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

• Manipulation (psychology) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Darcyisverycute (talk · contribs)
• wiki-psyc (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The discussion started on 10 May in response to this edit where I rewrote the article: [1]. Almost all of the content from that edit has since been reverted by wiki-psyc, and the content dispute is almost entirely about the contents of that diff. The discussion on wiki-psyc's talk page and the manipulation talk page are both quite long, so I will try to summarise my changes and my understanding of their perspective.

What I changed:

• I updated the sections on predispositions to use modern data from review articles about the influence of gender and other factors

• I tried to remove stigmatising language in the spirit of WP:MEDLANG by rewriting "manipulators" to "people who manipulate"

• I rewrote the "mental illness" section to describe in more detail which mental illnesses are associated with manipulation and removed those I could not find evidence for (in the DSM-5 or elsewhere)

• I added information about assessment tools for manipulation

• I removed self-help material based on the understanding that it is not a reliable source for psychology as it is not subject to peer review and is not empirically founded

• I mention the relationship between manipulation and machiavellianism

• I removed and disagreed with the use of ethics citations for the article about psychology

• Removed "see also" entries covered in disambiguation page

What I understand wiki-psyc's perspective on the content to be:

• Because there is no specific page for philosophy/anthropology of manipulation, that content belongs on this page

• Manipulation is not pathological and should not be written as such

• The contents of my edit constitutes original research and cherry picking not consistent with existing academic consensus

• The page should not discuss topics irrelevant to manipulation, including machiavellianism, and details about assessment

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

• User_talk:Wiki-psyc#A_message_from_Darcyisverycute

• Talk:Manipulation_(psychology)#Content_discussion/dispute (note: subheading was renamed by wiki-psyc recently)

• Posted a neutral statement on WikiProject Psychology asking for feedback from other editors:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Discussion_on_talk:Manipulation_(psychology)

• [2] (not picked up by 3O)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

• Work out which issues should be directed to WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN and WP:ORN or can be resolved here

• Establish agreement on whether a separate anthropological article can be made/split

• Ensure understanding of WP:OWN which appears to be relevant given the article's edit history

• Determine relevance of including details about assessment and machiavellianism

• Agree on article content describing which and how mental illness are related to manipulation

A third opinion was requested by Darcyisverycute, which she is also disputing. Talk:Manipulation_(psychology)#Content_discussion/dispute

The controversy is whether "manipulation" is a human behavior or a clinical pathology. The article as it stands characterizes it as a human behavior and has a section on mental health that directs readers to mental health conditions where extreme manipulation is one of a cluster of symptoms comprising different clinical pathologies (there are several). Darcyisverycute, respectfully, is proposing a major rewrite of the article ( see revision 1086775412 ) which I contend cherry picks info from a few small esoteric research papers to create a complex narrative (WP:ORIGINAL) inconsistent with the philosophy, ethics, behavioral, and clinical literature. Notwithstanding, I commend Darcyisverycute for handling this diagreement in a constructive manner. Wiki-psyc (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

This is another preliminary statement to determine whether there is an article content dispute. If there is an article content dispute, I will act as the moderator. Please read the ground rules. If you have questions about the rules, ask rather than guessing. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I am asking each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to what changes you want to make to the article. Remember that the purpose of discussion here is to improve the article. If you want to rewrite the article, please state concisely how you want to rewrite it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I want to expand the article with information from newer review articles about correlates (gender, mental illness, and personality traits) with manipulative behavior, remove content based on self-help sources, describe the cross-cultural diversity of definitions for the concept, indicate in-article which information originates from ethics/philosophy research, and remove stigmatising language about people with tendencies for manipulative behavior. Darcyisverycute (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The term manipulation is broad and, as such, has 21 line items on the disambiguation page ( see Manipulation disambiguation ). This article in question was labeled "Manipulation (psychology)" to differentiate it from physical behavior, etc. Manipulation is a universal human behavior (like callousness, deceitfulness, hostility, impulsiveness, irresponsibility, etc.) and an age-old topic with an extensive body of information written by philosophers, ethicists, behaviorists, and to a lessor extent, psychiatry. The article framework currently represents this balance, and

1) I would suggest that it is best to build on that framework/perspective.

2) I would also support a re-naming the article to Manipulation (human behavior) if that would be helpful and

3) I would recommend against re-writing the article to characterize manipulation as a psychiatric pathology because

a) the is not the primary use of the term and

b) the psychiatric mainstream literature does not support this idea. For the most part, "manipulation" appears in the clinical literature in symptom lists and in some esoteric work measuring its presence or use. A simple search using Google Scholar for terms such as "pathological manipulation", "clinical manipulation", "manipulation pathology", "sub-clinical manipulation" will yield little or nothing. A Google General search will mostly pull up these terms from unreliable sources like hobbyist psychology youtube videos, message-boards, blogs, and self published e-books. Wiki-psyc (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Read the ground rules again. No one is breaking the rules, but it doesn't hurt to look at them again. One editor would like to rename the article to Manipulation (human behavior). Is there agreement, or do we need to discuss?

Are both editors in agreement that the article can be expanded? Will each editor please make a one-paragraph statement either detailing the expansion that they want or listing the points that they want expanded, or explaining why expansion is not necessary?

One editor has put a {{disputed}} tag on the article. Please specify what parts of the article you are disputing, so that we can address those disputes in this discussion.

There are other editors who have been discussing on the article talk page. Either they should be invited to take part in this discussion, or we can close this discussion to move it back to the article talk page. Do the editors want to continue this discussion and invite the other editors, or to close this discussion to move it back to the article talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with renaming the article to Manipulation (human behavior), since Object manipulation is also human behavior and there is ambiguity in that. I would note there is significant overlap between psychological manipulation and affect induction + mood induction, although the two concepts are distinct (see ^[1])

I agree the article can be expanded, and I wish to expand all sections of the current article. ie: lead section, characteristics, mental illness and assessment. I am not qualified to write a section on history/background, but I would also like to see that added.

These are the factually disputed elements for which I added the {{disputed}} tag:

• "For males, higher levels of emotional intelligence, social information processing, indirect aggression, and self-serving cognitive distortions significantly predicted emotional manipulation [...] For females, being younger, higher levels of emotional intelligence, indirect aggression, primary psychopathic traits, and lower levels of social awareness significantly predicted emotional manipulation. However, for females, emotional intelligence acted as a suppressor" - I believe this information is superseded by this newer review article which includes this quoted article as a citation: "[...] gender was found to have a moderating effect in the relationship between ability-based EI and non-prosocial emotional manipulation. The relationship was stronger for males than females, thereby supporting our hypothesis. This suggests that, if males and females have equally high EI, males can be expected to be more manipulative for non-prosocial purposes than females; conversely, if the level of EI is low across genders, they may not differ in their levels of emotional manipulation."^[2]

• "In the extreme, it is a stratagem of tricksters, swindlers, and impostors who disrespect moral principles and take advantage of others’ frailty and gullibility. At the very least, manipulation is influence used to gain control, benefits, or privileges at the expense of the others." I believe the first sentence is factually incorrect as originating from an unreliable source for WP:MEDRS, and I believe the underlined text should be removed as this is the primary definition.

• Influence and persuasion are neither positive nor negative for being an imprecise claim and not originating from a WP:MEDRS (it's a Forbes business article)

• The Vulnerability-Description table: I believe it is factually incorrect as relying on an an unreliable source for trait-based rather than behavior-based descriptions, and is superseded by newer behavior sets such as this one: ^[3].

• Manipulation is not part of factitious disorder or conduct disorder as listed in the mental illness section. It is also controversial to claim that manipulative behavior is part of borderline personality disorder as the article does.

• EMS employs a ten-item scale to characterize the approaches used by individuals to manipulate. I believe this is factually incorrect as described in the cited publication the main role of the EMS was to measure correlates with emotional intelligence and personality traits.

I would prefer the discussion to continue here rather on the talk page. I apologise it was my mistake not to offer other editors there to come to DRN and thank wiki-psyc for doing so.

Darcyisverycute (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

From Wiki-psyc: This exercise is hard to respond to because Darcyisverycute is asking for WP:TNT and considers references like Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, American Psychiatric Association, Forbes to be problematic. The Manipulation (psychology) topic is a very basic subject, the article is pretty good as it is and should continue on its current trajectory with incremental edits as it has for 11 years, 545 editors, and 1,300 edits. In an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia [3] it says manipulation manifests itself in all the fields of activity of the individual, basically in all human relationships, even in love, religion, philosophy, science, art, etc. It focuses on all these aspects, proving that manipulations in itself represents an inherent social phenomenon for the contemporary human being.

Narrowing and redefining manipulation as a pathology/mental illness is WP:ORIGINAL. There is no reputable source to substantiate this. Pathological people can manipulate, but manipulation, itself, is not inherently pathological.

The article currently provides links to mental conditions where manipulation is part of the symptomology. I think it makes sense to discuss, for example, a study of manipulation related to the Dark Triad in the Dark Triad article rather than in a general article about manipulation. Wiki-psyc (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It appears that Darcyisverycute wants to make numerous changes to the article, and that Wiki-psyc has not proposed any specific changes to the article, and disagrees with the need for the changes. If my understanding is incorrect, then the editors should restate and explain. If my understanding is correct, then the next step is for Darcyisverycute to put their requested changes into the form of a "laundry list", a numbered list of items (numbered 1 to N), each being one paragraph, either stating specifically what they want to change, or that they want to rewrite a section. I will then, in the third stage of this mediation, ask Wiki-psyc to respond to each item either by accepting it, disagreeing with it entirely (rejecting it), or stating that they want to work on it or compromise on it. It is Darcyisverycute's turn to provide the list, at this point. Both editors may ask any questions and may disagree with my plan. Then it will be Wiki-psyc's turn to reply. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to restate, this doesn't mean that any of the changes will be made, and this doesn't mean that any of the changes won't be made. At this point, we are just breaking up or breaking down the scope.

For now, if the item to be rewritten is a paragraph, you may provide the proposed text. If the item to be rewritten is a section of more than one paragraph, just indicate that you want to rewrite it. You may provide the laundry list now. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I believe your understanding of the situation is correct. I will go ahead with your suggested plan unless there are objections from wiki-psyc. I would like to ask, when you say each being one paragraph, [...] that they want to rewrite a section. for sections that I wish to rewrite, should I be adding the suggested rewrite as a paragraph, or just saying that I wish to rewrite it? Thanks Darcyisverycute (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Laundry list:

(1) Lead section: Proposed rewrite

Manipulation or emotional manipulation is behavior designed to exploit, control, or otherwise influence others to one’s advantage.^[1] Definitions vary in which behavior is specifically included, influenced by both culture and whether used in clinical or non-clinical contexts.^[2] Skills necessary for manipulation can be used for both prosocial and antisocial purposes.^[3] Antisocial or non-prosocial manipulation has been described as using "skills to advance their own agendas or self-serving motives at the expense of others",^[3] whereas prosocial behavior is "a voluntary act intended to help or benefit another individual or group of individuals".^[4] Manipulation is correlated with higher levels of emotional intelligence,^[3] and is a behavioral component of the Machiavellianism personality trait. Manipulation is also related to affect induction, where emotions are manipulated under experimental conditions.^[5]

(2) Lead section, second paragraph: Move to a new "Ethics" section -- this could be expanded much further but my proposal for now is to just move it to a separate one since I am not an expert on the ethics aspect.

(3) Characteristics of manipulators: Rename section title to "etiology" or "causes" or "risk factors"

(4) Characteristics of manipulators: Rewrite section

(5) Manipulation and mental illnesses: Move to subsection "Mental health" under the title of the section for (3)

(6) Manipulation and mental illnesses: Rewrite section

(7) Clinical assessment tools: Promote from subsection heading to section heading

(8) Clinical assessment tools: Rewrite section

(9) See also: unbold entries and remove those already covered by the disambiguation page

(10) Further reading: "Modulated Feelings: The Pleasurable-Ends-Model of Manipulation" and "Then again, what is manipulation? A broader view of a much-maligned concept" should be converted to inline citations. The rest of the articles in the further reading section should be removed. This is for not meeting MEDMOS and for being too old, and as far as I can tell they are not used in the article. (I would not rule out using them in a future "History" section however.)

(11) Assuming the ethics stuff gets moved to a separate section, I think it might be worthwhile to add the article to Wikiproject philosophy as well.

Thanks Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Both editors should be aware that this may be a long content dispute resolution. Be prepared for this to take one to three months.

Darcyisverycute has listed eleven changes that they want to make to the article. Wiki-psyc may now reply to each of the 11 points by saying either that they agree, in which case that change will be made, or that they disagree, or that they would like to compromise or negotiate. Either editor may make any other concise statements or ask questions. This is primarily the turn for Wiki-psyc to respond to the eleven points. If you disagree with a change and want to leave the article as is, disagree briefly. It is only necessary to reply at length if you want to compromise. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm willing to commit 1-3 months for this. I appreciate Robert McClenon and wiki-psyc for participating in this mediation. Darcyisverycute (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Robert, I'd like to suggest that before we invest 30-90 days doing a WPTNT and a rewrite of 11 years worth of of editors work, we should ask to see a few substantial references that show that Darcyisverycute's fundamental proposition is valid, specifically that (1) Manipulation is a mental disorder/pathology and (2) the "mental disorder" is the primary definition/use of term. All of her recommendations she has made are based on this premise. It will be very hard to find compromise on what to put in an "etiology" or cause section if there is not agreement that this is a disease or disorder that has an etiology. I've been in medicine for 40 years and I am unaware of this disorder. It seems the American Psychological Association, World Health Organization (WHO), American Medical Association, Oxford and Britannica are also unaware. But certainly, we all should be open minded to hear her out and we could exhaust this exploration in a day or two. We already have 3,000 words of polite and cooperative discussion on the talk page and another 3,000 here to indicate good faith. Indeed, if there is substantial evidence that manipulation is disorder/pathology, and the disorder is the primary use of the term, I believe the editors would find compromise rather easily. Whereas without it, the only reasonable response I can give to the suggested rewrite of the article introduction summary is that it is not supported by the article, nor the clinical literature, and that terms like prosocial, non-prosocial, affect induction, antisocial, and Machiavellianism are overly complex terms for a summary statement on a very basic concept (manipulation) and most readers will be going back to Google to find another source about manipulation that they can read and comprehend.

I'd also like to ask that we remove the tag from the article as it has not be established that there are factual inaccuracies.

What substantial reference can we examine to verify that (1) Manipulation is a mental disorder/pathology and (2) the "mental disorder" is the primary definition/use of term? Wiki-psyc (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki-psyc has expressed a concern that the whole rewrite effort may be misguided. So rather than try to address eleven points, we will focus first on the first point, the lede section, which leads into the other changes. For now I am not planning to try to analyze the differences between the existing lede and the proposed lede, but to ask the editors to address the arguments for and against the rewriting of the lede. Each editor should provide a statement consisting of anywhere between one and several paragraphs supporting or criticizing either the current lede or the proposed lede. I will then decide what pieces of this content issue will be addressed next. So, please assess either the current lede or the proposed lede. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

You may also submit one to three questions for the other editor. Do not answer the questions. I will decide whether to ask them. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

You may also ask any questions to be answered by the moderator.

If I understand correctly, I am meant to choose to either do one option or the other, so I will say what I think could be improved with the article's current lead.

The sourcing of the lead section is somewhat poor in that it does not cite or appear to base its claims from any review articles for a topic which they are available, which makes it difficult to determine to what extent this description is accepted by other academics and disciplines.

The first paragraph in the lead fails to define the concept in the broad scope with which the term is used. I will compare the definition to what is used at wikitionary: (transitive) To influence or control someone in order to achieve a specific purpose, especially one that is unknown to the one being manipulated and beneficial to the manipulator; to use - both this definition and the one in the first paragraph of the lead section are quite broad, and I would note the wikitionary one does not claim it must occur at the expense of others. While wikitionary is useful in its brief form, I think the current lead does not sufficiently indicate the breadth of the term, and how the definition differs among demographics and contexts. The second and third sentences say "in the extreme" and "at the very least", which suggests a continuum of some sort to define the term, although what lies on middle-points on this continuum is unclear, and the cited sources do not clearly discuss any such continuum.

The second paragraph contextualises manipulation in the ethics framework of other forms of social influence, although it claims to make an ambiguous claim/judgement that "influence and persuasion are neither positive nor negative". I think the 2022 publication in the general references is not sufficiently addressed in the lead, for example to quote the source Conceptualizing manipulation is no easy task, not just because there are many intuitions involved.[4] The second paragraph also fails to contextualise the term as it is used and compared in psychology literature. The lead section fails to explain which interdisciplinary fields are involved in studying manipulation, which could include for example ethics, criminology, marketing and advertising, behavioral psychology, clinical psychology. I will note the article is a member of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising. Lastly, the lead section fails to identify the origins of the concept (who developed it, who are the major contributors to surrounding theory and when did this all happen), and clearly establish why it is an important concept in the relevant fields with evidence such as statistics or statements from subject matter experts. Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I am out of town and unable to respond until Wednesday. Thanks for your patience. Wiki-psyc (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

One editor, Darcyisverycute, has responded to my request to support or criticize either the current lede or the proposed lede. As the rules say, I expect editors to reply to my questions within 48 hours. I am willing to allow for breaks for editors who are temporarily unable to participate in a timely manner. I am now asking Wiki-psyc to reply within 24 hours, either as I had previously requested, or at least to give some idea of what their schedule will be. The alternative, if the editors will not be able to engage in discussion, will be a series of RFCs. So can User:Wiki-psyc please provide some response within 24 hours? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

You may also submit one to three questions for the other editor. Do not answer the questions. I will decide whether to ask them.

You may also ask any questions to be answered by the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Working on reply now Wiki-psyc (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I do see validity in breaking manipulation down into the subcategories of Enhancing: Diverting, Worsening, Being inauthentic, or Concealing and characterizing the first two as being constructive (prosocial is not a common term), the third and fourth being destructive, and the fifth is considered neutral. This would be best in the body of the article.

Darcyisverycute has not provided a substantial reference saying Manipulation is a pathology. I've read through the Article talk page, this review, google scholar, and texts in my library and I can find no reliable source characterizing manipulation as a disorder/pathology. There is no "clinical" and "sub-clinical" manipulation.

Additionally, I think the intro should be in common language, and not use technical terms that provide no additional insight over common language and force most readers to look up the term. This is "techno-babble" and our professional organizations are encouraging their clinicians to abandon this style when communicating with the general public. The purpose of the article is to reach readers, not impress them. Darcyisverycute wants to introduced this unnecessary complexity in the second and third sentence of the article.

Lastly, sure there are cultural difference in manipulation - there are cultural differences in just about everything - but are there "significant" cultural differences; enough to put in the intro? We would really need to see a significant reference on this. Wiki-psyc (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I have a question for the moderator: there have been a few edits to the article, the most recent one being [5]. I notified the user who initially removed the {{disputed}} and disambiguation templates here along with reverting the template removal, and wiki-psyc has restored the version without either template. On reflection, I should have also added {{DRN}} to its talk page when I filed this DRN, I only just realised that template existed now. To avoid an edit war over templates, what would you recommend here, Robert McClenon? Darcyisverycute (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Please reread the guidelines for Dispute Resolution and if you feel the guidelines provide for you to revert other editors and add banners, I won't contest it. I would prefer to stay focused on what I think is the main point of contention here, is there a substantial reference that establishes manipulation as a pathology/mental illness? Wiki-psyc (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It is correct that I said that the participants should not edit the article while discussion is in progress.

I have no interest in any controversy about a tag on the article. Tagging controversies are essentially stupid. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article and to resolve any issues that are the subject of tags. Tags indicate that there is a content controversy, and moderated discussion should resolve the controversy, and it is not important whether there are tags on the article while content discussion is in progress. I will collapse any further discussion of tags, because tagging controversies are stupid. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki-psyc asks: "is there a substantial reference that establishes manipulation as a pathology/mental illness?" I would like Darcyisverycute to answer that question (in addition to the back-and-forth discussion mentioned below).

I will change the rules at this point and invite the editors to engage in back-and-forth discussion on the lede section. This will continue for between three and five days if it is productive. If it is not productive or is repetitive, I will stop it in one to two days. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies. I apologise for making drama out of the content tag. I will note the disambiguation template was also removed and I think that should be restored but I will not edit the article until the DRN is resolved.

I will address wiki-psyc's question: At this point I'm not sure that the word "pathology" is the most accurate word for the meaning I am going for, rather that I think manipulation can occur in the presence of one or more mental disorders (which I'll refer to as clinical), and it can also occur in the presence of no mental disorders (subclinical or non-clinical). In other words, my understanding is that behavior is clinically relevant if it falls under the scope of a mental disorder. It's not up to us what constitutes a mental disorder or not, the best we can hope to do is explain the labels the APA and WHO use. The APA and WHO don't seem to define emotional manipulation, as it isn't viewed as a disorder in itself, instead just one part of some mental disorders.

Here is a paper, of which there are a fair few, which distinguishes between a different set of behaviors in psychopathy as clinical and subclinical:[6]. Here is a paper which talks about the clinical and subclinical role that empathy plays in narcissistic personality disorder:[7], from which I think this quote accurately summarises my opinion: Although a pattern of deceitful, manipulative, and impulsive behavior is inherent in the syndrome of psychopathy, these features are not necessarily a component of NPD. In other words, these two sources point to manipulation being an essential component of psychopathy, and not an essential component of NPD. Manipulation is not a defining characteristic of NPD, but it is a defining characteristic of ASPD according to [8]. So in this context the clinical relevance of manipulation depends on the specific disorder.

The term manipulation also has slightly different meaning in forensic psychology vs clinical psychology, mainly stemming from the continued use of the term "psychopathy" in forensic psychology but the term isn't really used in clinical psychology. As such, I think it is important if manipulation is acknowledged as related to psychopathy, that we note in the article that it's more often used as a forensic label based on a syndrome rather than a clinical diagnosis. There is evidently a lot more disagreement than just this, for example The psychological treatment of psychopathy is rife with controversy and conceptual disagreement.[9] which also contributes to difficulty of defining the amorphous concept of emotional manipulation.

I look forward to discussion about the lead section. Darcyisverycute (talk) 07:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Response from Wiki-psyc:

Wiki-psyc said: Is there a substantial reference that establishes manipulation as a pathology/mental illness?

Darcy’said: “not sure that the word "pathology" is the most accurate word”… “The APA and WHO don't seem to define emotional manipulation, as it isn't viewed as a disorder…”

Wiki-psyc says: The APA actually has defined it here. I think, given all that has been said, it can be reasonably concluded that manipulation is not a pathology/mental illness and consistant with that, re-writing and re-formatting the article to look like a mental illness article ("etiology”, "causes" , "risk factors" , treatment) might not be a constructive change.

Darcy’said: “I think manipulation can occur in the presence of one or more mental disorders (which I'll refer to as clinical)”

Wiki-psyc says: There is no mention of “clinical manipulation ” or “subclinical manipulation” in the paper you reference (Maddi). The conventional use of “clinical” and “subclinical” applies to the mental illness, not the symptoms. We don’t say that a mentally healthy person has sub-clinical charisma, subclinical persuasiveness, subclinical manipulation, etc.

Darcy’ said: “Manipulation is not a defining characteristic of NPD, but it is a defining characteristic of ASPD”

Wiki-psyc says: I respect you Darcy and I don't want to pile on, but Manipulation is not a defining feature of NPD or ASPD. For ASPD, it's one of 7 symptoms of which only 1 must be present per the DSM-5 (APA).

I contend that you are looking at one-off, specialized papers that were written in the context of specific mental illnesses. These findings can’t be generalized to the population as a whole. It's also important to distinguish between early and one-off research and advanced research that is moving toward expert consensus. In law and in science, it’s important that we all look at the body of case law or research. We don’t become constitutional scholars by reading a couple of case law briefs and we don’t become scientists by reading a few papers. I hope this helps to understand my position..

Wiki-psyc recommendations:

1. Look to see if it is acceptable to other editors to expand "manipulation" in the Wikipedia ASPD, NPD, Dark Triad, and/or Psychopathy articles. Research and papers you have quoted were written in the context of one or more of these specific personality types/disorders. Currently, there are only passing mentions of "manipulation" in each of these Wikipedia articles - no development of the meaning of term in the specific context to the illness (as the original researchers intended).

2. Keep the general format of the current manipulation article "as is" but add a subsection that discusses the universality of manipulation (e.g., Babies learn to manipulate before they can speak. Children manipulate one parent against the other. Family Theory, etc.)

3. Add a subsection entitled "Types" (or similar) Break manipulation down into the subcategories of Enhancing: Diverting, Worsening, Being inauthentic, or Concealing and characterize the first two as being constructive (prosocial is not a common term), the third and fourth being destructive, and the fifth is considered neutral.

4. Consider re-naming the article to Manipulation (human behavior) becuase that implies an even broader scope.

Note: For clarity, text repeated from earlier discussions is green.

With respect, Wiki-psyc (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

--------

As per WP:WAX and WP:SSE (two essays - not policy), I think it is desirable to have consistency across articles about how human behavior is described, and I agree that consistency is currently lacking on human behavior articles. Some examples of this inconsistency I looked for now: Attention seeking and Social loafing have causes sections. Avoidance coping has a section on treatment although it is not a mental disorder. Behavior change (individual) describes the causes in the section-heading as explicitly non-medical. Behavioral confirmation refers to causes as "Motivational foundations". Obedience (human behavior)#Factors affecting obedience refers to "factors", very similar to causes just based off of definitions. We could at a wikiproject level by consensus, choose to adopt any or all of these as standard (RfC may be a better approach for this, just food for thought.) Currently, I am proposing the section "Characteristics of manipulators" be renamed to "causes" or something similar for clarity of the purpose of the section, for being consistent with some other articles, and to reduce stigmatising language. Maybe "predispositions"?

I'd like to come to agreement about my proposed lead section so I will respond to just one other thing about that to keep my reply shorter. I think the intro should be in common language, and not use technical terms that provide no additional insight over common language and force most readers to look up the term I agree to an extent, in that making the lead section accessible is important, and I also think that mentioning related technical concepts is nessecary to provide a comprehensive overview of the concept. I think MOS:INTRO offers useful guidance that it's okay to use technical terms along with a short description, it's important for the lead section to "ease readers in", and significant information in the lead should also be covered in the main article. What do you think of this, and do you have any other specific advice about my draft/proposed lead section? Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

--------

I do not think taking this discussion to another forum, which would be the fourth, is a good use of volunteer resources. Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This case was prematurely archived by a bot that was following a rule for when to archive cases (because it is a bot), and I have unarchived it, and will be checking to ensure that it does not get prematurely archived again. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

There has been a proposal to add a section on types of manipulation. What do each of the editors think of that?

There has been a proposal to rename the article. What do each of the editors think of that?

If the editors are agreeable, I will create a temporary page for the rewriting of the lede section, and I will provide a set of rules for the rewriting.

At this point, again, address your answers to the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Robert McClenon. I am amenable to a section on types of manipulation, ideally with reliable sources meeting WP:MEDRS if possible. Examples of the types in that section may also be useful, although I think it would take some nuance to ensure examples are reliably sourced and do not reflect an overall culturally biased point of view.

I support the article renaming with the single caveat that object manipulation can also plausibly fall under the category of "human behavior" and so WP:DDAB possibly applies here. If such a renaming takes place, I think it would be useful to indicate on the talk page headers somewhere that it's to reflect the term as used in the article is described more broadly than just under psychology.

I am open to trying a temporary page for a lead section rewrite. Thanks Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, let's go forward. Wiki-psyc (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The lede section is relatively short. I have copied the existing text of the lede section to Draft:Manipulation (psychology)/Lede. You may edit the draft, and may discuss your edits on the draft talk page. Be civil and concise. Discuss content, not contributors. I am establishing a rule of 1RR, one revert. If there is reverting, there is not a consensus, and we will come back to moderated discussion. This rework will continue as long as it appears to be making progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

If you have any questions about this procedure that you want me to answer, ask them in the space for eighth statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Editing of the draft of the lede section is underway. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I will add my edits today. Jusr want everyone to know I'm still engaged. Thanks. Wiki-psyc (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Editing of the draft lede appears to have finished. Are the editors satisfied with the revised lede, or is further editing necessary, or does there need to be a Request for Comments?

Is there another section that needs to be rewritten? I am ready to create another draft section for editing. What section or sections should we now focus on?

Are there any other specific questions about article content that should be addressed now? I would answers to these questions within 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC does not seem necessary to me, if wiki-psyc agrees with the current draft. If there are disagreements then an RfC may be necessary, I can't tell yet.

Given the recent article changes this has prompted me to reflect I think it would be best to resolve most of the issues by posting on RSN, a question of the form: Are self-help books reliable sources for describing forms and types of a human behavior, as is currently done in Manipulation (psychology)? If there are no objections (to either the question itself or its wording) I would like to post that to RSN. It may be easier to put discussion of the other sections on hold pending the result of that RSN, what do you think of that approach Robert McClenon?

I do not believe the "Clinical assessment tools" section would be affected by such an RSN, so I would like to start a draft of that section next once wiki-psyc is happy with the lede draft. Thanks Darcyisverycute (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

If there is no objection to the rewritten lede section, I will move it into the article.

I have copied the existing text of the tools section section to Draft:Manipulation (psychology)/Tools. You may edit the draft, and may discuss your edits on the draft talk page. Be civil and concise. Discuss content, not contributors. I am establishing a rule of 1RR, one revert. If there is reverting, there is not a consensus, and we will come back to moderated discussion. This rework will continue as long as it appears to be making progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead and raise the issue about source reliability at the reliable source noticeboard. That question can proceed there while the rewrite of the tools section continues here.

If there are any other questions, ask them below. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I have moved the reworked text of the lede into the article as per our discussion. This has introduced two reference errors on notes 5 and 13. I will try to fix them, but I will also ask the participants to try to fix the reference errors, which is an exception to the instruction not to edit the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Do the editors agree as to the revised content of the Tools section? If so, please correct the Reference error, and it will be moved into the article.

I had understood that there was a question about the reliability of sources, but have not seen it posted at the reliable source noticeboard. If the editors are asking me to post it, please be clear as to what you want. Otherwise please post the question about sources, or discuss it here.

Is there another section of the article that we want to discuss the content of? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't post here sooner, real life stuff has gotten in the way for me. I posted on the reliable sources noticeboard here: [10] - I would have followed up on that thread if I was able, seems to of been archived as soon as I came back. The other opinions there suggests they are not reliable sources, although more work could be done in establishing consensus (honestly, I am not sure how to proceed with that. I suppose a policy/guideline proposal, and posting it to WikiProject Psychology as well, might be the way to go.) If you have any further advice what to do there, I would appreciate that.

Sorry also about the cite errors, I fixed the one in the "tools" draft, and it looks like the error in the main article is gone. Darcyisverycute (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It appears that work on the Tools section has been completed. If there is no objection, I will move it into the article. There appears to be agreement at the reliable source noticeboard that self-help books on psychology are not considered reliable sources except as to what self-help books say. Do the editors want to work on another section of the article? Is there any further content disagreement to try to resolve? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to involve @Altanner1991: in this discussion, as they have been involved in edits and discussions for the article, and may have ideas to contribute or discuss regarding the lede section and in the article in general.

I do not agree with including the section "In popular psychology", and I also want to change the "Psychopathy in the workplace" and "Characteristics of manipulators" sections based on the conclusion that self-help books on psychology are not reliable sources in this context. This is because these three sections rely on sources to these self-help books.

If there are no disagreements about the "tools" setion draft, I would like to move on to to the "Characteristics of manipulators" section next. Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I have copied the Tools section into the article.

Are the editors willing to delete the section In Popular Psychology, or do they want to rewrite it?

I have created a working draft section at Draft:Manipulation (psychology)/Characteristics.

Are there any other questions? Are there any other ideas to pursue at this point? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Altanner replied on my talk page here: User talk:Darcyisverycute#Manipulation (psychology). They indicated there that it is okay with them to remove the unreliably sourced portions of the article, which I suppose we could work on after the Characteristics section. As far as continuing this DRN thread, I am not sure how useful it is to continue it given the lack of responses from other editors, but I am hoping they return if they have other input on the edits. I will make some changes to the Characteristics draft in the next couple of days. Thanks Darcyisverycute (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Nothing has yet been done with the Characteristics draft. Are the editors still planning to rewrite it? Are there any other sections that will be either deleted or reworked? If there are no statements from the editors indicating what they want to accomplish in the next week or so, I will close this thread as resolved, with thanks to the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I am okay with you closing the DRN. I haven't been able to spend nearly as much time on-wiki recently, I'd like to make more changes but I just don't have the time right now. Probably in a few months. How does this sound - we close it now, I'll come back to the article when I can, and if another dispute arises we re-open the DRN? Darcyisverycute (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Shalikosi (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am trying to create article about Georgian company Webdoors JSC, this is an article about the history and the innovative technologies of this company, but you are adding speedy deletion tag to it, when I am trying to upload. Please, make sure you are correct because this company is a quite big Georgian software development company with more than 100000 users daily through 10 client websites.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Webdoors&action=edit&redlink=1

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please let me write about the history and technologies of Webdoors JSC

---

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

• Minneapolis and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SusanLesch (talk · contribs)
• Magnolia677 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An editor feels he has "been trying to remove the truckload of puffery, promos, and cherry-picked racial narratives at Minneapolis for over a year." His edits are growing more disruptive (more than 20 of the newest 50 edits to the article are by him). We've had previous content disputes about Minneapolis which I brought to RfCs (found in the talk archive).

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

[11] [12] [13] referring to: [14]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Maybe you can read through and acknowledge his changes and convince him to lay off a bit.

WikiProject Minnesota was strong. When Minneapolis was promoted to FA, several other editors were helping. Nowadays they're gone. Magnolia677 lives in Mississippi, and seems to think he's an expert on whatever city he lays his eyes on (if you check his edit history). Unrelated, we've been battling Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work for most of the year. Less stress please.

---

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

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

Users involved

• SusanLesch (talk · contribs)
• Magnolia677 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

One editor removed ""Steve Hoffman won the James Beard distinguished writing award for What Is Northern Food?." His reasons include the residence of the author and the topic of his article. Mr. Hoffman wrote an article about food from Minneapolis, extending his range to a larger geographic area. He begins and ends his article in Minneapolis. I'd prefer to include him.

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Minneapolis#Deletions_by_Magnolia677

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Help us decide fairly whether or not to include Mr. Hoffman and his article.

---

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 Cities/US Guideline (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SusanLesch (talk · contribs)
• Magnolia677 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

August 26, an editor applied to Minneapolis an obscure RfC from November 2021 at Chanhassen, Minnesota. I agreed in principle and posted to Wikiproject Cities to have the results of the RfC posted as part of WP:USCITIES. I copied the RfC results to WP:USCITIES. An uninvolved editor improved my text. I had second thoughts. When I reverted my attempt, the first editor reverted me. This editor has removed himself to a separate thread. Posting the dispute here to avoid another edit war.

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline#Rankings_not_included

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline#Minneapolis_content_disputes

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

WikiProject Cities used to be strong with many participants. Nowadays not so much. Participants appear to agree that rankings such as exampleCity being the ~7th 'Best Place to Live in the U.S.' have no place in Wikipedia. We evidently disagree on the implementation. Perhaps you can help us put a fair-minded guideline in place.

• Volunteer Note - Is this a content dispute about words in the US Guideline? If not, what is it? It is not clear what the issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the words. The precise wording of the guideline needs to be created. I reverted the guideline today as db-author and pointed here. I would be happy to give examples above of what went wrong if that would help. Guidelines must avoid implementations like "I know it when I see it." Does this answer your question? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note Two - Waiting for a response from User:Magnolia677. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

First, like every policy and guideline on Wikipedia, US Cities was created by a consensus of editors, and has been expanded and revised through discussions and proposals and the outcomes of RfCs. In this instance, SusanLesch added the outcome of this RfC to the US City guideline. It was then edited by another editor. Days later, SusanLesch changed their mind and deleted their edit. I reverted it, because I also agreed the edit should remain. If SusanLesch believes "the precise wording of the guideline needs to be created", then she needs to gain a consensus on the US City guideline talk page. I can't force other editors to participate in discussions there.

Second, this all began when I used this RfC to remove some magazine rankings from the Minneapolis article which were used to add more bragging and puffery to the article . SusanLesch referred to it above as "an obscure RfC from November 2021". The RfC was publicized on the appropriate RfC noticeboards, it was participated in by experienced editors, and the consensus was clear. I'm confused as to what was "obscure" about this RfC from last year, and why it should not apply to the Minneapolis article. Likewise, this RfC is frequently used to remove "affluent" from the first line of so many US city articles.

Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Magnolia677 may have said that they are not interested in moderated discussion, because they want to resume discussion at the guideline talk page to try to reach a consensus. Moderated discussion here is voluntary, and an editor has a right to decline moderated discussion. If Magnolia677 wants to resume discussion at the guideline talk page, I will close this case. If they are willing to have moderated discussion here, they should indicate by stating that. If there is no response within 24 hours, I will assume that they are declining moderated discussion, and will close this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Fine with me to close this. Magnolia677 wants to apply the RfC universally, for example, to Minneapolis. A good thing. But when his implementation of the RfC strayed to "I know it when I see it" it became necessary to have a guideline at WP:USCITIES. Maybe a focused rule can't be created here. Thanks anyway for your help, Robert McClenon. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2022 (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

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

Users involved

• SusanLesch (talk · contribs)
• Magnolia677 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Can the mention of the Dakota be improved? This jazz club was founded across the Mississippi in Saint Paul as a place where people can meet for good food and jazz. Its name has changed over time. The club now welcomes other music genres. It moved to downtown on the Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis, and is still known for fine dining. This is a content dispute as outlined on the Minneapolis talk page.

One editor removed ""Steve Hoffman won the James Beard distinguished writing award for What Is Northern Food?." His reasons include the residence of the author and the topic of his article. Mr. Hoffman wrote an article about food from Minneapolis, extending his range to a larger geographic area. He begins and ends his article in Minneapolis. I'd prefer to include him.

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Minneapolis#Dakota

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Minneapolis#Deletions_by_Magnolia677

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

You can help us improve the Dakota's mention. At first, one editor removed it completely, then posted shaved-down descriptions that are unrecognizable. Let's restore it to life.

• volunteer note combined two discussions on the same page with the same participants. Conversation has been ongoing for aprox 2 days. Appears to be a dispute over application of policy regarding promotion, sourcing, and puffery. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• volunteer note 2 If Magnolia677 (talk · contribs) will confirm their willingness to participate- I'm happy to mediate this discussion. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but I'm not sure what more to say, other than what's already on the talk page of the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Non-moderator volunteer note 3 - User:Magnolia677 - The moderator will ask the questions or otherwise lead the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay lets get started! First of all- both editors are reminded to respond to the moderator, not each other. Comment on content not editors, keep your responses concise- under 300 words per response is ideal in most cases. To begin with- each editor please indicate that you understand these guidelines and then concisely tell me your ideal end result of this dispute. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Nightenbell. I understand your guideline that this discussion is content resolution, and does not concern editor conduct. Ideally:

• the Dakota will have a brief description in our article that befits a lively music venue of national stature that serves food worth mentioning.^[1][2]

• our paragraph on James Beard award winners will be restored, including Mr. Hoffman who won in 2019 for this article. P.S. Mr. Hoffman resides in Shoreview, a Saint Paul suburb, not in Minneapolis proper.^[3] -SusanLesch (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Question Can you please link the sources that support your first goal? As to the second- Please provide the source that shows Mr. Hoffman is a resident (current or former) of Minneapolis? Nightenbelle (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm so sorry- both of those pieces are publicity pieces- not news coverage. please review WP:RS and provide independent 3rd party sources (IE- not ones generated from a publicity event like a soft opening where media is invited in exchange for articles they will write to generate publicity) Do you have any non-publicity sources? If not- then the food quality is not considered notable and therefor it would be against policy to include it at all- and this board cannot endorse anything against policy even if it has consensus- policy is primary. Shoreview is a suburb of MN- actually more a suburb of St. Paul, but I guess that leads me to ask- are other people on the list actually from a suburb? Or would he be unique in this? Nightenbelle (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The Star Tribune has a larger circulation than the Boston Globe (updated figures). MinnPost was founded by the former publisher of the Star Tribune. Jon Bream is the Star Tribune music critic. Pamela Espeland is dead but she was "was particularly knowledgeable and passionate about jazz." I'm sorry too. I have to question your questions about the reliabilty of either paper and either author, per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations:

"The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint."

Paul Berglund lives in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Tim McKee lives in Stillwater, Minnesota. That's arguably not a suburb, Stillwater is a separate place, and is part of the greater metropolitan statistical area. Gavin Kaysen and Alex Roberts both live in Minneapolis. I stopped there. Nightenbell, why are we doing all the work? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Its not the size of the publication- its the type of article that is the problem. The publication itself is totally fine. However- both of these articles were reviews of a soft opening open to press- IE- paid publicity. (Free food if you come write a review) Thats the problem here. The type of article.

As far as Mr. Hoffman- I'm satisfied with that part and it can proceed with mediation. The food review, however, barring other sources- is not acceptable to add as the food quality is not notable via independent sources. Nightenbelle (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

All right, sorry, I understand your concerns. Perhaps food can't be supported.

Am I still trying to establish notability for the Dakota? The establishment itself isn't under question is it? (Source #3 here obviously can't be used but is for your information only.) I'll find more if you need them. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC) ^[1][2][3]

P.S. Two local food reviews.^[1][2] -SusanLesch (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The Dakota itself is notable- it has its own WP page- so that establishes its notability. As for the weight of putting it on the page- That is one of the things we will discuss in this mediation. If other notable nighclubs are not mentioned, it is undue weight to mention this one.

So it appears that this case is two fold- 1) If and How to include the article by Mr. Hoffman- and 2) If and How to include mention of the Dakota. Magnolia677, to move foward, I would like you to explain any objections / concerns you have on these two points. I feel I have a good understanding of SusanLesch's point of view- but I would like to understand yours as well please. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you to the volunteer moderators for your hard work on this project. I sincerely appreciate your skills.

I have no issue with any part of Steve Hoffman's excellent essay What is Northern Food? being used as a reference in this article. It is well written and includes several discussions about food in Minneapolis. There may be better resources though, as I have not researched the topic much.

My concern is not about the reliability of Mr. Hoffman's well-written essay; my concern is entirely with the unencyclopedic way SusanLesch wishes to use this source. Rather than select information from the contents of this essay, and use that information to expand the article and add encyclopedic details about food in Minneapolis, SusanLesch instead only wants to add information about the author: "Steve Hoffman won the James Beard distinguished writing award for What Is Northern Food?"

Mr. Hoffman is an excellent writer, but has no Wikipedia article, and lives in a suburb of Minneapolis; his award was for an essay not specifically about Minneapolis.

In other words, Mr. Hoffman's essay was not the focus of this edit, and was not used as a resource to improve the article. Instead, Mr. Hoffman's award was the focus of this edit, and appears to be used as a means of bragging and puffing up the article.

Bragging about non-notable people does not improve an article; this edit was unencyclopedic and should not be restored.

This edit has had several iterations:

• "According to DownBeat, Dakota Jazz Club has been one of the world's best jazz venues for 25 years."
• "The Dakota Jazz Club on the Nicollet Mall offers exceptional food along with jazz greats, attracting national audiences."
• "The Dakota, formerly the Dakota Jazz Club and Restaurant, expanded its offerings in 2018 from only jazz to include more genres of music. Executive chef Remy Pettus delivers the club's menu, created by a James Beard Award-winning chef."

The concerns I mentioned in my edit summaries and on the article talk page included the following:

• There was an overwhelming consensus at this RfC that magazine rankings like this are unencyclopedic.
• The location of this venue is trivial; this isn't a travel guide.
• These edits are loaded with puffery and promos: "exceptional food", "jazz greats", "attracting national audiences", "expanded its offerings", and "Award-winning" (which is specifically used as an example at MOS:PUFFERY).
• The history of the venue is unnecessary; readers can visit the article.
• Readers do not need to know the name of the non-notable executive chef.
• Stating that the menu was created by "a James Beard Award-winning chef" is over-the-top puffery.

My bigger concern about this edit is...why? The Dakota Jazz Club is just one of many music venues in the city, and the linked article, Dakota Jazz Club, is completely unsourced. Why choose this one?

Why not First Avenue, located in an old bus station, and featured in Purple Rain?

Why not the Minneapolis Armory, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and is where Price filmed 1999, and Aerosmith filmed I Don't Want to Miss a Thing?

These two venues would certainly be more appropriate at meeting the suggestion at WP:USCITIES#Arts and culture that: "This section should include a description of the cultural aspects of the city, such as points of interest, museums, libraries, mentions of the city in popular entertainment, etc."

Is it because some magazine did not call these places "one of the world's best", and they don't have award-winning people writing their menus?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not People Magazine. Locations in a city should be selected for in-depth discussion because of some unique characteristic, not because you can brag about them. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Magnolia677.

Regarding including the Dakota- Would you both be amenable to including it this way:

"Minneapolis has many popular music venues such as, The Dakota, The Minneapolis Armory, and First Avenue."

That way we are not giving undue weight to one club- but instead listing several notable ones.

Now- as for Mr. Hoffman's article- SusanLesch What part of the article are you wanting to use Mr. Hoffman's article to support? If an existing part- it seems Magnolia is totally fine with you adding it as a source- if you are wanting to add a new section on food- could you share the proposed wording and how Mr. Hoffman's article will support it? Nightenbelle (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding the Armory is a brilliant idea. However presentation is still at issue. If we give a list it sounds like it's definitive and it isn't. (Fine Line, The Cabooze, there might be a hundred.) First Avenue is covered in prose under Prince and in a photo and caption. Plus it's mentioned in the lead. I'm struggling to be able to say anything about any club.

Regarding Mr. Hoffman, have we entirely removed James Beard awards from the table? If so, the whole paragraph has to go. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that listing the Armory or any other notable establishment would improve the article.

Regarding Mr. Hoffman, if "the whole paragraph has to go", it would improve the article by removing the many non-notable names of award winners. I will look through Hoffman's article--and others--for some encyclopedic content to add to this section of the article. Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

So it sounds like you two have reached a point where you can move forward together on the talk page regarding the Mr. Hoffman article.- As for listing nightclubs- there are a few options as I see it 1- Make a proper list on the page OR a category/list all their own. 2- Word the sentence to be clear that there are many such wonderful music spots IE- "Minneapolis has many notable clubs a few of them being......blah blah bah (Pick maybe three or four to place here)"

Do either of those sound acceptable? Nightenbelle (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I think we've entered dangerous territory to conclude that James Beard awards are not important. For example, Joanne Chang's entire biography hangs on that notability of James Beard. Are we saying awards don't matter, like the Harmon Trophy? I imagine all kinds of people with Wikipedia biographies have only won an Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, or Tony award. Maybe we could consider the implications for WP:ANYBIO. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I can agree to your resolution of the Dakota, if Magnolia677 will write the sentence, and not leave us with what we have now, "The Dakota is a musical venue." Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I will write the sentence if Magnolia doesn’t want to- no worries about it staying like it is.

As for James Beard awards- they are notable for biographies- they give a person notability- however- in a large city like Minneapolis- where you have many James beard winners, an individual winner becomes less notable for the overview page. It stops being practical to list every winner of a notable award- and listing one but not all winners of comparable awards in all areas (architecture, art, business, etc) would be undue. Make sense? Nightenbelle (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense! I can agree to your reading, Nightenbelle. Thank you.

Wonderful, we established that Mr. Hoffman is in fact notable. Quite an accomplishment against the steady drumming from the opposition about "non-notable," "puffery" and "unencyclopedic promotion."

We remove Ann Kim, Alexander Roberts, Tim McKee, Paul Berglund, and Isaac Becker. Should we also remove Dara Moskowitz Grumdahl and Andrew Zimmern? (National awards I think.) Should we keep Gavin Kaysen? He won two regional James Beards and medaled in the Bocuse d'Or. Young Joni can go (the other dispute about WP:USCITIES might make it moot). Then I'd take out Kim Bartmann restaurants because other deletions made a mention undue.

I cannot agree, however, to remove Owamni and Sean Sherman and his partner Dana Thompson. This has been a long term disagreement with Magnolia677 [15]. Owamni won a national James Beard this year for new restaurant (all the other chefs have only won James Beard regional awards). I can expand it but not remove it.^[1]

Magnolia left the chef (Owamni) and the award - she just removed the puffery- so it doesn't look like she actually has a problem with was the extra language, which- I'm afraid, she is correct- was puffery. It read like an advertisement. As stated now is more encyclopedic.

Okay- it looks like we've got this all wrapped up- any other issues or can I close this?

I have some remaining questions, one about your neutrality. I have been listening to drumming, drumming allegations from Magnolia677 for years, most recently during the past month, since the beginning of August. Have you started to believe him out of repetition and fatigue?

• Magnolia677 agreed to I will look through Hoffman's article--and others--for some encyclopedic content to add to this section of the article. Before closing, do we have a deadline? Is there any accountabilty?
• Have we established that Steve Hoffman is notable? Yes or no.
• Why are you agreeing with Magnolia's allegations of puffery? Nightenbelle wrote:

I'm afraid, she is correct- was puffery.

Magnolia677 never criticized the Owamni paragraph as puffery. His edit was on the basis of notability. So where is your advertisement? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nightenbelle: I'm sorry your neutrality has been questioned. You are a volunteer mediator, and I sincerely appreciate the good judgement you have demonstrated. How very disappointing. I thoroughly believe that even on Wikipedia, where we are anonymous, it's still important to have a bit of...class. This was the edit where I trimmed Owamni, with the edit summary "Please do not edit war over this puffery and irrelevant content; please discuss and seek a consensus". The edit has since been puffed up to read like an ad in a travel magazine: "In 2021, Dana Thompson and Sherman opened Owamni by The Sioux Chef overlooking St. Anthony Falls (Dakota: Owámniyomni), and serving Native American cuisine without colonial ingredients like wheat, dairy, cane sugar, pork and chicken. In 2022, Owamni won best new restaurant, the only time a Minnesota restaurant had won a James Beard award in a national category."

And because this restaurant's gimmick is authentic Indigenous food, there's even a "nod" to diversity by translating the name of the river outside the restaurant--and having absolutely nothing to do with the restaurant--into the Dakota language. No mention that Owamni is located in a venue that housed Minnesota's first Japanese restaurant. No matter...finding a Japanese translation for something nearby, like an airport or a highway, might be difficult anyway.

I've lost track of what changes we have agreed upon. Would it be too much for me to ask you to briefly summarize what edits we will be making to the article? Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled by an editor questioning the neutrality of a moderator after they have been taking part in moderated discussion for a week, but that is the privilege of any participant. Participation in mediation or in moderated dispute resolution, or most other dispute resolution processes, is voluntary. User:SusanLesch asks Before closing, do we have a deadline? A deadline for what? Do you want to back out of the resolution of any part of this dispute? Wikipedia is a work in progress. If you want to back out of what we thought was agreed, the next step will probably be Request for Comments.

SusanLesch writes: Have we established that Steve Hoffman is notable? DRN is not the forum to discuss the notability of a person. If you want to establish his notability, you may do that in either of two ways. First, you can write a biography of a living person about Steve Hoffman (writer), which requires biographical notability. If anyone questions his notability, they can nominate it for Articles for Deletion. Second, you can write a draft, Draft:Steve Hoffman (writer), and submit it for review. But maybe that isn't the question. What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

You ask whether User:Nightenbelle is neutral. It appears to me that she has been neutral. In my opinion, some of the material that User:Magnolia677 said was puffery was local boosterism, the sort of writing that is appropriate for a Chamber of Commerce or a travel guide, but Wikipedia is not a travel guide. If you disagree, then the Wikipedia community can be asked via Request for Comments.

If User:SusanLesch is dissatisfied with the moderator, we can close this dispute resolution as failed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Robert already covered most of this, I'm sorry- I had some personal issues prevent me from logging on yesterday to see this. So I will only address my neutrality.

Neutrality means I have not formed an opinion on the subjects in question. However- part of my role as a mediator is to know the policies of WP very well. While I do not have an opinion on what should and should not be in the Minneapolis article, as a new page reviewer for I believe 3 years now, and a mediator here for that long as well- I do know puffery. Puffery is also known as NPOV language. or Non-neutral Point of view. Describing the amazing views and food etc. of one singular club in a city that has hundreds of them is not neutral. Nor is it appropriate for an encyclopedia. Stating that your writing in that paragraph is against WP policy is not compromising my neutrality- it is enforcing WP policies. I'm sorry that upsets you- but WP policy trumps any mediation we can do here. IE- you and Magnolia cannot come to any agreements that break policy on this page. Including that kind of language breaks policy. You are welcome to take it to the neutrality noticeboard if you disagree- but I'm 100% confident they will agree with my interpretation of policy here. Especially since I have Robert McClenon agreeing as well. If you don't want to take my word for it- please take Robert's- he is one of the MOST respected editors on Wikipedia- he is the unofficial head of this team, has been mediating the longest, is a regular fixture on the ANI and the go-to person for neutral mediation. So, if you won't take Magnolia's word for it, or my word for it- take Roberts. But - if not- by all means, take this to the neutrality noticeboard and let them weigh in, or open an RFC and see what other editors think. Be aware though- you are also now flirting with forum shopping- meaning if you don't get your way on one forum, you go to another hoping to get more support. So I would consider carefully how far you want to pursue this. I will close this now as failed. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Here's the reply I was drafting for you.

Hi, Robert McClenon. I hope a response here is OK. We have not failed!

Nightenbelle was extremely helpful. I learned a tremendous amount from her, specifically that James Beard awards are notable in biographies but they can be excessive in a city article.

I asked about a deadline because Magnolia677 has not completed his agreement, I will look through Hoffman's article--and others--for some encyclopedic content to add to this section of the article. He just added, I've lost track of what changes we have agreed upon. Would it be too much for me to ask you to briefly summarize what edits we will be making to the article?

You wrote In my opinion, some of the material that User:Magnolia677 said was puffery was local boosterism, the sort of writing that is appropriate for a Chamber of Commerce or a travel guide. You guys repeat that slogan again and again, AFTER I removed:

• 6 chefs, 1 restaurant chain, 3 restaurants, 1 TV host, WSJ blurb
• Newsweek art critic appraisal of Walker Art Center
• and Magnolia677 removed Newsweek rankings of hospitals

So, yes, I question both moderators’ neutrality.

Still, I am grateful for the opportunity to work with dispute moderation. I would recommend it to my friends. If the need arises, I will start an RfC on Owamni. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

It appears you are confusing enforcing policy / disagreeing with your interpretation of policy with non-neutrality. I wish you luck at the other options you have to solve this. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2022 (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

• 2023 Nigerian general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Number 57 (talk · contribs)
• Panam2014 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This article's original name was "2023 Nigerian general election" but it was changed to "2023 Nigerian elections" due to the addition of elections not on a single election day. The page was later changed back by Panam2014 (talk · contribs), who refused to explain or justify the move when asked. After several discussions on various talk pages that went were systematically ghosted by the other side to maintain the status quo, requesting outside help seems like the right move. The dispute is between one side (me) who supports a move back to "2023 Nigerian elections" as the current title indicates that there is one central election on one day; however, there are dozens of different elections in Nigeria throughout 2023 (from February to at least November) making this page comparable to the 2020 United States elections page. The other side (Number 57 (talk · contribs)) argues for the page to be split into two separate articles. However, they continue to block a name change because the page isn't split while simultaneously refusing to open a page split discussion; all while agreeing that the current name does not fit the content of the page. I believe those bad faith actions meet the definition of WP:POINT, holding the page hostage at an unfit name to make a personal point instead of ever actually attempting to split the page (which is the supposed reason for the move opposition). Both Number 57 and Panam2014 have been extremely unresponsive and I think that they should have to actually respond to the criticisms of their plan or drop their opposition to change.

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

• Talk:2023 Nigerian general election#Requested move 19 April 2022
• Talk:2023 Nigerian general election#Requested move 1 June 2022
• WT:WikiProject Politics#2023 Nigerian general election
• User talk:Number 57/Archive 16#2023 Nigerian general election
• User talk:Number 57/Archive 16#2023 Nigerian general election 2
• Talk:2023 Nigerian general election#Requested move 13 September 2022
• User talk:Number 57/Archive 16#2023 Nigerian general election 3

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I believe that you could finally make the opponents respond to requests for comment and decide on a future course of action.

---

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

• Roy J. Glauber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 99.174.173.241 (talk · contribs)
• M.Bitton (talk · contribs)
• Kpddg (talk · contribs)
• Drmies (talk · contribs)
• Praxidicae (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The page has been consistently under attack, possibly by the relatives or any related or hired person by E. C. George Sudarshan, regarding the controversy of the 2005 Noble Prize. They insert the controversy section again and again without any reply to the discussion on the talk page. I had previously detailed each and everything on the talk page and removed the controversy section, but someone has reinstated it without bothering to read the article's talk page.

Further details can be found on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roy_J._Glauber#It_is_not_Glauber's_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roy_J._Glauber#A_consensus_needs_to_be_built_for_this_matter_of_vandalism I had tried to gain a consensus on the talk page by posting details over there, but I didn't get the attention of any third-party reliable editor having no link with both parties.

I request that a binding solution for this is made after reading the facts on the talk page, please.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roy_J._Glauber#It_is_not_Glauber's_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roy_J._Glauber#A_consensus_needs_to_be_built_for_this_matter_of_vandalism

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think the best solution is to read the comment I posted on the article's talk page. What I want is, the controversy section should not be displayed on Glauber's page. They can show it on Sudarshan's page or even they can create a new page regarding this if they are allowed. It is a matter between Sudarshan and Noble Prize Committee, not between Glauber and Sudarshan.

---

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

• Fizeau experiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk · contribs)
• Nemesis75 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Nemesis75 wishes to add content to the article which I, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog, question as representing probable original research. Much of what Nemesis75 has wished to add to the article is not unacceptable to me and probably only requires a bit of back-and-forth editing to bring to an acceptable compromise wording. However, Nemesis75 wishes to add the following statement to the article that I demand must be backed up with an appropriate reliable source:

Alternatively, one must adopt the ad hoc hypothesis that the properties of aether change to a Nonlinear_system such as found in the Soliton in the presence of matter.

Nemesis75 insists that anybody familiar with the literature should be able to figure out the validity of his statement. I, on the other hand, question the validity of the statement, and consider that all of Nemesis75's arguments expressed on the talk page in support of that statement's inclusion represent wp:SYNTHESIS. Nemesis75 considers that my reverting his additions to the article are too heavy handed, that simply adding WP:NEEDCITE to anything that I question as being insufficiently sourced should be sufficient. I do not consider addition of NEEDCITE to be sufficient, since the content that Nemesis75 wishes to add is strictly false and must be reverted. Nemesis75 considers that my reversions of his edits constitute vandalism.

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

Talk:Fizeau_experiment#Apparent_original_research

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Nemesis75 has insisted on the Talk page that he could provide reliable sourcing for the disputed statement, but has thus far not done so despite my repeated requests. Let Nemesis75 know that if he is unable to provide reliable sourcing to challenged content, that the challenged content must be removed.

1. Stachel is an american historian who attempts to quote Veltmann's German paper in the citation used in the disputed area.
2. In his quotation he interprets a single small line in Veltman's paper to come to the conclusion that Fresnel's hypothesis of partial aether drag -a mechanical wave theory- directly requires multiple separate mediums to support each of the multiple colors of light which each have a different index of refraction. Thus completely misrepresenting the ability for a mechanical single medium to have dispersion effects.
3. I added a single line to help offset the misleading info about mechanical waves I encountered in this statement. I gave the Nonlinear system and Soliton articles as examples of both compensatory dispersion effects as well as single medium dispersion. (not requiring multiple mediums)
4. Caspase reverted, stating citation was needed, disregarding the Wikipedia articles cited.
5. More reversions occur as talk page argumentation begins (with extensive explanations of well established wave mechanics)
6. I edit more of the area in an attempt to bring some resolution
7. Capsase uses blanking, illegitimate to remove all my successive content unrelated to dispute (~1500) with a flippant reason and flagrantly ignoring WP:STATUSQUO guideline
8. I warn him to not use vandalism as I do around 12 hours of citation resourcing and re-write to resolve dispute and add more context to the Stachel bias problem
9. He opens this dispute notice during that time
10. I commit new version I worked all day on in attempt to resolve dispute
11. I'm made aware of this dispute resolution noticeboard post
12. As of these updates the challenged content is removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemesis75 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - User:Aoidh has also taken part in the discussion on the article talk page, and should be notified of this discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Splitting the discussion between here and the article talk page is rather confusing, so I am moving what I had previously written below to the article Talk page at Talk:Fizeau_experiment#Continuation_of_discussion_from_Dispute_Resolution_Noticeboard Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2022 (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.

---

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

Location of dispute

• Accountability software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Keithgreenfan (talk · contribs)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs)
• MrOllie (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On 09/22/2022, Wired published an article on accountability software that described the abuse of the software by a particular church. A Wikipedia editor (Sandstein) rewrote the entire article to make it appear that this church's misuse of the software was the *purpose* that the entire software category is used for. He also used one church member's comment to inaccurately recategorize the entire type of software. It took on a very hostile and non-neutral tone.

After my first edit, Sandstein reverted the change and commented. I explained why the new version was inaccurate, taking into account his valid points. I got no response after a few hours so I made another round of edits, taking into account his comments. Within minutes the changes were reverted. Sandstein and MrOllie commented. Some valid points, but they ignored several points. MrOllie and I have exchanged points several times but it doesn't appear to be headed toward resolution.

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I just want to have a reasonable discussion about the article. I am alarmed at how false and inaccurate it is now. I don't mind valid points being made about reversions, but Sandstein has reverted every change I have made including several quotes from the articles he himself is linking to that bring clarity to the topic.

The dispute is about which of two recent versions of Accountability software is preferable. MrOllie and I think that this version accurately reflects how the topic is described in reliable sources, and that the version preferred by Keithgreenfan is non-neutral, in that it attempts to portray this category of software in an overly flattering light. Keithgreenfan alleges that the first version is "inaccurate", but they do not point out how exactly it is, in their view, inaccurate in terms of diverging from reliable sources. Discussion at Talk:Accountability software#Edits in September 2022 is difficult because of WP:WALLOFTEXT issues on the part of Keithgreenfan. (As an aside, the media article to which Keithgreenfan refers was published by Wired (magazine), not Salon.com.) Sandstein 07:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a basic case where an infrequent editor with some strong personal opinions (see for example this comment about their 20+ years of personal experience on this topic) needs a brush up on WP:NPOV and WP:OR so as to confine themselves to what the sources are saying rather than editing based on their personal experience. - MrOllie (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Do the editors in this dispute all want to have moderated discussion? If the editors agree, then the following rules will be in effect. At this point, that is the only input from the editors that I am asking for. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm indifferent. I've no experience with this process and no particular desire to try it out, but I'm also not opposed. Sandstein 07:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, yes I would like to do that. Like Sandstein I've had no experience with this either but hope it will be helpful. Keithgreenfan (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm indifferent as well. My previous experience with this process is that it was just a step on the road to a RFC, and I'd rather cut to the chase. I am also unsure that I will be able to have an above-board, civil discussion while parties to the discussion are being disparaged on random user talk pages [16] [17]. - MrOllie (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, it looks like we are all at least okay with doing this process. Is there anything else we need to do? I also would say that if the RFC process that MrOllie mentioned goes quicker and is more effective, maybe we could try this for a day to see if we reach resolution and if not we can switch to RFC? Never done any of this so not sure if that's the best way to go or not. Keithgreenfan (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Moderated discussion is voluntary, so any editor can withdraw from this process or decline to participate. Since two of the editors are uncertain, we will proceed slowly. Please read the rules again. It appears that there is a dispute over versions of the lede section. Are there any other disagreements over article content? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes @Robert McClenon, however the lede is the most urgent issue because it now consists of misinformation. Before the 09/22/2022 edits it was accurate (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accountability_software&oldid=1073807449). Paragraph 2 also contains unsourced summaries that aren't completely accurate but those are minor edits. Paragraph 4's last sentence is not completely accurate in it's wording either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithgreenfan (talk • contribs) 14:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I should add my most recent proposed edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accountability_software&oldid=1112494691. Main concern with the current version is WP:NPOV isn't being followed.

Incidentally, I noticed while finding the above link that a fourth editor made changes yesterday that were also reverted. Unfortunately they are anonymous. If there is a way to ping an anonymous user we can invite them to the discussion if they are interested. Keithgreenfan (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, thank you for moderating this discussion, however as the requestor I'd like to go ahead and end it as it appears to be a very slow and deliberate process, where the other editors may or may not reply. I'd never tried it before so was unaware of what to expect. Thanks! Keithgreenfan (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2022 (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.

---

Attempts to add a landmark chart modeled exactly after similar published charts in every aspect are being removed by a single editor/approver due my disclosure as a paid editor. Although I'm no longer under contract for this project, the content is of such high relevance and historical significance, I've chosen to continue adding to the page pro bono. Yet, the information, which involves a non-profit Civil Rights initiative and in no way promotes it, disappears moments after I publish. The deletion is very clearly personal and, in my opinion, contrary to Wikipedia's mission.

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

I've discussed this directly on the U.S. Civil Rights talk page, directly with the editor who has constantly harassed me, and with several other editors.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Review the landmark page to OBJECTIVELY determine if it, a) mirrors other published historical landmark pages; b) provides relevant, accurate information under Wikipedia guidelines.

---

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:Paul M. Sparrow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Danceswithedits (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This page continues to be declined by the same reviewer despite the subject matter clearly establishing notability (Emmy Awards, Presidential Library director, museum library director, television producer, among other accomplishments) with very credible sources, and without any promotion or "peacocking." The rejections are very obviously personal, as I've disclosed my paid status under Wikipedia guidelines, and the reviewer has openly expressed disdain and intent to reject my contributions. Compared to other related bios, this bio clearly meets notability thresholds and would almost certainly be accepted had I not disclosed my paid status.

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

I have discussed the page despite open hostility and harassment and made necessary revisions as cited in rejections.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Objectively review the draft page to determine notability and quality of content under Wikipedia guidelines.

---

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

• Reverse racism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Gumbear (talk · contribs)
• Sangdeboeuf (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The first sentence of the opening paragraph seems to violate NPOV, SYN, and is out of place as the first sentence in the opening paragraph. It defines reverse racism very narrowly without proper justification (i.e. to include only "affirmative action and other color-conscious programs" as a form of anti-white racism). I will avoid summarizing the entire discussion but, essentially, I asked that the definition either be properly substantiated or changed. Only one of 3 cited sources arguably supports the published definition (though appears out-of-context), while one of the other sources clearly contradicts the definition with a much broader definition. User Sangdeboeuf offered another uncited source, but it also seemed out-of-context (it was a statement on the origins of reverse racism rather than a definition). The current definition, aside from being a synthesis of 2 sources that don't claim to be definitions, would not encompass complaints the EEOC defines as "reverse-discrimination," U.S. Supreme Court decisions, or international non-white, non-AA acts of reverse racism/discrimination that are reported as such.

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide an outside, 3rd-party neutral perspective on this sentence.

The issues raised here have been addressed and refuted on the talk page already. The lead sentence does not say that "reverse racism" is limited to the issue of affirmative action as Gumbear earlier claimed. It does say that reverse racism is a concept applied to affirmative action and other color-conscious programs because that is what the sources say. The user is also claiming that Garner (2017)—who does in fact offer a definition of "reverse racism" on page 185—is not cited in the text even after I linked to the exact citation. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Now that both editors have replied, I will determine whether moderated discussion is the way to resolve this dispute. Please read the usual ground rules. Do both editors think that moderated discussion, in which I (as moderator) ask questions and the editors answer, is likely to resolve the dispute? The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, and so we will discuss article content only, not conduct or other issues. Each editor will be asked to be specific in exactly what they want changed in the article or left the same. I would like each editor to reply, in one paragraph, whether they will participate in moderated discussion, and, optionally, exactly what they want changed ( or left the same) in the article. Be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI: My response is below, under Sangdeboeuf's statement. Gumbear (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

If both editors agree to moderated discussion, we will continue with moderated discussion. Otherwise I will advise what the next steps or next forum are.

If the editors want an outside Third Opinion, then I am willing to provide one, just as if it had been requested at the Third Opinion noticeboard. If I do that, I will not available as a moderator for any further discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm willing to participate in a moderated discussion, thanks. However, if Gumbear really wants an outside, 3rd-party neutral perspective, than this dispute may be more simply resolved thru WP:THIRD. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Robert: are you familiar with either one of us or already have pre-disposed opinions on this issue? If not, I'm open to your moderation. I propose changing the current definition of "reverse racism" to one that more fully and accurately defines "reverse racism." The proposed definition, "Reverse racism or reverse discrimination is the concept that typically advantaged people are relegated to inferior positions or denied social opportunities to benefit racial and ethnic minorities, or, in some instances, women," was previously changed by Sangdeboeuf in March 2018 to the current definition. It comes from a reputable scholar (Yee). Per our discussion, I believe the suggested change/reversion has a stronger foundation of support and is a more accurate definition of the term. I'm open to any questions you have. Gumbear (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I have been aware of the name of one of the editors as being an editor, and have no preconceptions about either editor, and am not familiar with the dispute on reverse racism. (Sometimes I do not research a case in advance because I expect the editors to summarize it for me, and this is such a case.) Do both editors agree to moderated discussion? If so, we will have moderated discussion. Please read the ground rules again. If not, do both editors agree to a third opinion? If so, we will have a third opinion. In any case, will both editors please state, maybe again, exactly what they want changed in the article or left the same in the article. The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article, so it is important to identify where the disagreement is. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree to your moderated discussion. As discussed, I propose to change the current first sentence of the article "reverse racism" to a more accepted definition that more fully encompasses the concept. The current one is anglo-centric and appears to be an association fallacy of a cited source. I previously requested to change it to Yee's definition: "Reverse racism is the concept that typically advantaged people are relegated to inferior positions or denied social opportunities to benefit racial and ethnic minorities." However, arguably better definitions come from the reputable dictionaries themselves, like here in the Oxford Dictionary, or here, or here, or here. I'm good with any of those. Gumbear (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Both editors have agreed to moderated discussion. One editor has asked to change the leading definition of reverse racism. Does the other editor agree or disagree with the change? Does either editor have any other specific changes that they want to make to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed change to the lead sentence, which should be left as-is absent more reliable, in-depth sourcing (as I indicated on the talk page). --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, talk page discussion has continued and now includes input from Rhododendrites and Writ Keeper, who should be included here as well. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Because other editors have joined in the discussion at the article talk page, and it is possible that the involvement of the additional editors may resolve the controversy, I am putting this DRN thread on hold. Article talk page is a prerequisite to discussion here, and a dispute is only discussed here if talk page discussion is lengthy and inconclusive. The involvement of new editors again provides an opportunity for regular discussion to resolve the issue.

If the talk page discussion resolves the dispute, I will close this thread as resolved. If discussion with the additional editors is lengthy and inconclusive again, I will restart discussion including the additional editors. The space below this statement is available for any questions while article talk page discussion resumes. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

NightHeron and Firefangledfeathers have also contributed to the talk page and should be included if discussion resumes here. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2022 (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

• Independence referendum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Beshogur (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I'd like to see a picture removed that claims to show the Donbas status referendums because that claim is not backed by a reliable source.

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

Talk:Independence_referendum#Donbass

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think the discussion is stuck because the other editor never answered to my central point. So I hope a mediated discussion can help us to get out of that situation and find a consensus that conforms to WP:V.

• Volunteer Note - Waiting for input from User:Beshogur. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure what counterargument I can put here. I've already talked on the page. It's absurd to ask one single picture removed from that particular article, while Butko (talk · contribs)'s pictures were used all over wikipedia regarding Donbass&Russia-Ukraine wars. So imo he has to go to wikimedia, and ask for their deletion. Not for a particular article. Beshogur (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I am willing to mediate this discussion. I believe I understand the problem and I have reviewed the talk page discussion. As I understand it- a photo was used for Independence Referendum of the Donbas Status referendum to support the article. User:Rsk6400 wants a citation to support the use of the photo, User:Beshogur says that the photo is already established as authentic on its own. Do I understand the arguments well? Do either of you have anything else to add before we begin? Also- both of you please indicate you have read the rules at the top of this page and agree to engage with the mediator- not each other, and that you will remain civil and comment on content not editors. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that I have read and will comply with the rules, but I'd like to clarify my point of view: I don't want a citation, I want the picture to be removed from the article because no reliable source is given for the claim that it shows the Donbass referendum. Even if it could be shown that it really shows that referendum, there is still no RS that it shows a typical situation from the referendum, nor that the Donbass referendum qualifies as an independence referendum (I think it was just a sham referendum). Rsk6400 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I don't think my comments could change any of his opinion, so would like to hear other people as well. Beshogur (talk) 13:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification User:Rsk6400. User:Beshogur Could you please first answer how we know this is a photo of the Donbass referendum? Lets start by establishing the credibility and authenticity of the photo and then we will move onto the rest. I believe on the talk page you said something about it being uploaded by an editor who took the photo? Nightenbelle (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nightenbelle: Here you can see voting center in Donetsk, ballot paper used in the referendum. Those are used all over wikipedia (in other languages as well) and on 2014 Donbas status referendums. So if the problem is "there is no source", I would say it should be removed from whole wikipedia, not from single article as the user above suggests. Also as Butko says, the referendum took place in 11 May, and you can see from wikimedia that he took the photos the same day. I don't know what else to say. Beshogur (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying there is no source- or that there has to be a source- I was just asking to figure out how the pictures came to be on WP. Could you please explain that to me- just so I'm aware. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I don't think there is going to be any further information given then. So.... next question- For User:Beshogur- what do you feel this photo adds to the article that another photo from a different event could not add? And User:Rsk6400- could you please share a photo you would like to replace this image with along with the the proposed caption. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Well I'm not saying this should stay here, I am saying his reasonings are not fair, and if he was right, then we have to remove this all over the whole wiki in other languages. Beshogur (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Beshogur I am trying to find compromises for you guys- it seems you are not wanting to participate, this process only works if both people commit to it- so I'm asking again- what would you like to see on this page? Nightenbelle (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Some ideas:

• File:1991 Ukrainian independence referendum results.svg The numbers for each oblast are found at 1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum#By_region, where they seem to be sourced correctly.
• File:Independence Referendum (6887287639).jpg Showing Scottish and British delegates discussing the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. Since similar pictures have been published by the press and since the persons are (or were) well known at least in Britain, it is not likely that this picture will be challenged.
• File:Kurdistan Pro-Referendum and Pro-Independence poster in Ankawa, Erbil, Kurdistan Region of Iraq 01.jpg Shows the propaganda of one side. Not likely to be falsified, therefore not likely to be challenged.

BTW: I agree with Beshogur that my reasons against using "our" picture at "our" article also apply to other articles. But their idea to try and have it removed from Commons won't work because according to the policy at Commons pictures that are in use will normally not be removed (except for copyvio). Rsk6400 (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2022 (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

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

Users involved

• Jasonkwe (talk · contribs)
• ValarianB (talk · contribs)
• May1787 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Jasonkwe had suggested on the talk page that the meaning of the acronym MSNBC, from when the company was founded, be added to the lead paragraph. ValarianB opposed this, stating that the meaning of the acronym was obvious based on other information in the article (that the company was formed from a partnership between Microsoft and NBC). The discussion on the talk page petered out and was not continued. 1 week later, Jasonkwe added the change to the lead paragraph after which it was reverted by ValarianB per their previous reasoning. Jasonkwe posted on the discussion page concerning the revert and arguing for its inclusion. No further discussion on the talk page has taken place since then. May1787 reverted ValarianB's reversion, disagreeing with ValarianB's reasoning that the meaning of the acronym was obvious. ValarianB reverted May1787's reversion reiterating that it was.

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

Talk:MSNBC#Proposed edit to lead paragraph concerning acronym

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide third opinion, foster discussion concerning inclusion or removal of content.

I'm not interested in any talk about partisanship or bias or whatnot. I just like to know what an acronym stands for. My argument is that most other articles list meaning of a company's acronym even if it no longer is relevant to the work they do today today. Examples I gave were 3M standing for Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company and HBO standing for Home Box Office. The counter argument that it is obvious what the acronym stands for doesn't really ring true to me, even if one knows that the company was founded as a partnership between Microsoft and NBC: what if it stood for Microsoft Satellite National Broadcasting Corporation or Microsoft Syndicated National Broadcast Company?

Extensive discussion on the talk page didn't fully occur only because there weren't any further replies to what I posted up in response.

Anyhow, allegations of a "big tech" conspiracy isn't really supported by what's laid out in the article--that Microsoft didn't have much involvement in the running of the company in the beginning and sold its shares of MSNBC as time went on. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 07:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Focusing on the forrest first: MSNBC is a mouthpiece of the United States Government, just as CNN, Fox News, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. MSNBC is just worse at it then the other two. The link between private and public institutions is used as plausible deniablity. Scientifically, the United States of America is an oligarchy, according to Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B "The preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy." https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy When the average member of the collective west thinks "oligarchy" they think "Russia", which, scientifically is true because the United States created Russia in the 1991 using Disaster Capitalism first brandished on the first September 11, 1973, with the 1973 Chilean coup d'état.

I believe the name should be in the first paragraph. Microsoft/National Broadcasting Company (MSNBC) it shows the link between big business and media. If I could venture guess, some utopian libertarians wikipedians, who have never lived in a real libertarian society, don't want that connection so easily broadcast.

May1787 (talk) 06:10, 7 October 2022 (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.