The list includes clinical psychology, OHP, human factors and ergonomics, and i/o psychology. Sportstir insists on (a) deleting human factors and ergonomics and (b) placing the word "particularly" in front of i/o psychology. I would like to retain human factors and ergonomics because human factors researchers do much to enhance workplace safety and reduce stress. I would also delete Sportstir's word "particularly" because that modifier makes it seem as if i/o psychology plays the dominant role in research on occupational stress. He cited three book chapters regarding i/o but none of them indicate that i/o plays a dominant role in research on occupational stress. All disciplines mentioned play a role. I am reluctant to indicate that one is dominant.

To underline my point. The most prominent theories in occupational stress research are the demand-control model (Karasek's theory) and the effort-reward imbalance model (Siegrist's theory). Both theories were developed by sociologists. A third, and almost as prominent theory of occupational stress, is conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll's), which was developed by a clinical psychologist. In view of the above, I would like to add sociology as one of the disciplines concerned with occupational stress. Iss246 (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributors. Do not discuss who has said what. Do not say who you disagree with or what you disagree with. The objective is to get the right text for an article in Standard Written English that will be read by readers, and will not be signed. It is only the wording of the article that we are discussing.

Now: Each editor is requested to provide their own wording for the last sentence or last paragraph of the Historical Summary. Just that, nothing else. Put it in the space labeled Fourth Statements by Editors. Sign your proposed statement, but it is a statement about a branch of psychology, not about the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The last sentence of the Occupational health and well-being section of the Industrial and organizational psychology entry should read as follows:

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.^[1][2]

1. ^ Everly, G.S., Jr. (1986). An introduction to occupational health psychology. In P.A. Keller & L.G. Ritt (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book (Vol. 5, pp. 331-338). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.
2. ^ Schonfeld, I.S., & Chang, C.-H. (2017). Occupational health psychology: Work, stress, and health. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

The last sentence of the lead in the Occupational stress entry should read as follows:

A number of disciplines within psychology are concerned with occupational stress including clinical psychology, occupational health psychology, human factors and ergonomics, and industrial and organizational psychology.

Iss246 (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Would us leaving out the section on occupations in the lede of the occupational stress article altogether be an option here I wonder, as it seems to be causing a lot of unnecessary conflict. That would eliminate Iss246's insistence the word "particularly" is taken out. We could discuss occupations in the body of the article itself if need be. Sportstir (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

In the industrial organizational psych article I propose Psyc12's wording

IO psychology's concern with occupational health and well-being overlaps with the emerging field of occupational health psychology.^[1]

1. ^ Spector, P. E. (2016) Industrial and Organizational Psychology Research and Practice 7th Ed. Hoboken, NJ

This would then redirect to the occupational health psychology article. I agree with other editors like Psyc12 in that if we include this sentence surely the mention of other specialist fields like occupational medicine and health psychology are not relevant and should not be included. Sportstir (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The occupational stress entry is relevant. It is part of the compromise I proposed to Sportstir. Adding the word "particularly" in the occupational stress entry inflates industrial and organizational psychology, which is a discipline within psychology that does not need inflating. As the i/o entry already shows, i/o encompasses a great deal. I should know because I made more than 100 edits in cleaning up the i/o entry before Sportstir arrived on the scene. Unfortunately, almost all Sportstir's activity on WP is to criticize me (e.g., claim that I am a sockpuppet) and try to reverse a small fraction of the edits I made on WP. He hardly does anything else on WP. Iss246 (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop focusing on me and criticizing me and tell me why we need this sentence in the lede at all as I suggested removing it so no occupation seems better than another. Can you outline the reason you believe it is so important Iss246? Can the moderator also please ask Iss246 to focus not on me but on my question so we can resolve this? Sportstir (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir, I am not focusing on you personally, only editorially. We need the sentence in the lead to identify for readers the disciplines that are concerned with occupational stress. I would be okay with moving the sentence to a location elsewhere in the article as long as we don't indicate that one discipline is more ("particularly") concerned with occupational stress than another discipline. I would also delete the references, which are all book chapters that don't bear on which discipline is most concerned with occupational stress. Internal links around the disciplines are sufficient to make the point that each discipline is relevant to occupational stress. Iss246 (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributors. Each of you has your own space now. Put your proposal in there. You may sign another user's statement to agree with it, but you may not disagree with it. You may state why you support your statement. Do not disagree with another statement. The disagreeing is getting in the way of establishing what we are arguing about. Just state your statements.

By the way, if anyone refers to another editor in their statement, I will consider requesting a one-way interaction ban. So don't say who you disagree with, and don't say what you disagree about. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Would this work?

IO psychology's concern with occupational health and well-being overlaps with the emerging field of occupational health psychology.^[1]

1. ^ Spector, P. E. (2016) Industrial and Organizational Psychology Research and Practice 7th Ed. Hoboken, NJ

Sportstir (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Sportstir, what is your current view regarding deleting the word "particularly" from the last sentence in the lead of the occupational stress entry? Iss246 (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This is my current view. Also the references other editors put in seem good. Sportstir (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

In the the i/o psychology entry I mentioned the connection of i/o to occupational health psychology (OHP). The genealogy of OHP is that it is descended from i/o, health psychology, and occupational medicine. I have sourced this. It is not unusual for a WP entry on a discipline to indicate that the discipline has roots in another discipline or helped give rise to another discipline. What I want to do in the i/o entry is to indicate the OHP has roots in i/o psychology but not exclusively in i/o psychology. Two other disciplines, health psychology and occupational medicine, have also contributed to the emergence of OHP. Cognitive stress has an impact on mood and contributes to the development of a mood disorder.

Sportstir edited a sentence I wrote for the lead in the occupational stress entry such that he added the word "particularly." With his addition, that sentence reads, "A number of disciplines within psychology are concerned with occupational stress including clinical psychology, occupational health psychology, human factors and ergonomics, and particularly industrial and organizational psychology." The problem with the addition of "particularly" is that the sentence suggests that i/o psychology is the leading discipline within psychology concerned with occupational stress when there is no evidence that it is. He cited three book chapters but none of them indicate that i/o is the leading psychology discipline studying occupational stress. I think it is better to list the disciplines and not play favorites. Iss246 (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we could talk about clinical psych being involved only with individual therapy once a worker has developed a psychiatric injury. Also I cannot see anywhere in the article that ergonomics is involved with work stress? Sportstir (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir, thank you for your quick response. While ergonomics is more generally concerned with the impact of work-related physical stress, which is indeed a dimension of occupational stress that has been underplayed in the occupational stress entry, ergonomics is also concerned with work-related cognitive stress. In addition, ergonomically-oriented research on long work hours and shift work reveals a link between those conditions and depressive symptoms.

You are right that clinical psychology has dealt with occupational stress in the context of treating individuals who have been seriously harmed by occupational stress. By the same token, clinical psychologists also have played a role in research on occupational stress. For example, the researcher who developed conservation of resources theory is a clinical psychologist. I add that the developers of the demand-control and effort-reward imbalance models, influential theories of occupational stress, are sociologists. I recommend that we mention the disciplines involved with occupational stress research without singling any one of them out as a discipline that dominates the others. Iss246 (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Can the word 'particularly' be deleted, as proposed by User:Iss246?

User:Sportstir - Do you have proposed wording about clinical psychology and stress and ergonomics?

User:Iss246 - What do you think of the proposal by User:Sportstir?

If you want to discuss with each other rather than with me, use the large space. Just be sure to be civil, but you knew that.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir, as per the suggestion of user:Robert McClenon, I want to be civil and make a proposal. Regarding the sentence with "particularly" in the occupational stress entry, I would agree to delete not just the word "particularly" but the entire sentence then add perhaps two sentences to the section on occupations. In that section I would mention that the investigators in the disciplines human factors and ergonomics, clinical psychology, sociology, and occupational safety and health conduct research on job stress. I would not need to add citations of which there are many. Instead, I would rely on internal links.

Given that I would remove the abovementioned sentence from the lead, I would like you to agree to my including the sentence on the genealogy of OHP, mentioning that it is descended from i/o psychology as well as health psychology and occupational medicine.Iss246 (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I would be interested in Iss246's reaction to my proposal and questions. I also thought we were talking about 'occupations' in the section being discussed in the occupational stress article not research and theories? I cannot see why there is a need to be focusing on specific occupations involved in occupational stress at all, but if we do attempt to include it we should only be talking about occupations. I have also proposed specific wording for both articles and am not sure if there has been a reply. Sportstir (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC).

User:Sportstir, my replies are below. I provided a much briefer rewrite of the section on occupations and explain my proposal. I began formulating the rewrite on May 20 and wrote it on May 21. Iss246 (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be informative for readers to know what professions are concerned with occupational stress. If we were writing about clinical psychology readers would know that there are clinical psychologists. If we write about occupational stress, there are no profession with a cognate title. It would be helpful and informative for readers to learn what kinds of professionals are involved in research and practice vis-à-vis occupational stress. I add that we would not be "focusing." We would spend perhaps at most one or two sentences identifying those professions. Iss246 (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I am a job stress researcher. I support the edits iss246 wants to make.

The occupations section of the occupational stress entry should describe professions that deal with occupational stress in research and/or practice. It already does some of that. That section would be an apt place for readers to find out about those professions. We should keep the section brief by supplying internal links to the articles about the relevant disciplines. We can rename the section, something like "Disciplines concerned with research and practice involving occupational stress." Iss246 (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

With regard to the occupational stress encyclopedia entry, I recommend discarding the section entitled “occupations” because it could be misinterpreted by readers to refer to stressful occupations when the purpose of the section is to cover professionals whose goal is to reduce job stress. The replacement section does not select one group of professionals as being more focused on occupational stress than another group of professionals. I propose to replace the current section with the following briefer section. Note that the replacement title of the section is more apt. Iss246 (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. If we cannot use the wording other editors like Psyc12 wrote I think we need to leave this section out completely. Proposed wording seems like synthesis of material. For instance saying sociologists help organisations alleviate occupational stress is simply untrue. If we cannot provide 'weighting' to each occupation, which it seems we cannot, then leave discussion of occupations out completely in the occupational stress article. Sportstir (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon and user:Sportstir, can we resolve the disagreement at hand? The disagreement revolves around the occupational stress entry and the industrial and organizational psychology entry. (A) I would like your assent for the brief, neutrally worded description I wrote regarding the professions involved in research and practice vis-à-vis occupational stress. The brief description would replace the current section on occupations. I placed the description above. I would also remove mention of the professions in the lead of the article. (B) This pertains to the i/o entry. In view of the fact that other encyclopedia articles mention that some disciplines give rise to other disciplines (e.g., clinical psychology --> health psychology), I would like your assent regarding my briefly mentioning that occupational health psychology is descended from i/o psychology along with health psychology and occupational medicine. Iss246 (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that a number of concessions have already been made at those two articles and I am against the changes for the reasons I've outlined. I've proposed we use another editor's exact wording which I've copied into this discussion previously. It seems to have made the most sense and is backed by the sources. I think some acknowledgement of these facts is needed here. Sportstir (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

My wording is backed by sources, both from scholarly publications and sources in other Wikipedia articles. (A) Occupational stress has been researched and treated by professionals who identify with these disciplines: occupational health psychology (see the sources in the WP article), industrial and organizational psychology (see the sources in the WP article), sociology (Tausig, M., & Fenwick, R. (2011). Work and mental health in social context. New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0625-9), human factors and ergonomics (Feuerstein, M. Nicholas, R.A., Huang, G.D., Dimberg, L., Ali, D., & Rogers, H. (2004). Job stress management and ergonomic intervention for work-related upper extremity symptoms. Applied Ergonomics, 35, 565-574. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2004.05.003), clinical psychology (Firth‐Cozens, J., & Hardy, G.E., (1992). Occupational stress, clinical treatment and changes in job perceptions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 81-88. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1992.tb00486.x), and occupational safety and health (Murphy, L. R. (2002). Job stress research at NIOSH: 1972–2002. In P. L. Perrewé & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well-being, Vol. 2, Historical and current perspectives on stress and health. (pp. 1-55). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.). (B) Occupational health psychology is descended from i/o psychology, health psychology, and occupational medicine (Everly, G.S., Jr. (1986). An introduction to occupational health psychology. In P.A. Keller & L.G. Ritt (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book, Vol. 5, (pp. 331–338). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.).

So let us stop this dickering and allow me to go ahead with the edits, which I carefully justify. I have additional sources but I don't want to overload this page. I appeal to User:Robert McClenon and other interested parties. I would like to proceed. Iss246 (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I am a job stress researcher. I support the edits iss246 wants to make. Ohpres

Can additional editors weigh in on this matter? Iss246 (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

There have been so many changes proposed that I was finding it difficult to find them all. To that end, I've added some colored-box formatting on the ones that I noticed. If you particularly dislike it, you may of course remove it from your own comments, but I think it may be helpful overall.

User:Iss246, assuming that these refs (Tausig, etc.) support the text below, I think that's not unreasonable.

User:Sportstir, about that whole "particularly" debate, I wonder whether you could tell me: (a) whether you think that the 'particularly' language has the effect of somewhat elevating the one field over the others, and (b) whether you think elevating the one field is appropriate (e.g., the one field does significantly more in this area than the others – one would not want always to treat major and minor things as equivalent, after all). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Interruption by moderator - The back-and-forth discussion here can continue, but I would like to get a brief statement by each editor in the Seventh Statements. It doesn't appear that we have agreement, so we need to state the alternatives so that we can have a Request for Comments. So please concisely summarize your position. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Now that there has been extended discussion, will each editor please summarize briefly what they propose and what they agree with and disagree with? Be concise. We would like to get this resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing and User:User:Robert McClenon, the above sections of the Noticeboard can be confusing. I want to provide you with clarity. Here is what I propose.

1. In the occupational stress entry, I would replace the current section entitled "Occupations" with the much briefer section I wrote on this page that I entitled "Professions That Address Occupational Stress in Research and Practice." It now has the vertical green line to its left. Thank you WhatamIdoing for inserting that vertical green line. It is helpful.

2. I would also delete the second paragraph of the lead ("A number of disciplines within psychology are concerned with occupational stress including clinical psychology, occupational health psychology, [3] human factors and ergonomics, and industrial and organizational psychology [4][5][6]."). It was in there that Sportstir inserted the word "particularly" in front of industrial and organizational psychology to give it prominence above the other disciplines. The sources that he cited, of which I read all, don't support the view that i/o psychology is the leader among all other fields in occupational stress research and practice. This is not the place to pick a winner. Each of the professions I enumerated in the compact replacement paragraph marked by the green vertical line is concerned with occupational stress.

3. In the industrial and organizational psychology entry, the last sentence of the section entitled "Occupational health and well-being" reads as follows: "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]" Although OHP is descended from i/o psychology, it is not descended from i/o psychology alone. Historical accuracy is important, as is brevity.

Finally, Sportstir cites Prof. Spector for justifying yet another edit of what I wrote. Prof. Spector's recent blog indicates, if anything, that i/o psychology came late to the problem of occupational stress (http://paulspector.com/organizational-behavior/employee-mental-and-physical-health/what-is-occupational-health-psychology/).

I would like to keep the sentence about the descent of OHP the way I wrote it without Sportstir changing my edit. Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I am trying to capture what is being discussed and requested. Will the editors please state whether they agree. I would at least like to get specific points of disagreement that can be put to RFC. If I can't get the editors to agree even on what the choices are, this will be failed, and will probably wind up at WP:ANI, which will just be sort of random as to who gets topic-banned, so please at least let me know whether we can summarize what the disagreement is about. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Point 1:

Change Occupations to Professions That Address Occupational Stress in Research and Practice

Professionals from several fields conduct research on the causes of occupational stress and interventions that prevent or treat occupational stress. Other professionals are practitioners who consult with organizations regarding how to make the work environment less stressful or to treat individual casualties of job stress. These professionals come from a number of fields including occupational health psychology, industrial and organizational psychology, sociology, human factors and ergonomics, clinical psychology, and occupational safety and health.

Point 2: Delete second paragraph of lede.

Will the editors please indicate, below, whether they agree on point 1 or whether they agree to disagree on point 1. Will the editors please indicate whether they agree on point 2 or whether they agree to disagree on point 2. If there is agreement to disagree, we can have a Request for Comments. If there is agreement, that is good. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I endorse the edits made by Iss246. Ohpres (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Point 3. In the i/o psychology entry, I would like to maintain this sentence because it is historically accurate: "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]" Iss246 (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, I endorse the edits made by Iss246. Ohpres (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I am all for a Request for Comments. The preferred wording that Psyc12 suggested and their reasoning behind it should be compared with any other option. IO psychology's concern with occupational health and well-being overlaps with the emerging field of occupational health psychology.^[1] Sportstir (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Professionals from several fields conduct research on the causes of occupational stress and interventions that prevent or treat occupational stress. Other professionals are practitioners who consult with organizations regarding how to make the work environment less stressful or to treat individual casualties of job stress. These professionals come from a number of fields including occupational health psychology, industrial and organizational psychology, sociology, human factors and ergonomics, clinical psychology, and occupational safety and health.

Iss246 (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I endorse the edits made by Iss246. Ohpres (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

We are going around in circles. Can we have a request for comments on this edit as well? We would need to alert all interested psychology editors who have a good knowledge of the psychology profession. Sportstir (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to get the ballot printed to indicate what the RFC is about, but the editors keep coloring outside the lines. Stop replying to each other!! Reply only to me!!

I have created a page: User:Robert McClenon/Psychology Dispute. Edit it. Do not endorse anything. Edit only where it says to put your stuff, where your stuff is what will go to the RFC. If you have questions, ask me on my talk page how to do this. I think we almost agree on what we disagree about, but if I can't you to tell me what to put in the RFC, I will fail this discussion and let you fight it out at WP:ANI. So color your statements inside the lines~ Robert McClenon (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I have initiated the RFC with regard to Occupational stress, which was item 2. I have no idea what item 1 was. As to item 3, I see a request to keep it, but I do not see a request to delete or change it. You have been too busy agreeing and disagreeing to state clearly what the issues are.

Please explain in the portion below what items 1 and 3 are. Otherwise I will close this dispute as pending the RFC on item 2 and with no resolution on the other two items. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Robert, I believe that "Point 1" is a proposal to replace the two paragraphs currently at Occupational stress#Occupations with the three sentences at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Professions That Address Occupational Stress in Research and Practice. (If this proposal is accepted, then I suggest a much shorter section heading, such as ===Related professions===.)

"Point 3" appears to be a request for some sort of injunction that prevents editors from removing a sentence that is currently in the article. That's not a normal thing to do. Wikipedia:Consensus can change, and that sometimes means removing sentences that were previously agreed upon. An individual could earn a WP:TBAN, but I hope that won't happen.. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding item 3, I (user:iss246) apologize if I made the item look like an injunction. I don't oppose editing. I do oppose editing that distorts the truth. The sentence in question that has been subject to distortion is this: "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]" I explain .

Another editor proposed two changes to the above sentence that, in the interest of historical accuracy, I resist. One edit made it seem as if occupational health psychology was wholly descended from i/o psychology, which isn't true.

The other edit made it seem that OHP and i/o psychology have considerable overlap, which also isn't true. There is some overlap. Occupational stress is a big part of OHP. But occupational stress is a relatively smaller part of i/o psychology. Prof. Spector, a leading i/o researcher, observed that i/o psychology came late to the study of work, stress, and health [3]. That is understandable. With i/o's concern for job analysis, performance appraisal, remunerating employees, organizational culture, selection and recruitment of personnel, workplace motivation, teamwork, task design, job performance, leadership, etc., concern for occupational stress occupies one relatively small corner of i/o psychology. 02:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there anything else that the editors want to say, to me, or can they resume discussion on the article talk page? It appears that, now that civility has resumed, any discussion can continue on the article talk page. Unless an issue is identified within 24 hours requiring moderated discussion, I will close this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon, civility is back thanks to your efforts. Can we put on the talk page of the article my recommendation regarding item 3? I recommend that in the i/o psychology entry, the following sentence be maintained for the time being because it is historically accurate:

"In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]"

I can be edited as long as historical accuracy is preserved. I don't oppose editing. However, I do oppose editing that leaves an inaccurate impression with readers. Another editor proposed two changes to the above sentence that, in the interest of accuracy, I resist. One edit made it seem as if occupational health psychology was wholly descended from i/o psychology, which isn't true, as the above sentence indicates.

The other edit made it seem that OHP and i/o psychology have considerable overlap, which also isn't true. To be sure, there is some overlap. Occupational stress is a big part of OHP. But occupational stress plays a relatively smaller role in i/o psychology. Prof. Spector, a leading i/o researcher, observed that i/o psychology came late to the study of occupational stress[3]. That is not an indictment of i/o psychology. With i/o's concern for job analysis, performance appraisal, remunerating employees, organizational culture, selection and recruitment of personnel, workplace motivation, teamwork, task design, job performance, leadership, etc., naturally occupational stress occupies one relatively small corner of i/o psychology. Iss246 (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Robert McClennon. I totally disagree with the proposed wording above and the editor's rationale and basis to these false claims about IWO psychology. I will put the original wording back in the article and recommence civil discussion on the talk page. Sportstir (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I included the sources to support the wording, (e.g., Everly, G.S., Jr. (1986). An introduction to occupational health psychology. In P.A. Keller & L.G. Ritt (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book (Vol. 5, pp. 331–338). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.).

Moreover, Paul Spector, an international expert on i/o psychology and the individual whose textbook the person with whom I disagree has cited, wrote the following:

The psychology establishment was ignoring stress and other OHP issues. The area of psychology most concerned with the workplace, Industrial-Organizational (IO) psychology, until recently, rarely dealt with issues of employee health. For example, when I wrote the first edition of my IO textbook in the early 1990s, one of the publisher’s peer reviewers recommended I remove the health and safety chapter because it did not fit in a book on IO.[4] Iss246 (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I often use sources that are behind paywalls - they can at times be the best source. It's also possible to get other editors to provide sources at WP:Resource requests. However in the case of War of Words: The Controversy over the Definition of Lynching, 1899-1940, it's not necessary as you can read it free online.[5] Doug Weller talk 14:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there another issue that the editors want to work out, or should I close this dispute? If there is another issue, you must reply in the space marked Twelfth Statements by Editors, not immediately after this statement. I have been very patient with the inability of the editors in this case to color within the lines. Now: Is there a remaining issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Draft:BRIDGEi2i Analytics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Doc James (talk · contribs)
• PuraVida18 (talk · contribs)
• GSS (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There has been disagreement between various editors whether this should stay in Draft or a Page.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:BRIDGEi2i_Analytics&action=history

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A judgment on whether this article should stay a draft, or be moved to a page or deleted permanently.

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

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

Users involved

• Visaliaw (talk · contribs)
• Geographyinitiative (talk · contribs)
• Ythlev (talk · contribs)
• Matt Smith (talk · contribs)
• Phlar (talk · contribs)
• Quetstar (talk · contribs)
• De wafelenbak (talk · contribs)
• TaerkastUA (talk · contribs)
• MarkH21 (talk · contribs)
• Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs)
• SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs)
• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)
• Benlisquare (talk · contribs)
• Slatersteven (talk · contribs)
• Khajidha (talk · contribs)
• Chess (talk · contribs)
• Horse Eye Jack (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The Taiwanese government website says it's official name is Republic of China (Taiwan). Many news articles describe Republic of China as official name. The current version of the article describes Republic of China as official name in the first sentence and does not mention Republic of China (Taiwan). There has been extensive discussion about how the article should describe the official name but no agreement has been reached.

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

Talk:Taiwan#Republic_of_China_(Taiwan) Talk:Taiwan#Full_Protection_is_not_necessary Talk:Taiwan#Proposed change

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Moderate the discussion and help us decide how the article should describe the official name.

• Volunteer Note - With 17 editors, it is usually easier to use a Request for Comments to determine rough consensus than to moderate the discussion. Trying to moderate a discussion with 17 editors may resemble trying to herd 5 sheep, 5 cats, 2 rabbits, 1 border collie, 1 terrier, 1 llama, and 1 woodchuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note @Robert McClenon: I tend to agree with you, but maybe it could also be a figure case for multiple moderators? I find this would be a very interesting challenge! I am willing to take it if editors don't want to file a WP:RFC. I have plenty of wikipedia time in front of me. Feynstein (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note @Visaliaw: What you first need to do is go around the user talk pages of the editors you involved and notify them about this case. Then toguether you will be able to decide if this requires a RfC. Feynstein (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• As I already mentioned to Visaliaw at both User talk:Visaliaw#DRN vs RFC and Talk:Taiwan#Proposed changes, I would much rather go through an RfC than a giant DRN thread. It would save a lot of time and be a significantly simpler way of determining consensus. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I will open an RfC.--Visaliaw (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Perfect, I will be closing this dispute then. Feynstein (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2020 (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:George Floyd protests map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kire1975 (talk · contribs)
• Numberguy6 (talk · contribs)
• Ravimdholakia (talk · contribs)
• phoebe (talk · contribs)
• .Mouthpity (talk · contribs)
• Ɱ (talk · contribs)
• Frietjes (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Numberguy6 has decided to take WP:OWNERSHIP of the map that a lot of people have been working on for three weeks by arbitrarily deciding that there is a "no individual neighborhoods" rule that was never discussed or brought to consensus about on the talk page before now. When User:Ravimdholakia reverted his massive removal, Numberguy6 reverted that edit and wrote discuss on talk page but has made no effort whatsoever to see past his self-perceived ownership of the issue.

He has arbitrarily decided that points on the map are only allowed to be "defined by the U.S. Census Bureau" and provides no link to where these definitions exist despite being asked. His only defense is "How is that arbitrary?"

He ignores the argument that protests are reported in reliable sources where they occur, in cities, neighborhoods, towns, townships, boroughs, CDPs, parks, and bridges.

He ignores that cities like New York, San Diego and Los Angeles are between 300 and 500 square miles wide and often have three or more protests in different locations large enough to be on the map per day.

He makes claims like Detroit and San Francisco do not have published official maps then ignores wiki pages like List of neighborhoods in Detroit and List of neighborhoods in San Francisco.

Finally, he "proposes" to define the word "location" as must needs being tied to something about the UN now without even acknowledging that the map is about protests not locations. If a reliable source reports a protest with 100+ attendees occurs at a specific location, there is no reason not to have it on the map at that location, whether it be a park, a private business or intersection.

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

Template_talk:George_Floyd_protests_map#Neighborhoods. At 17:30, 14 June 2020 on the talk page, I attempted to ping other regular contributors like @Phoebe: @Mouthpity: @Ravimdholakia: @Ɱ: @Frietjes. Only one replied saying she was "undecided".

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Locations of protests with 100+ people reported in reliable sources should be allowed on the map regardless of whatever the UN or the U.S. Census Bureau says about the boundaries of the legal municipality they exist in.

If an alternative to these conditions is to be the case, then sensible reasons must be given, requests for explanations must not be disregarded, sources for the data restrictions defined must be provided and approved & appropriate WP policies need to be referenced

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

• Julian Assange (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Darouet (talk · contribs)
• Jack Upland (talk · contribs)
• Slatersteven (talk · contribs)
• Burrobert (talk · contribs)
• Thucydides411 (talk · contribs)
• Jtbobwaysf (talk · contribs)
• SPECIFICO (talk · contribs)
• Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

For over a year now, editorial views at Julian Assange have been, roughly, divided into two groups. One group favors emphasizing Assange's role in the 2016 US elections, and connections with Russia. The other group favors emphasizing Assange's other Wikileaks publications, and international (e.g. UN) views of his work and imprisonment.

The result of this editorial division is article gridlock: proposed additions or deletions are almost always opposed by one or the other group of editors.

But editors have also repeatedly expressed interest in dispute resolution, and have even suggested concrete avenues for reaching a consensus on the article. We hoped that a structured discussion with the aid of a moderator would help.

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

[6], [7], [8], [9], [10]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We hope you can help us come to an agreement on how much weight to accord different aspects of Julian Assange's life, in his biography here. We think this is possible through a structured and mediated discussion of how to accord due weight, based on reliable sources.

Comment: Since there are a lot of separate content disputes here, should this not be separated out into different sections, possibly solved one at a time? Right now, it's not really clear what your goal is. Notrium (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Notrium: I think the largest dispute is over due weight: how should content in the article be apportioned? Once that's resolved I think we'd be able to tackle a few of the sections one by one. -Darouet (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how appropriate it is for me to be commenting here (please kick me out if necessary), but doesn't due weight depend on the content and the source? That's why I said this should probably be split into discussions for each content dispute. Notrium (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not a large enough list of editors, nor does it represent the various editorial viewpoints that have been expressed on the talk page, to achieve any credible consensus on article text. I don't think this is a fruitful avenue for this dispute. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Which additional editors should be included? -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Notrium: are you a dispute resolution volunteer? I don’t mean to be rude, but editors have been discussing the possibility of resolving this longstanding dispute at DR for quite some time now, and general agreement for this approach was recently achieved at Talk:Julian Assange. If you’re not a volunteer, let’s perhaps wait for one to comment. Dispute resolution is considered preferable by editors who engage in content creation to another few years of article stasis and edit warring. -Darouet (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, no more comments from me. I just wanted to point out what seemed like an obvious issue when I saw this accidentally. Notrium (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

"General agreement, per my comment above, was among a tiny fraction of the nearly 1000 editors who watch the page. Feel free to contribute as appropriate, @Notrium:, and thank you for your comments. SPECIFICO talk 13:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not think this is even a vaguely accurate description of the dispute. Not all of us neatly fit into these "sides" and have argued that we may in fact give over much detail on many matter, not just "the sides" version of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This DR is stillborn and will only waste the time of our volunteer mediators. It should be closed. We have two editors who have long opposed the mainstream view and talk page consensus at the article pages and hundreds of others who are not even named in this request. SPECIFICO talk 13:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I wrote roughly, divided into two groups (my words), not neatly fit into these "sides" (your words). @Slatersteven: do you see the difference between these two statements? Nor did I write all of us (your words). I don't think it's fruitful to launch an RfC by belaboring every potential view: editors are supposed to come and describe their view of the dispute. Let's go back to the talk page and figure out how to do that. -Darouet (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The editors commenting here were able to launch the RfC earlier if they wished to, using whatever words they wished. DR does not need to and should not involve everyone who watches a given page or participated in an RfC. Nevertheless, given that Slatersteven who previously stated "lets have DR and try and resolve this all first" also states here that they have a variety of objections to my DR summary, I'd like to withdraw this request until we come to agreement at Talk:Julian Assange about how to start the DR. Thanks. -Darouet (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2020 (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.

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Ice Cube (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Josemolero (talk · contribs)
• Occurring (talk · contribs)
• Pennsylvania2 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A section on accusations of anti-Semitism is continuously getting removed by an editor. There is substantial international press all over the internet about Ice Cube's tweets and history of anti-Semitism. An editor continuously deletes this section to minimize the controversy.

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We need some moderation here so the anti-Semitism section is not continuously removed. It has been removed twice despite more than one editor agreeing it belongs. Some assistance would be appreciated to determine what's fair! Perhaps Occurring's ability to delete the section should be barred. Otherwise, he seems knowledgeable about other areas of the article.

• Volunteer note - Please inform all the involved editors of this discussion via their respective talk pages. Thank you! Xavexgoem (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - I notice that the discussion on the article's talk page is getting more frustrated. I'd be happy to moderate, provided all parties are notified and agree to the case. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - I'll give this one more day. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2020 (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

• Leopold Ružička (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Notrium (talk · contribs)
• KIENGIR (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Ružička is described in the lead as a "Croatian-Swiss scientist", where Croatian (sic) stands for his ethnicity, and Swiss for his nationality. This is in conflict with the guideline MOS:ETHNICITY, which says "Ethnicity [...] should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.", while also giving the relevant example of Cesar Chavez: described in his lead as just "American", despite his Mexican ethnicity.

Small note: please mind the difference between nationality and ethnicity.

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

Talk:Leopold_Ružička#MOS:ETHNICITY

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think the dispute will be resolved when misunderstandings about MOS:ETHNICITY, that either KIENGIR or I have, have been cleared up.

The discussion may be read on the article's talk page. The subject is a Croatian Noble Prize winner, hence mentioning his ethnicity as well is relevantly notable, hence does not violate MOS:ETHNICITY.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC))

• Comment Note that this is also a very similar dispute to what has led to an RfC here (a page which is listed at the appropriate WP:LAME subsection, if you had doubts). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, my name is Nightenbelle and I'm willing to moderate this dispute. I did also notify the user user:Sadko because they have participated in the discussion on the talk page as well. To begin with- will all parties please confirm they are willing to participate in this discussion with open minds and no personal attacks? Nightenbelle (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, no personal attacks and with as open a mind as I can manage. Notrium (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2020 (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

• UFC 251 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kent Bargo (talk · contribs)
• Gsfelipe94 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There a dispute over simple issue. The arena has no name yet, but another user say there is. The source does not verify the arena name.

This source https://www.espn.com/mma/story/_/id/29294243/ufc-251-know-know-fight-island pretty much made it clear there no arena name yet.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gsfelipe94#No_Arena_Name

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Keep the Venue on the info box blank until more information released

• Volunteer Note - Discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note User:Kent Bargo raised a discussion on Talk:UFC 251 on 19 June 2020 and raised this dispute resolution noticeboard on the same day without waiting for editors to respond or discuss which should be the normal process. Editors should try to work together and helping each and in collaboration and DRN and ANI should be the last place unless issues ready cant be resolved. The UFC event page, UFC always lists the venues, cities and countries for all the events - example see - here. For UFC 251 UFC listed "UFC Fight Island" is the venue - see here. This should be discussed in article talk page first. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Dispute https://www.espn.com/mma/story/_/id/29294243/ufc-251-know-know-fight-island espn source stated pretty clear under the "What venue will host the UFC?" section. The arena has no name yet. So the venue should be remove or changed to N/A. "Fight Island" is just PR stuff for advertising or promotion purposes. The actual arena name has not been released yet. Kent Bargo (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2020 (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

• Jim Kenney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lasalleexplorer (talk · contribs)
• Wallyfromdilbert (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Wallyfromdilbert has been undoing multiple changes to the Jim Kenney page. We are engaged in an edit war, where the Wallyfromdilbert is repeatedly changing content back to how they think it should be, even when they have seen that other editors disagree. Users are discussing the inclusion of a section on Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney's page about the 2020 George Floyd protests including his involvement in the removal of memorials/statues and the tear gas used on protestors on the Vine Street Expressway. Three controversial monuments are being removed, but user Wallyfromdilbert only wants to include a remark about *one* statue. Further, Wallyfromdilbert constantly reverts edits including Mayor Kenney's apology/involvement in tear gassing protesters during the aftermath of the George Floyd killing. Wallyfromdilbert contests that the original edits did not contain reliable sources. The Talk page says otherwise.

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

[13]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A third party should determine whether the proposed section fits within the guidelines of Biographies of living persons and includes the appropriate reliable sources.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• M R G WIKI999 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have tried to make several edits which are good faith edits changing Christian date formats the secular Common Era format but the same user keeps reverting them... I have tried opening a talk section, but he has ignored it and keeps reverting my edits.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stonehenge#Secular_date_format_or_Christian_format..._seeking_consensus_due_to_user_reverting_good_faith_edits

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Perhaps ask the user to stop reverting my edits until there is time for discussions to take place in the talk page section I have set up regarding the issue? I don't really know because this is not something I'm familiar with. I always like a softly-softly kind of approach though, if that makes sense. Blindly undoing my edits and then me following suit is very childish of both of us (I know this, but I kind of feel like I'm being pushed around and that's making me act kind of silly)... Any help?

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

• Ingush people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Deni Mataev (talk · contribs)
• Kisteti (talk · contribs)
• Sextus Caedicius (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is an ongoing dispute over the number of Ingush people in the infobox. The numbers have been reverted several times to what they were before the edits of Kisteti, but he edits it back again to what he believes to be correct without first forming a consensus with others.

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

[14]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A final arbitration from moderators or any third party of authority to decree a consensus.

• Volunteer comment - @Deni Mataev: Can you please inform the other editors of this DRN request on their talk pages? Also, with regards to this comment: "A final arbitration from moderators or any third party of authority to decree a consensus." Please be aware that DRN cannot provide this (nor can anyone else). We provide a sane format for discussion and mediate between parties. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment - I'll give this one more day before I close it. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:01, 27 June 2020 (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

• Edward Colston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Michael F 1967 (talk · contribs)
• Cassianto (talk · contribs)
• Slatersteven (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An RFC was raised regarding the wording of the first paragraph. The matter has not been resolved, but the text of the first paragraph has nevertheless been changed.

I feel that the text should be reverted to the form it had at the time the RFC was raised. Discussion on the talk page seemed to suggest that was the correct approach. I made the change, and got reverted apparently for being troublesome.

My query is about that particular change only.

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

Talk:Edward_Colston,User_talk:Michael_F_1967,User talk:Slatersteven,User talk:Cassianto

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Rule on whether the first paragraph should be reverted to the form it had when the RFC was opened.

Hard one, the RFC is just about the inclusion of one word, not the rest of the text. As such it is debatable if the rest of the lede has to remain static during the RFC. My personal opinion is that best practice says yes, but its not a rule (but I may be wrong). The problem here is that the filers initial edit today [[21]] did not reset it to that version, and they only suggested it after much hassle and a warning for edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2020 (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

• United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• cyberpower678 (talk · contribs)
• Kaldari (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The photograph for Paul Laurence is exactly the same as the Google search image for Jupiter Hammon via Wikipedia. Please update this information by adding an image of Jupiter Hammon to the actual Wiki page?

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

N/A

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

As history is not widely taught via the education system, it is imperative to add as much information/images to the article. The internet itself can be very misleading.

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

• Peace Myanmar Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Hintha (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There are a number of issues that need to be resolved:

1. The company was founded by U Tun Linn and not, as accused/reported erroneously in a number of sources, Yang Mao-Liang. There is not one single citation that proves this drug dealer has any interest whatsoever in PMG.

2. The company was investigated and not found guilty. In my last set of edits I didn't remove any of the original content but added context so that the article wouldn't be intentionally slanderous.

3. One citation (#5) links to a 404 Error page and this is especially important because it's a citation in regard to an incredibly damaging and false statement around laundering drug money - there is absolutely not a single citation or shred of evidence to support this either.

4. Overall - all the scholarly "citations" used in this article are links to tier-2/tier-3 media with no other citation or evidence to support the claims.

5. The summary is they have the founder wrong (I can supply direct evidence of who founded the company from the Myanmar directorate of investment website and scans), they also have the MD hyperlinked wrongly and spelled wrongly (again they wouldn't let me change that either), they have a false and damaging accusation with a citation that is fake/links to a dead page.

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

I originally made factual changes to the article - but then the user kept restoring the false/unsubstantiated content. So to compromise I tried to just add additional information from THEIR OWN SOURCES into the article so that people wouldn't be intentionally misled when reading - but apparently that is not acceptable because the user restored back to their version (which, again, the only changes I made were to include exact information from their own sources)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like to write the accurate company profile and information in depth and would happily accept any edits or additional sections such as "controversy" or whatever as long as the information is properly cited and not only referencing articles in largely unknown media.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• African Descendants of Slavery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Truthsayer21 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

My movement #ados American Descendants of Slavery created the national reparations discussion the Person that created the page about my movement used this wiki page as a smear. Cherry picking peripheral points while omitting major points explaining the movement. First they have a random tweet from Ann Coulter on our about us and won’t remove it. By what right is Ann Coulter in our page because this editor decided a single Tweet not even addressing the founders is suppose to be on our about page? A tweet where Coulter told us to change our name from ados is not proper in any way. While Cornell West was a guest speaker at our conference and Marianne Williamson who brought it to the presidential debate stage was also a guest and informed by me and our movement. https://www.inquirer.com/news/marianne-williamson-reparations-ados-american-descenants-slavery-20190731.html This has been nonsense as a process and asking this guy to change it isn’t going to work. In addition I wrote for left wing economic think tankequality.org for several years but it was directly omitted to paint us as right wing. https://inequality.org/authors/antonio-moore/ And they have this reference of my cofounder with a Trump hat as if she wears it daily or even regularly on her bi weekly show that has run for years informing Blacks about liberal politics. No mention of her monthly book clubs or weekly liberal news letter.In fact they have omitted that she was a DNC staffer and side to Democratic Congresseoman Barbara Boxer. This page should really be deleted or entirely changed.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Descendants_of_Slavery#Ann_Coulter_should_not_be_on_this_page_as_part_of_a_description

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By asking for a rewrite of this page with proper facts. Removal of any mention of Ann Coulter or Trump hats. And a in-depth about us written on the movement Of ADOS

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

• Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Faizhaider (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This dispute is about the removal of this content. I oppose its removal while another editor supports the removal. We have tried resolving the issue on the talk page here, to no avail.

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

Talk:Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam#'Usuli versus Akhbari' section

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I’d think a neutral, outside arbiter can help give an unbiased, experienced opinion to help resolve the dispute.

The allegation on me is severely incorrect and is based on incorrect facts. The party reporting me, ie IPs 49.xxx.xxx.xxx have been involved in edit-warring on the page for long. Despite multiple pleadings for engagement on talk-page they didn't did it. They went to talk-page only when the page was semi-protected. The discussion on talk page (which was initiated by me) is not concluded yet, but the IPs seem to be in some sort of hurry and have reported me here. Interestingly these IPs have been involved in disruptive-editing for at least 5 years (I didn't investigated before that) and have had conflict with many users like, ParthikS8, Snowsky Mountain, FreeatlastChitchat, ԱշոտՏՆՂ, Jim1138, Rsrikanth05, FoCuSandLeArN, CatcherStorm, pushing the page into semi-protection multiple times. I myself have been involved on page for at least 10 years and have been mostly bold & assuming good faith in my fight against disruptive editing.--Fz^tc_s 07:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - Does User:Faizhaider want to engage in moderated discussion with the unregistered editor? If so, I am willing to moderate. Otherwise I will tell them to discuss on the article talk page (although they are implying that the unregistered editor doesn't discuss). Will each editor please make a one-or-two-sentence statement? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon, yes I would be more than happy to discuss under your guidance. 49.180.128.47 (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: My apologies, I missed your address to me due to the typo in my username; Anyways, it'll be great if you moderate, but I'll prefer to have the discussion on article's talk-page, as, a discussion is already underway there. You can start it by reviewing the discussion "'Usuli versus Akhbari' section" @ Talk:Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam. Thanks.--Fz^tc_s 15:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - Discuss at Talk:Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2020 (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

• Roman Retzbach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• YvesMe (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I'll listed 5 non-fiction books from another publishing house and want to stop deletion. Thanks!

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YvesMe/Roman_Retzbach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Retzbach

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Give more time to do corrections and find a co-editor. Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roman_Retzbach#Roman_Retzbach

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.