Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 110

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 105

←

→

Talk:Daisaku Ikeda

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Catflap08 on 08:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:Daisaku Ikeda (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Catflap08 (talk · contribs)
Hoary (talk · contribs)
Starrynuit (talk · contribs)
Elemential1 (talk · contribs)
Ubikwit (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I researched a quote via the WP:RX since the quote (used within another quote by Montgomergy) was disputed in the articles on Daisaku Ikeda and Soka Gakkai. As soon as I insist that critical issues should not be deleted I seem to run into a conflict with the same editor. Same occurred on the Toynbee quote.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

At one stage quoted Montgomery pages 186-187 completly. Asked WP:RX to find Murata quote in order to clarify who hit whom.

How do you think we can help?

An end to the constant deletion of sourced material not in favour of advocates of SG/SGI and or Ikeda.

Summary of dispute by Hoary

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Under the heading "Remarkable deletions", the article's talk page shows a conflict over what is said in two books about an incident in which, it has been claimed in the article, Daisaku Ikeda abused and hit an older priest. The two books in question are David Montgomery, Fire in the lotus: The dynamic Buddhism of Nichiren (ISBN 1852740914); and Kiyoaki Murata, Japan's new Buddhism: An objective account of Soka Gakkai (ISBN 978-0834800403). It's not always clear who has seen these books. I have never seen either, have no comment on the reliability of either book, and have never heard of one of the publishers.

A paragraph was summarily removed. This dismayed me. (See the talk page.)

There's a dispute on the talk page between User:Elemential1 (surprisingly, not named above) and User:Catflap08 on the talk page about exactly what Montgomery and Murata wrote. It's an odd dispute. Elemential1 claims that each book says precisely this or that; Catflap08 doesn't seem to agree or disagree but instead seems eager to argue around what the content of cited texts. He also seems to be saying that an objection to parts of a paragraph aren't good reason to remove it in toto.

Catflap08 then presents a long quotation from Montgomery. If it's credible, it certainly shows the thuggishness of the organization that Ikeda would soon head. What it doesn't show is what Ikeda had to do with this. Catflap08 appears to think that Ikeda must have been involved and therefore this belongs in an article about him.

Numerous editors of the page (many of these SPAs) have long been unhappy about quotations from an article Polly Toynbee published about meeting Ikeda. There have been attempts to do away with all of this material, but various editors (including Catflap08 and myself) have opposed these, and none of these attempts has been successful. There have been demands that this journalistic account should be balanced by other journalistic or quasi-journalistic accounts; I have welcomed this idea. At one point I noticed that the article had developed odd descriptions of Toynbee and a book in which she's quoted at length; I brought this up.

The article was protected. Starrynuit suggested changes. As an admin, I accepted some, rejected others. These acceptances and rejections didn't trigger much visible dissatisfaction.

Alarm bells! I have been a participant in the editing of the article and have exercised my administrative superpowers on it. A dodgy combination, and in retrospect I regret this. I'd be happy to recuse myself from either (a) editorial involvement or (b) administrative involvement. Or, better, from both, because my interest in Ikeda is very minor.

Starrynuit added a somewhat hagiographic passage about Ikeda. Seventeen minutes later, Catflap08 removed it, with the edit summary WP:PEACOCK.

I was struck by two things here. First, however vapid parts of the passage might be, they're not covered by WP:PEACOCK. I wrote this up at Talk:Daisaku_Ikeda#Peacock. Secondly and more seriously, Catflap08 seemed indignant when one faulty passage he seemed to like was deleted in toto, but he was quick to delete another faulty passage in toto. Why not approach the two in the same way? I therefore warned Catflap08 about the need for neutrality.

The talk page has now blown up with "Murata reference". Despite learning that Murata says that Toda hit the old priest and not learning that Murata says that Ikeda did, Catflap08 wanted (wants?) the article to continue to cite Murata as saying that Ikeda hit the old priest. (Though sometimes he says that he doesn't care.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Starrynuit

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Greetings, The sentence that I tried to correct and that Hoary ultimately deleted had long -- incorrectly -- cited Murata as saying that Ikeda admitted hitting the priest twice. The text of Murata reads, "Toda [not Ikeda] admitted hitting the priest 'twice' [p. 96] ..." This can be seen at http://books.google.ca/books?id=x8QKAAAAYAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=hitting

Murata's account of the Ogasawara Incident is disputed but that dispute is another matter; the inaccuracy of that one sentence in the article was the key issue here.

Thank you for your time. Starrynuit (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Elemential1

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Daisaku Ikeda discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC) @ TransporterMan Thanks for reminding me.--Catflap08 (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

While I agree I did not indeed mention User:Elemential1 I filed the DRN due to Hoary's posts of 5th February onwards. In those posts yHoary went on about changing the “Ikeda hitting” issue. May I remind Hoary that it was him/her who threatened me with a topic ban? In the articles affected and mentioning the incident I then simply included the Murata clippings, as in the beginning of the dispute it was (a) disputed if Ikeda was present (b) that Murata made such a statement on page 69 of his book – apparently he did. The question if Ikeda was present was resolved since I included the rather lengthy Montgomery quote. In contrast to Hoary I do hold quite a bit of literature on Nichiren Buddhism which I find to be quite useful when editing on matters relating to Nichiren Buddhism. The only book I did not have since long out of print is the Murata one. The only ones I bined a long long time ago are the “human revolution” ones by Mr. Ikeda (novels). The articles on Ikeda and SGI were reedited and it did not slip my attention that in due course Ikeda was alleged hitting too, hence my Resource Request‎ to find out if Murata made such a quote and who was hitting who. While Hoary did question my neutrality I do begin to have doubts on Hoary’s ability to exert powers as an admin. The amount of information available either in English, German or French on Nichiren Buddhism is limited. The information published on and offline on SG/SGI is mainly published by SG/SGI itself. It comes natural that critical matters are few and credibility of authors is even more vital then. I work on Nichiren related matters for nearly eight years now. I believe I was able to contribute to the nuts and bolts of Nichiren Buddhism within articles dealing with the matter in a credible non-promotional way. Am I neutral on SG/SGI? No. Knowing this and having made co-editors aware of that I keep my own edits on SG/SGI related articles to a bare minimum. I am not sure if Hoary is aware of the fact but the usual tactics of SG/SGI advocates is (online and offline) to discredit authors of resources critical of SG/SGI. This has been an ongoing issue as if one does not like the message kill the messenger so to speak. What I surely do not like is therefore to delete critical material. Recently another editor and me were involved to get another editor to include some more facts on SG/SGI’s beliefs and dogma – fruitless task. So in the end maybe Ikeda was building his first human pyramid as a peace activity while the priest was harassed in 1952 – how should I know. What I do know (a) Ikeda was present among the 47 involved (b) Murata did make that quote on page 69 (c) Toda is said to have been hitting. Also since Murata apparently did not only write one book I am surprised that Hoary did not include a “citation needed” tag on the disputed sentence first. It just puzzles me that Hoary always enters the scene when it comes to references critical of SG/SGI, references not in Japanese. On the Toynbee issue it was agreed that the online text does not qualify as a resource – now its harder for readers to read the article. Fine. Nevertheless the article existed, I have had the Guardian pdf and the one made available to me by the help of a Resource Request. Discrediting yet again the author of the article as some editors tried I find worrying. To quarrel about resources, who said what where is one thing to discredit me as an editor making sure critical issues are neither deleted nor censored is another one though. Since I was the one who got the Murata quotes why should it be me to insist that Ikeda was hitting the priest? The conclusions Hoary makes beat me and asking me to edit the body of the text seems bizarre while earlier threatening me with a topic ban. --Catflap08 (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer's note: I will remind all parties to this case to be concise, be civil, and comment on content, not on contributors. The comments by some of the editors appear to contain lengthy complaints about other parties and are long. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to DRN, I have been through the specifics of the discussion and am willing to volunteer for this case. I have no prior knowledge of the subject matter but I hope that won't interfere with mediation. I am going to notify Elemential1 as they seem to have been involved in a lot of the discussion. The first thing I would ask is in two or three sentences could you please tell me as specifically as possible what you hope would be different (or the same) in the article after DRN. For comparison please use this version of the article. I ask this in order for us all to see exactly where the nub of the dispute is. Please don't justify these inclusions in this section simply list them for now.SPACKlick (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08:'s desired outcomes

Higher protection level of article itself (registered editors only, no IP edits). No hidden or open censorship. End to defamation of authors (including journalists) and denying the existence of their work. No threats against my person or any other editor. --Catflap08 (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08: This board cannot change protection levels of an article. We also cannot take action against uncivil editors. If you have received threats to your person I would recommend you take them to the relevant administrators noticeboard

Could you be specific about what you believe is being censored currently?
Could you be specific about what work you believe the existence of is being denied?
Could you be specific about what authors are being defamed.

I am asking for specifics at this stage because a small point to focus on will help the discussion find the generalities. SPACKlick (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The censorship is about sources used and an ongoing effort by some editors to discredit authors/journalists. It was even denied that Murata made such a claim i.e. that the page 69 in his work even exists as cited by Montgomery. At that point the issue was on Toda only. The defamation was about Toynbee (multiple editors involved). The threat against my person was to the effect of me being able to edit the article. --Catflap08 (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That is still quite general. What sources would you like included in the article that are not currently? What from Murata/Montgomery would you like in the article. What about Toynbee would you like out of the article? This will struggle to move forward without specifics. SPACKlick (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact should be included that according to Murata Toda hit the priest twice and DI was present. Please note that since the dispute started both articles (SGI and the one on DI) have been reedited in large parts. Both the Montgomery AND Murata page 69 quotes should simply be cited in a footnote at least – in full length. The notability of Ms. Toynbee and her account of meeting DI should no longer be disputed nor her reputation as a journalist belittled. And while in the swing of it – no quotes from fictional material (the novel “Human Revolution”) on incidents that happened in real life. --Catflap08 (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Please note that at the beginning of the dispute the complete section was once deleted on grounds that no such quote of Toda was recorded. Tough – Murata quote was found. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hoary:'s desired outcomes

There's a passage within the section on "Books" that talks of the reactions of, and quotes comments by, Polly Toynbee. It's flagged "[relevant?]", "[better source needed]", and "[copyright violation?]". Remove the "[better source needed]", and "[copyright violation?]" flags, as the quotations appear in the article in the Guardian. (This article -- long, fascinating, and published long before everything in the newspaper was routinely uploaded to its website -- has been made available to a small number of editors of the page and I presume could be available to others.) The part flagged for relevance does indeed seem irrelevant to books. But this is not the part of the article where this passage has long resided. Move the passage back where it belongs (some section on Ikeda the person), and its relevance will again be clear. This aside, no particular request. -- Hoary (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Slightly edited for clarity 05:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Starrynuit:'s desired outcomes

Greetings; I do not have any dispute with the article as it is. Thank you very much Starrynuit (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

In that case are there any particular changes that have been made and reverted recently that you specifically think would detract from the article? SPACKlick (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings,

Thank you kindly for asking.

1) I agree with Hoary’s suggestion about the Polly Toynbee quotations.

2) Re: “The fact should be included that according to Murata Toda hit the priest twice and DI was present.”

a) Murata pages 96-97 are on the subject at hand (not page 69) (^[1])

b) Neither Murata nor Montgomery states that DI (Daisaku Ikeda) was present at this alleged hitting, therefore it is not appropriate to include such a statement in the article.

c) Montgomery states that what happened after Toda encountered Ogasawara is not clear and he describes Murata’s statement about Toda hitting the priest as a “claim”. Montgomery states, “What happened next [after Toda encountered Ogasawara] is not clear. According to Ikeda, Toda reasoned calmly with Ogasawara, demanding an apology, while the old man 'drooled at the mouth' and 'howled like a rabid dog.' But Murata claims that Toda told him in an interview that he struck the priest 'twice' ([Murata, p.] 96).” ([Montgomery (^[2]^: 187)

d) Therefore, given the Neutral Point of View policy not to state seriously contested assertions as facts, it does not seem appropriate to state that Toda hit the priest, and certainly not to state that Ikeda was present at this alleged hitting, for which there is no cited source at all.

Thank you very much again. Starrynuit (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: (I hope this comment is not out of line). I don't know why anyone else didn't translate it, but I posted a Japanese source on the Talk page, here, that states Toda hit the priest.
行ってみると、当時の戸田城聖会長を先頭に青年部の屈強な若者がずらりと並んでいた。
呼び出しの理由は簡単にいうと、戦前慈聞師が唱えていた教義解釈が間違っていたのだから謝れというわけだ。師が拒否すると戸田会長が殴った...
It also says that the priest was said to have suffered internal bleeding, and that Toda was taken into custody and held for two days while the incident was investigated.
急を聞きつけて地元消防団がかけつけたため慈聞師は宿坊に帰され、騒ぎは収まったが、このリンチで師は内出血のため四週間も休まなくてはならなかったという。
この事件で戸田会長は警察に二日間拘留され、取調べを受けている。
--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 17:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

References

[1]
Murata, Kiyoaki (1969). Japan’s new Buddhism: an objective account of Soka Gakkai ([1st ed.]. ed.). New York: Weatherhill. ISBN 978-0834800403.
[2]
Montgomery, Daniel B. (1991). Fire in the Lotus: The Dynamic Buddhism of Nichiren. London: Mandala. ISBN 978-1852740917.

@Elemential1:'s desired outcomes

Ok so to summarise the comments above.

@John Carter:'s desired outcomes

Hi all. I'm just butting in here as a somewhat involved editor, and I would be very happy to see @Shii:, one of our more knowledgable editors in general on Eastern religions, to comment here too. I think the primary things to address here are:

1) determining the relevance and amount of weight to be given to reliably sourced material which is not particularly positive regarding the subject, both in this article and other SG articles
2) a consensus be reached regarding the number of articles and subjects of articles relating to the various SG topics, including this one. Although I am not sure myself of the amount and depth of coverage of the life of this individual compared to others, I note that there are at least three articles relating directly to the life of L. Ron Hubbard and various periods of it, and think similar might be possible here, depending on the amount and notability of material available.
3) broadly determine what content which can be reasonably considered to be of "encyclopedic merit" regarding both this individual and SG in general should be placed in which article related to that topic.

Anyway, that's what comes to mind to me as a reasonable starting point. John Carter (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Murata, Montgomery, Hitting incident

Include that Murata Toda hit the priest twice and DI was present
Cite Montgomery in footnote at full length
Cite Murata in footnote at full length

These three, if I'm understanding correctly all refer to the same section of content and are disputed as to what quotes to include, what to say in Wikipedia's voice and what to not say at all. Could each of you summarise your arguments for what to include and where in the article. Again, try and keep it to three or four sentences. Please do not discuss each others contributions before I respond.

@Catflap08:

Nowhere in the quotes is it stated that Ikeda hit the priest. Whoever included that later is none of my business and if sources exist who say so include them. The Montgomery source simply states that Ikeda was in the mob. I was the one who made the Murata quotes available, as some suggested the Montgomery quote would be wrong. I have the full Montgomery quote and would include it in full length as a footnote just like the Murata one. Please note that in the beginning of this discussion the complete reference to the incident was deleted. We have so far established that the Murata quote exists, which was disputed, and that Ikeda according to sources was present. The “incident” as such is not limited to Toda hitting the priest – that was the climax – but the incident is about finding the priest, pulling off his robes, etc. etc. … the issue here is that the incident took place. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hoary:

In the first item, is "Murata Toda" a typo for "Murata says that Toda" (or similar), for "Toda", or for something else? Anyway, I'm unimpressed by somebody's mere presence at a violent event. If there's evidence that this happened, and that Ikeda played an important role, then say what the incident was and what his role was in it; if there isn't, then don't. Whatever is said in the article about this (if anything), source it well: in the relevant footnote(s)/reference(s), quote [I think you mean "quote" rather than "cite"] as much from Murata or Montgomery or both as to establish this, and no more. -- Hoary (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Starrynuit:

Greetings, Suggest that the Polly Toynbee quotations be moved to a new Controversies section in the article. Given the Neutral Point of View policy not to state seriously contested assertions as facts and given the cited statement from Montgomery that “What happened next [after Toda encountered Ogasawara] is not clear.”, it does not seem appropriate to state that Toda hit the priest, and certainly not to state that Ikeda was present at this alleged hitting, since there is no cited source for the latter statement. Thank you again, Starrynuit (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

P. Toynbee comments

Accept Ms Toynbee as a source of note and include referred sections without critique of the journalist.
Move Ms Toynbee's section to the relevant location

I don't see a dispute here but maybe I'm misreading someone. The section currently reads

The 1976 publication of Choose Life: A Dialogue (in Japanese, Nijusseiki e no taiwa) is the published record of dialogues and correspondences that began in 1971 between Ikeda and British historian Arnold J. Toynbee about the “convergence of East and West”[137] on contemporary as well as perennial topics ranging from the human condition to the role of religion and the future of human civilization. Toynbee’s 12-volume A Study of History had been translated into Japanese, which along with his lecture tours and periodical articles about social, moral and religious issues gained him popularity in Japan. To an expat’s letter critical of Toynbee’s association with Ikeda and Soka Gakkai, Toynbee wrote back: “I agree with Soka Gakkai on religion as the most important thing in human life, and on opposition to militarism and war."[138] To another letter critical of Ikeda, Toynbee responded: “Mr. Ikeda’s personality is strong and dynamic and such characters are often controversial. My own feeling for Mr. Ikeda is one of great respect and sympathy.”[139] British journalist and political commentator Polly Toynbee, an avowed atheist, was invited to meet Ikeda in 1984 in memory of her grandfather. (According to Peter Popham, writing about Tokyo architecture and culture, Ikeda "was hoping to tighten the public connection between himself and Polly Toynbee's famous grandfather, Arnold Toynbee, the prophet of the rise of the East."[140]) Polly Toynbee described Ikeda as "a short, round man with slicked down hair, wearing a sharp Western suit"; they talked from "throne-like" chairs in "an enormous room" reached via "corridors of bowing girls dressed in white".[141][relevant? – discuss] She wrote "I have met many powerful men--prime ministers, leaders of all kinds--but I have never in my life met anyone who exudes such an aura of absolute power as Mr. Ikeda."[142] In The Guardian on May 19, 1984, she also voiced the wish that her grandfather would not have endorsed their dialogue, Choose Life: A Dialogue. She wrote, "I telephoned a few people round the world who had been visited by Ikeda. There was a certain amount of discomfort at being asked, and an admission by several that they felt they had been drawn into endorsing him."[143][better source needed][copyright violation?]

Are there any disputed phrases and are there any suggestions as to where in the article which bits should go? Please feel free to discuss this, please remember to be civil and discuss the content not the contributor SPACKlick (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do also take into account the respective talk(s) on the issue which comes up on a regular basis more or less. To my mind the quote and references made to Ms. Toynbee are exactly in the right place. The article was not written out of the blue, but because Ms. Toynbee was invited by SGI/SG as she was the granddaughter of the late Arnold Toynbee. As a matter of fact those quotes are actually missing in which she elaborates what she suspected to be SGI/SG’s motifs to invite her in the first place. Alternatively I would add larger quotes in an appropriate footnote. Also is was hinted at in the respective talks on the issue the reference to Ms. Toynbee should go full stop as she is a humanist (some call it atheist or agnostic) - I guess that was her view at the time too, but she was invited on grounds of her name. On a side note I would like to underline that any attempts to delete her quotes, based on her view on religion, are in effect discriminatory. --Catflap08 (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Human Revolution

Remove quotes from Fictional material, to whit "Human Revolution"

I couldn't find any remaining quotes from the book. Is this still under dispute? Please feel free to discuss this, please remember to be civil and discuss the content not the contributor SPACKlick (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It should be established that the semi-fictional novel is not a reliable source to quote from full stop. In the talk page (either on DI or SGI/SG) it was discussed to quote it. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please halt discussion until a new moderator takes up this case. SPACKlick has indicated on the DRN talk page that he/she is unable to continue with this case. I'm therefore marking it as NEEDS ATTENTTION in the hopes another DRN volunteer will pick it up.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello All, I am a part time volunteer with DRN. First of all I would like to thank everybody for participating. I also want to make it clear that we at DRN carry forward discussions which were not resolved on the talk page. We are not here to discuss subjects of articles but merely what can be added to an article. We don't possess any administrator privileges. With that out of the day let me briefly summarize my understanding of the dispute which is whether any reference to Daisaku Ikeda having hit (or abused, or physically harmed in any way) a priest called Jimon Ogasawara, should be included in the article about Daisaku Ikeda. Later the dispute includes the suitability of adding the opinion of journalist Polly Toynbee to the article. I have drawn these conclusions from reading the rather lengthy talk page discussions and the discussions above. Would that be correct? -Wikishagnik (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Wikishagnik You seem to sum up the dispute quite correctly. Except that to my recollection the dispute originally surfaced as one editor questioned the Murata quote full stop. It carried on from there onwards.--Catflap08 (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Wikishagnik Greetings, thank you for asking. Please note that there is no evidence whatsoever that Daisaku Ikeda in any way hit or abused or harmed Jimon Ogasawara. Please see my comment of 06:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Further, the article already includes the opinion of Polly Toynbee in the section Books. Thank you.Starrynuit (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

24 Hour Closing Notice -- Unless there is significant indication in the next 24 hrs that a moderated dispute resolution discussion is underway, I'm going to make a long overdue close of this very stale case. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi I m back, quickly, I am sorry but I was a bit busy on last two days. Going ahead, Its good that we have now reached some sort of agreement over the dispute. Now, the next step for any independent editor like me would be to quote multiple reliable and independent sources to say that this editor is right and this editor is wrong. However, for this discussion I fail to understand why this confrontation (and not the subject of the article) is failing to meet these Notability requirements? Simply put, why am I not able to find multiple indipendent reliable and verifiable sources for this confrontation? Wihout these, how will I ensure that any edit of the article I make is Encylopedic and Neutral? I don't want to get in a bitter dispute about authors and journalists etc. because it is the job of the publishing house (or newspaper) publishing them to carry out these checks. I don't want to exclude any reference because that discussion belongs more to Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I am not in any way affiliated to Budhism or the subject of this article. So, how do I ensure my POV is Neutral and Encyclopedic?--Wikishagnik (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

24 hour warning: This case has passed its expiration date which means the bot will auto-archive the case/thread if a 24 hour period passes with no comments. Which at this point, in my opinion, is a good thing. This case has lost its momentum and does not appear to be going anywhere. Just sayin.........-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Since a month has gone by the task of following the incident is indeed difficult. I would however like this to be sorted it out --Catflap08 (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Closing Comments - This dispute initially started out as a debate about whether Daisaku Ikeda hit (or abused, or physically harmed in any way) a priest called Jimon Ogasawara. It later turned into a long debate about journalists and other sources. While it would be tempting to start discussing about WP:ONESOURCE, WP:CONFLICT, WP:PRIMARY and WP:VERIFY, the Neutrality and tone of whole article is under question, so suggesting a removal of a such a contentious addition might actualy harm the Nuetrality of the article. Hence, at this point I suggest allowing other editors to work on the article and make it more Neutral while the disputing editors work on improving other articles on WIkipedia. -Wikishagnik (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Johnnie2u

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Johnnie2u on 17:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC).

Removal of the material was clearly proper under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. See my closing note in the collapsed section, below, for details. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

More information Closed discussion ...

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:Johnnie2u (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Johnnie2u (talk · contribs) Helpsome (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Helpsome has undid two article post that I have rewritten in response to Wikipedia asking writers for help. The two are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Training_corset & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist_cincher. I have done original research extensively and wrote two articles. These two articles have no content that is of value. And they lack original research. That is a lot of work to just have someone undo it out of existence. That is why I am disputing this. My references are three websites that I have authored http://waisttrainingcorsets.com/ http://waistcincher.us/ http://waisttrainer.us/ also http://www.cathiejung.com/ http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/smallest-waist-living-person • Waist Training Corset Guide • Steele, V. (2001). The corset: A cultural history (5th ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press. • Lord, W. (2012). The corset and the crinoline: An illustrated history (Dover ed.). Mineola, NY: Dover Publications. • Young, J. (1911). A manual and atlas of orthopedic surgery: Including the history, etiology, pathology, diagnosis, prognosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of deformities. Philadelphia, MA: P. Blakiston's Son & Co. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to talk to Helpsome and he is resistant and I am very unsure of his approach. I would like to have my work reinstated. How do you think we can help? Like I have said in the conversation with Helpsome, I am going into this with an open mind. I feel this is a great learning experience. He claims that my websites are commercial websites and that this is spam. I built these website by hand on WordPress. I have done original research. I need help in resolving this situation. And like I said. I have an open mind and am willing to learn from the experience. Thank you. Johnnie2u Summary of dispute by Helpsome Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User talk:Johnnie2u discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. At this time we are not yet taking or declining your case. However, I want to be sure that I have read the Original Poster's statement correctly. He or she appears to be saying that they have done considerable original research, and that therefore their edits should be retained rather than reverted. Wikipedia does not accept original research. Please re-read the policy on original research. Either the original poster has done original research, which is not permitted, or the original poster should restate their case, or this volunteer has misread the statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Comment The ORiginal Poster says they posted their original research at various websites. Therefore it is advised for the Original Poster to review the guidelines WP:CITE and WP:RS, if they intend to use these websites as references. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Closing note: It is clear that what Helpsome and Staszek Lem have done here is basically correct. What Johnnie2u needs to know is that all material in Wikipedia must, if challenged, or likely to be challenged, be supported by an inline citation to a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia, as established by the Verifiability policy, which is one of our most basic and fundamental rules. Though the definition is somewhat complex, the most basic part of the definition of a reliable source is this: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Sites such as those created by the listing editor do not meet the requirement of a third-party source or that of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. To be more precise, for the reasons explained in the SELFPUBLISH section of the Verifiability Policy, self-published websites such as those created by the listing editor are ordinarily not acceptable sources. (Please be sure to click through and read all the material which I have linked.) Next, linking to sites which you have created yourself or in which you have an interest gives the appearance that you are trying to promote those sites. It does not take much more than that appearance to constitute a violation of our Spam rule, even if that was not your intent. Finally, the sources from Steele, Lord, and Young may (or may not) be reliable sources, but for them to serve as such they must be directly linked to text in the article through inline citations, not just added as a bibliography at the end. That was, at one time, an accepted method of sourcing here, but it has not been such for several years (though many examples may be found where it still exists but has not yet been converted). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer) 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.*

Closed discussion

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

User talk:Johnnie2u (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Johnnie2u (talk · contribs)
Helpsome (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Helpsome has undid two article post that I have rewritten in response to Wikipedia asking writers for help. The two are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Training_corset & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist_cincher. I have done original research extensively and wrote two articles.

These two articles have no content that is of value. And they lack original research.

That is a lot of work to just have someone undo it out of existence. That is why I am disputing this. My references are three websites that I have authored

http://waisttrainingcorsets.com/

http://waistcincher.us/

http://waisttrainer.us/

also

http://www.cathiejung.com/

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/smallest-waist-living-person

• Waist Training Corset Guide • Steele, V. (2001). The corset: A cultural history (5th ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press. • Lord, W. (2012). The corset and the crinoline: An illustrated history (Dover ed.). Mineola, NY: Dover Publications. • Young, J. (1911). A manual and atlas of orthopedic surgery: Including the history, etiology, pathology, diagnosis, prognosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of deformities. Philadelphia, MA: P. Blakiston's Son & Co.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to talk to Helpsome and he is resistant and I am very unsure of his approach. I would like to have my work reinstated.

How do you think we can help?

Like I have said in the conversation with Helpsome, I am going into this with an open mind. I feel this is a great learning experience. He claims that my websites are commercial websites and that this is spam. I built these website by hand on WordPress. I have done original research. I need help in resolving this situation. And like I said. I have an open mind and am willing to learn from the experience. Thank you. Johnnie2u

Summary of dispute by Helpsome

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

User talk:Johnnie2u discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. At this time we are not yet taking or declining your case. However, I want to be sure that I have read the Original Poster's statement correctly. He or she appears to be saying that they have done considerable original research, and that therefore their edits should be retained rather than reverted. Wikipedia does not accept original research. Please re-read the policy on original research. Either the original poster has done original research, which is not permitted, or the original poster should restate their case, or this volunteer has misread the statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment The ORiginal Poster says they posted their original research at various websites. Therefore it is advised for the Original Poster to review the guidelines WP:CITE and WP:RS, if they intend to use these websites as references. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Closing note: It is clear that what Helpsome and Staszek Lem have done here is basically correct. What Johnnie2u needs to know is that all material in Wikipedia must, if challenged, or likely to be challenged, be supported by an inline citation to a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia, as established by the Verifiability policy, which is one of our most basic and fundamental rules. Though the definition is somewhat complex, the most basic part of the definition of a reliable source is this: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Sites such as those created by the listing editor do not meet the requirement of a third-party source or that of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. To be more precise, for the reasons explained in the SELFPUBLISH section of the Verifiability Policy, self-published websites such as those created by the listing editor are ordinarily not acceptable sources. (Please be sure to click through and read all the material which I have linked.) Next, linking to sites which you have created yourself or in which you have an interest gives the appearance that you are trying to promote those sites. It does not take much more than that appearance to constitute a violation of our Spam rule, even if that was not your intent. Finally, the sources from Steele, Lord, and Young may (or may not) be reliable sources, but for them to serve as such they must be directly linked to text in the article through inline citations, not just added as a bibliography at the end. That was, at one time, an accepted method of sourcing here, but it has not been such for several years (though many examples may be found where it still exists but has not yet been converted). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

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.

Talk:Helmut Diez

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Hans-Jürgen Hübner on 16:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC).

Although clarifications were made based upon WP guidelines, there was no clear resolution and the issue has been referred to WP:AfD for further community input. Please see my closing comments at the bottom of this case for a full explanation. — Keithbob • Talk • 20:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

More information Closed discussion, Stop personalizing the discussion. Discuss content only. ...

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:Helmut Diez (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk · contribs)
Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article about Helmut Diez was written about 3 years ago. Then Rhode Island Red told me that german sources are not accepted. Then he wanted to make me believe that the length of an article should mirror the significance of a person. His hints were always extremely vague (e.g. "see WP:MOS, WP:BIO, WP:BLP, WP:PROMO for a start"), he wanted "high-quality online sources in English", although WPs regulations say even "Citations to non-English sources are allowed". He criticized that some links, which I offered as an additional service for the readers, did not contain Mr. Diez's name, although it was obvious, that this was not the purpose. His tone was always gentle, but he deleted everything I did, so that it looks like a self-authorized deletion. He did this three times without giving persuading reasons, as far as I can see. Now I have made an attempt to improve the style with the help of an american and a british friend, and I have made the article more brief and deleted all the links that did not contain Diez's name - but the result is the same. I have no idea what to do against this kind of unexplainable treatment. At 7 o'clock I replaced the old version with the new one, but it took only a few hours to return to the much worse previous state.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

After the discussion mentioned above, I tried to further improve the style and keep the article as short as possible.

How do you think we can help?

Please answer my question if the reasons of Rhode Island Red are adequate, correct or part of Wikipedias philosophy. Give me some precise hints, how to save my work - if possible. If I'm wrong, although I'm writing for the german Wikipedia since 2006, Mr. Diez personally has asked on the telephone rather to delete the article about him, than to keep it the way it is now.

Summary of dispute by Rhode Island Red

This is a malformed and inappropriate DRN IMO. The user who filed it provided no history, no diff edits, no links, etc., making it difficult for anyone digging into the matter to even remotely understand the issues at hand.

The user has made couple of previous attempts to write an article on the bio subject in question. Those efforts fell far short of WP standards for a plethora of reasons, which I articulated in great detail on the article’s TPG (e.g., WP:PROMO, WP:RESUME, unreliable sources, dead links, supposition without sources, trivia, poor writing bordering on incomprehensible, etc). I offered to assist the editor in question in crafting an article that might meet WP standards, and I suggested that we use the TPG to begin the process. The editor failed to take up the offer and instead recently posted a revised version of the article that was even worse (for the reasons specified above) than the previous versions. I reverted the changes, explained the reasoning for the reversion on the TPG, and then never received a reply from the editor.

There was also a serious issue with respect to the editor primarily using unacceptable sources, almost all of which were either dead links, articles that were not from WP:RS, and articles that failed to mention the bio subject at all. This raises issues with respect to the editor’s reliability and understanding of WP’s policy on sourcing, and this is especially problematic given that they are now attempting to use unverifiable, obscure, and highly dubious offline sources in German.

This DRN has bypassed the normal sequence of events that would be followed in situation like this: i.e., engagement on the TPG, request for second opinion, RfC, etc. Escalating to DRN has circumvented the normal editorial process unnecessarily.

That aside, the basic question of whether the subject is notable enough for a WP:BIO has not been resolved. IMO, the subject is not notable. The bio subject has not received significant coverage in WP:RS, and particularly not in any English language sources available online or offline. The offline sources in German which the editor has provided seem dubious to say the least, and still do not appear to establish notability even if accepted at face value.

The editor’s RfC comment about having had direct conversations with the bio subject regarding the content and fate of the WP bio article also raise the issue of WP:COI. This is what I had suspected all along given the editors past conduct and POV pushing.

Talk:Helmut Diez discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Clerical Notice: I've notified the other participant on their talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Open for Discussion - This case is now open for discussion. Please restrict your comments to the content of the article (current or proposed). Please do not make reference to other editors actions or behavior, past or present. Hans, I see that you would like to add some content to this article. We will discuss one source at a time. Please list one source, and the corresponding text for that source, that you would like to add to the article. Thank you. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, it might be best to go through this process on the article TPG so that the discussion will be easily accessible to other editors. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the discussion process wasn't working so let's try it here. When the moderated discussion is over you can copy and paste it to the talk page and provide a link to the archived discussion if you like.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds reasonable. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

First proposal

I instead believe that it is useless to continue our discussion on the talk page. So here is an example of a paragraph that I would like to re-insert (the references are marked as [ref:]:

The Hattinger model [ref: More about the model cfr. Otto König, Adi Ostertag, Hartmut Schulz: "Unser Beispiel könnte ja Schule machen!". Das "Hattinger Modell" Existenzkampf an der Ruhr, Bund-Verlag, 1985.] (for the continuation of the smithy in Hattingen) tried to save jobs,[ref: Herbert Klemisch, Kerstin Sack and Christoph Ehrsam: Betriebsübernahme durch Belegschaften. Eine aktuelle Bestandsaufnahme, Studie im Auftrag der Hans Böckler Stiftung, July 2010, ISSN 1619ISSN.] but the Dresdner Bank refused to sell its collateral values to the rescue company.[ref: Dresdner Bank besteht auf Konkurs, in: Die Tageszeitung, 12th of may 1984.] “... the Diez model was already laid out correctly” it was said in the second largest newspaper in Germany.[ref: Westfälische Rundschau and Westfälischer Ruhr-Anzeiger, 22nd of may 1984 and "Ich habe Wut gekriegt für die Zukunft..." Diez-Modell richtig angelegt. Landtagsabgeordneter Uli Schmidt nach dem Scheitern des Hattinger Modells. Despite all this it was said: "Und deshalb war das Diez-Modell alle zu beteiligen, schon richtig angelegt." (And that is why the Diez model to let participate all parties, was correctly implemented)] --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, let's break this down so we can discuss one sentence and source at a time:

1)The Hattinger model
- [ref: More about the model cfr. Otto König, Adi Ostertag, Hartmut Schulz: "Unser Beispiel könnte ja Schule machen!". Das "Hattinger Modell" Existenzkampf an der Ruhr, Bund-Verlag, 1985.]

2) (for the continuation of the smithy in Hattingen) tried to save jobs,[ref: Herbert Klemisch, Kerstin Sack and Christoph Ehrsam: Betriebsübernahme durch Belegschaften. Eine aktuelle Bestandsaufnahme, Studie im Auftrag der Hans Böckler Stiftung, July 2010, ISSN 1619ISSN.]

3) but the Dresdner Bank refused to sell its collateral values to the rescue company.
- [ref: Dresdner Bank besteht auf Konkurs, in: Die Tageszeitung, 12th of may 1984.]

4) “... the Diez model was already laid out correctly” it was said in the second largest newspaper in Germany.
- [ref: Westfälische Rundschau and Westfälischer Ruhr-Anzeiger, 22nd of may 1984 and "Ich habe Wut gekriegt für die Zukunft..." Diez-Modell richtig angelegt. Landtagsabgeordneter Uli Schmidt nach dem Scheitern des Hattinger Modells. Despite all this it was said: "Und deshalb war das Diez-Modell alle zu beteiligen, schon richtig angelegt." (And that is why the Diez model to let participate all parties, was correctly implemented)] -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red, before we discuss individual sources do you have any general comments about this proposed text? The Hattinger model, for the continuation of the smithy in Hattingen) tried to save jobs, but the Dresder Bank refuse to sell its collateral values to the rescue company. :"The Diez model was already laid out correctly" it was said in the second largest newspaper in Germany. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. There's no context, it lacks critical detail, and it seems like WP:SYNTH about something fairly trivial. What is the Diez model? What parties are they talking about? What rescue company? What does Dresden Bank have to do with Diez? It makes my brain hurt trying to make sense of it. It seems to boil down to: "Diez had a plan to save jobs at a smithy in Hattingen and it didn't/(did?) work". It also appears that only one of three references actually mentions Diez, and even then only incidentally. I was hoping to see substantial evidence of notability put forth at the outset, because if there is none, discussion about minutiae like this seems moot. A one-line entry in a newspaper, like the example above, wouldn't qualify. Perhaps Hans can make offer up the best evidence he can find that would help the determination of whether the subject is notable. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hans, I'm inclined to agree with Rhode Island Red. It's difficult to see the relevance of this information to the life of the subject. What we are looking for is biographical info such as where/when he was born, his education. Details of when he graduated, what was his first job etc. When did he publish his first book. Did he start a notable company or organization? If so when? With this in mind could you please suggest some sourced content, other then what you have cited so far? Thank you. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's still not clear to me what field of endeavor Diez is supposed to be notable for. The old version of the article had him listed variably as an artist, designer, project manager, and entrepreneur. But I don't see any evidence that he's notable in even a single one of those areas, let alone all of them. Nonetheless, an attempt should be made to pick one going forward and then see if he qualifies. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a good suggestion. Hans, can you provide a source that illustrates the most notable or prominent aspect of Diez's life and/or a reputable source that provides a biography for Diez. These types of bios are often seen in places like the corporation where he holds a high position or Bloomberg News bios etc. Thanking you in advance.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop personalizing the discussion. Discuss content only.

lol "Mr. Diez personally has asked on the telephone rather to delete the article about him, than to keep it the way it is now." A quite interesting statement. Seems the german duo is very close. I understand the german wikipedia article about Diez is written like a marketing brochure. Try your self all the links given there if they are actually working and if Diez name is part of it. Without Hübner the german wikipedia wouldnt know about Diez. In terms on notability its also not enough that the name is just a marginal note in publications. Something more is needed here. In support of Keithbob I would like to see some stuff here on the table.Spearmind (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the WP:COI/WP:ADVOCACY issue combined with the incomprehensible writing, resume-like style, sourcing deficiencies, and apparent lack of notability are problematic to say the least. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As the evidence stands now I’m convinced that Diez is not notable. At best, he might qualify as a “person who is relatively unknown”, in which case WP:NPF would be considered: “Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.”

In effect, that means that even in the unlikely event that Diez could be demonstrated to be notable in a particular area, such as a designer, the content of the article should include only details about design expertise and activities. The bio article in its previous incarnation was a catch-all for all of Diez’s various activities (none of which appeared to be noteworthy), which is a no-no. The “exercise restraint” part should also be considered, since this was glaringly absent from the article’s previous incarnation.

I’ve been presenting Hans with all of the critical issues raised in this DRN since I first looked at the article back in 2012 – more than enough time to get things up to snuff, but no progress has been made. And now, after raising the DRN and getting negative feedback, it seems he’s abandoned the effort and this discussion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, influenza. Return as soon as possible. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

New proposal

Back.

Dear Keithbob, I'd like to propose a less complicated path (after all this diversionary tactic of those nice guys):

1. I think, after Spearmind's intervention, we have a first consensus: German sources are accepted.

The next inevitable questions are: 2. What exactly are the facts that make Diez notable?, and 3. which sources can verify these facts?

So, I would like to bring together the facts that, in my eyes, make Diez notable (in the first step omitting my duty to cite the sources).

If we agree that these facts make him notable, we can discuss the sources that prove the single facts that make him notable (or not). The advantage: If we cannot agree that the facts make him notable, we don't have to discuss each source. Then he is not notable and the article should be deleted. If we agree that these facts make him notable, we have to continue analyzing the reliability of the massmedia etc that provided the sources.

If you believe that this is the most efficient way to solve this long lasting problem, I would bring forth the reasons why I believe that Diez is notable. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because the publications of Diez were deleted recently (by whom, you can imagine), I would like to accelerate the process by making the publications "findable" even for those who never visit a library and completely depend on the internet. Is this o.k. as, lets say, "step 0"? --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not possible to discuss "facts" in the absence of sources that establish those facts. The two are intimately intertwined. Statements in the absence of a suitable source are mere supposition/conjecture. We're not interested about what, "in your eyes" (opinion), makes the subject notable but rather what evidence there is from WP:RS that establish the subject's notability. Kindly proceed with that in mind. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hans, welcome back. I hope your good health has returned.

All parties please stop the sniping. Do NOT reference other editors in your comments.
According to WP:V: Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page.
I'm not very enthusiastic about the idea of discussing alleged information about the subject without citing sources. I would prefer you bring us one source at a time and propose some text based on that source(s). Some editors are questioning the subject's notability but that is not what we are discussing. We are examining sources and corresponding content that could be added to the article. After this moderated discussion is over, then any editor that feels the article is not-notable can add a 'notability' tag to the article and explain on the talk page why they feel that way. Alternately they can nominate the article for community discussion and possible deletion at WP:AfD. But that is later in the process. Right now we want to see reliable sources that give information about significant events in the life of this BLP subject. Can you please show us one or two? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob, thanks a lot for the good wishes. Yes, I did recover and am busy working again, although at reduced speed.

As far as I can see, we have a reliable ground now. If I've got you right, I'm supposed to propose one source after the other with the deduced text for each of them, probably the texts I would like to see in the article. If so, I try to start on sunday. Last question: Do you need (a bit crude ...) translations? Regards --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Unless we are going to be quoting the source we can use Google Translate. So I don't need a translation but others can speak up if that is important. The main thing is we need to see good sources with substantial coverage of the BLP subject.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

List of proposed text and sources

I would like to start with the (probably) least litigated section about Diez's role as record producer and artist. First I tell you what I want to say within the article (fat), then I quote a possible source, then I say, which source I have cited (name, date, if possible pages etc.)

1. Within the field of art and culture, Helmut Diez developed scenic presentations with Peter Abromeit and Gustav Gisiger, for which they received the cultural and peace price of the Villa Ichon in 1983, together with 10.000 Marks,...

source: "Der ‚Unauflöslichkeit zwischen Kunst und Frieden‘ war die Aktion gewidmet, in deren Rahmen der Kulturpreis der Villa Ichon erstmals verliehen wurde. Für die Friedensinitiative Ostertor nahmen Peter Abromeit, Helmut Diez und Gustav Gisiger den mit 10.000 Mark dotierten Preis entgegen.“ (Kunst als lebendige Bestürzung. Kunstpreis der Villa Ichon erstmals an Theater Friedensaktion verliehen, in: Weserkurier, 14th of march 1983).

2. ...for their action theatres "Gräber schaffen Heimat", with approximately 120 musicians and actors.

source: "Über tausend Bremer verfolgten, wie da mit Hilfe von Theater, Film und Musik "eine Brücke geschlagen wurde zwischen der faschistischen Vergangenheit und der bedrohlichen Gegenwart" (so Mitveranstalter Helmut Diez) geschlagen wurde.“ (Theater im Kriegerdenkmal. Friedensinitiative dokumentiert Geschichte des Monuments, in: Weserkurier, 4th of may 1982 and Morgenpost, 10th of may 1982).

3. In 1983 - together with the federation of German writers – followed “a mourning march memorating the day of Nazi book burnings.

source: "Am kommenden Dienstag wird die Innenstadt ganz im Zeichen dieser Aktion stehen, die von den drei Bremer Künstlern Helmut Diez, Peter Abromeit und Gustav Gisiger vorbereitet wurde." (Trauermarsch für die verbrannte Literatur. Lesungen auf dem Marktplatz zum Tag der Bücherverbrennung / 100 bremer beteiligt, in: Weserkurier, 7th of may 1983) - a happening remembering the Nazi book burnings.

4. Diez produced cross-over compositions, including the Freeport count - Freeport - L’affaire flibustier...

source: Freeport L’affaire Flibustier, in: Jazzthetik, march 1990; there it says: "ein gewaltiges Werk … produced by Helmut Diez". Diez's label Dizzy essentials produced Flibustier as is said also here: (MusicArchives).

5. or Pulse (1992/93) with Michael Sievert,...

source: "… and The music is packed with ideas which address jazz as being at the centre of a web of musical approaches which all have a bearing on the next music’s next move (or two). The computer and Emulator are perfectly contextualized, the large ensemble .. integrate with an unprecedented sensitivity …" (Tom Corbin, in: The Wire, issue 70/71, 1990. possible further source: a photograph of the cover of the CD

6. which was published at his label "the Dizzy Essentials". Beside Michael Sievert, Diez worked with Sainkho Namchalak, Wolfram Dix, Heinz Becker, Jens Ahlers, Michael Berger, Klaus Koch and Carolyne Mas.

source: Dizzy Essentials 1992/93, together with "Sainkho Namchalak, Carolyne Mas, Heinz Becker, Michael Sivert, Heimo Schulte, Michael Berger, Wilfried Staufenbiel, Claudia Schwarze, Peter Mengel, Wolfram Dix, Jens Ahlers, Claus Koch, Gregor Zielinsky, Dietrich Rauschtenberger, Radio Bremen".

7. In the exhibition "In the Swim”, arranged by him,

source and additional information, if necessary part of the article text: "In the swim": in mostra 57 giovani designer inglesi, in: DOMUS. monthly review of architecture, interiors, design and art, 753, Milan, october 1993, p. 6 f. (among the three "curatori" Helmut Diez is mentioned, responsible also for "allestimento" (staging). In An Exhibition of creative design from the British European Design Group. Special Edition of Blueprint. The leading magazine of architecture and design. London, june 1993 he is called "managing director, DesignLabor".

8. he presented, together with Karen Beate Phillips (British European Design Group) and Liz Farrelly (Blueprint), the largest exhibition of British Designs on the European continent.

source: Perspectives, in: Karin Beate Phillips, Liz Farrelly, and Blueprint London and Helmut Diez DesignLabor Bremerhaven (ed): Blueprint. An Exhibition of creative design from the British European Design Group, London, june 1993 ("The installation .. was realised by Designlabor's managing director Helmut Diez").

9. In the context of the European week, he developed the first media and European-wide student exchange in the year 2000.

source: "..für die Konzeption sorgte Helmut Diez. Man habe gute Erfahrungen gemacht, erklärte Diez. Der Umgang der Jugendlichen mit dem Internet erfordere neue didaktische Ansätze. Streng nach Vorgaben zu handeln sei nämlich nicht möglich. Hier sei Offenheit gefragt." (Horst Frey: Ihr werdet bunt in alle Länder heiraten - Bürgermeister Scherf: ein gigantischer Erfolg Europas, in: Weser Kurier, 9th of may 2000, p. 14)

I hope, the structure is clear enough. This could be one of the paragraphs, which I have in mind. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I had a quick look at #8 and #9 only so far. The latter was not supported by the quoted text (not to mention that organizing a student exchange seems to not be noteworthy nor relevant to his putative area of notability as a "record producer and artist"). As for the former, the source is an exhibition catalog and is WP:PRIMARY; it may establish that Diez was an co-organizer of a design exhibition, but that again is not directly relevant to being a "record producer and artist." Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Points #4-6 refer to 2 CDs that Diez allegedly produced. It seems that the only sources listed that actually mention Diez are the credits on the actual CD labels (primary sources). Regarding one of the CDs, titled "Freeport L’affaire Flibustier", the only source that I found that connects Diez to this work is a bibliographic entry that lists him as publisher, not "producer" as claimed above.. As for the other CD (Pulse), the source text in point #5 doesn't mention Diez, and no independent source was provided to back up point #6. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Point #7 implies that Diez arranged a design exhibition called "In The Swim". Not only is this not relevant to his putative area of notability as a "record producer and artist" but no source text was included. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, in general, I find the organization of the 9 points above to be confusing. It's difficult to distinguish between text that is being proposed for inclusion in the bio, which text is from the original source, and which text is the Han's translation. Additionally, the citations are incomplete -- i.e., they should clearly indicate the article title, source, author(s) and page number. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

~~Let's come back to these points. I want to discuss the proposed text/sources, one at a time.~~-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, we neither discuss notability, nor standards of citation. Keithbob asked me to bring up the sentences that I would like to have in the article, then the words of the sources, and then the source. That's what I have done. Now, I have bold instead of italic, so that you both can see "my" text more easily. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on point 1

I want to discuss them one at a time and in the order they have been proposed, please.

Within the field of art and culture, Helmut Diez developed scenic presentations with Peter Abromeit and Gustav Gisiger, for which they received the cultural and peace price of the Villa Ichon in 1983, together with 10.000 Marks,...
- source: "Der ‚Unauflöslichkeit zwischen Kunst und Frieden‘ war die Aktion gewidmet, in deren Rahmen der Kulturpreis der Villa Ichon erstmals verliehen wurde. Für die Friedensinitiative Ostertor nahmen Peter Abromeit, Helmut Diez und Gustav Gisiger den mit 10.000 Mark dotierten Preis entgegen.“ (Kunst als lebendige Bestürzung. Kunstpreis der Villa Ichon erstmals an Theater Friedensaktion verliehen, in: Weserkurier, 14th of march 1983).

Hans, the Google translation for what you are calling a source is:

The indissolubility between art and peace ' was dedicated to the action , was awarded for the first time in the context of the Culture Prize of the Villa Ichon . For the peace initiative Arminius Peter Abromeit , Helmut Diez and Gustav Gisiger took the 10,000 Mark prize " ( art as a living dismay art prize first awarded at the Villa Ichon Theater peace action , in: . . Weser Kurier , 14th of march 1983

This is not a source, this is text. You are supporting proposed text with additional text. We don't allow that on WP. We need a source that we can look at and verify. Also, I have to say that I am quickly losing my patience with this process. I've made specific requests for reliable, verifiable sources. I've specified the type of source we need and the format in which it should be presented. You have failed to deliver what I've requested despite several opportunities over several days. Unless you provide one credible, verifiable source that provides a substantial amount of information about the subject of this BLP in the next 24 hours, I'm going to close this case and encourage the concerned editor(s) to exercise other options including nominating this BLP article for deletion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

~~RIRed, any comments on this proposed content and source?~~-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I concur. The proposed text for Point #1 seems to be based on a source that describes a single (and arguably trivial) event and mentions Diaz name once only in passing -- i.e., it is not significant coverage. Enough time has elapsed, with no progress made toward resolution, that I would feel comfortable nominating this article for deletion due to lack of notability as per WP:BIO. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a point, I don't understand, Keithbob, and I'm a bit disappointed. We live on different continents, so I cannot answer at once, just the way I have to whait for your answers. That is time consuming. And some people have to work. Here it is 5 o'clock in the morning.

Dear Keithbob, in #1 I have simply cited the Weserkurier (in quotation marks) and the event and the prize are not trivial. This is among others shown by the huge amount of 10.000 Marks, an unusually high dotation in those days. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The primary point was that the coverage of Diez in relation to this event was trivial. Secondarily, the event and the award themselves are also trivial IMO, as indicated by the scarcity of coverage they have received. The amount of this particular cash award is not "huge" nor is it indicative of noteworthiness. I might say otherwise if the award was for an extraordinary amount (say a $1 million USD) but 10,000 DEM translated to about $4000 USD in 1983 (Diez would have received the equivalent of about $1333 as his share). Not exactly an awe inspiring amount is it?

Many of the editors here have busy schedules (I certainly do) and they edit multiple articles rather than editing as a WP:SPA. Since 2012, I have been asking the same questions of you on the article's talk page that Keithbob has been asking since you opened this DRN 2 weeks ago. No progress has been made towards demonstrating the notability of the subject. It's time to nominate this bio for deletion, as it has already consumed an inordinate share of WP resources thus far, and all for naught. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't wand to confuse anybody. It might be helpful to look here: User:Hans-Jürgen Hübner/sandbox, because text and sources are probably a bit easier to distinguish. And don't miss these features about the above mentioned exhibition with 57 british designers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x93MTvwpG9o&feature=youtu.be --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not confused. I'm just unmoved. Looking at you sandbox isn't helpful either. We are trying to focus in on the most critical issues to save time; broadening the discussion is exactly what we're trying to avoid. The video you linked to is not a WP:RS so there's not really much point in bringing it up. Expect to see this nominated for deletion tomorrow. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You never wanted an open-minded discussion, didn't you? In the video you find features from four local and national broadcasting corporations, but in your world "Buten un binnen, ARD (broadcaster), N3, VOX (TV channel)" are not reliable sources? The video was meant as my last source for my chapter "Producer, artist" (or what ever it is supposed to be called at the end of our discussion). --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hans, the YouTube video is not an acceptable citation for Wikipedia because it appears to be a copyright violation. Per WP:YOUTUBE media that is created by a company or news service etc. and then posted on YouTube by another party is a copyright infringement that WP does not want to participate in and therefore does not allow on its website.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Another source

Dear Keithbob, I have the impression that you are not patient enough, because our colleague mixes up our effort to validate the sources and their correlation with the text, I have in mind, and - on the other hand - the question of notability. It might be that the following source makes you a bit more hopeful as far as the notability is concernd:

Wolfgang J. Schmidt-Reinecke (ed.): Skizzen und Porträts aus Bremerhaven, Publicon-Verlag, Freiburg 1994, p. 46 (ISBN 9783929092400 and ISBN 3-929092-40-9).

There it says explicitly about Helmut Diez: "... beteiligte er sich maßgeblich an der Entwicklung von neuartigen Entlohnungs-, Personal- und Organisationsmodellen. Anfang der 70er Jahre entwickelte er anforderungsorientierte Entlohnungssysteme und Beurteilungsverfahren, die anschließend mit großem Erfolg eingesetzt wurden. Anfang 1980 gründete Helmut Diez die Arbeitsgemeinschaft IPM Interdisziplinäres Projektmanagement, der er noch heute federführend vorsteht. ... übernahm er zusätzlich die Leitung des Bremerhavener DesignLabors. ... Bei seinen unterschiedlichen Aufgaben stehen dem Institutsleiter ... Mitarbeiter sowie ein Vorstand mit international renommierten Designern und Designtheoretikern zur Seite." In the "Prolog" it says that only "angesehene Bürger" found an entry into the book, who "durch ihre Leistungen und ihr Ansehen in der Öffentlichkeit [Bremerhaven] Ehre machten". The other entries in that book are about entrepreneurs, mayors, and other important people.

Tomorrow and the day after tomorrow we should start with the more economic chapter of the article. I work hard to search and read everything they have in my library once again, because I couldn't expect to be forced to cite everything word by word. Sometimes I even find new material, because the gentle employees of the library are really helpful. Until tomorrow. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Even if we take this source at face value, it refers to Diez being involved in "development of novel remuneration, human resources and organizational models". You suggested previously that the subject is notable as a record producer and artist. This source does not establish notability in that regard, and I fully expect, at this point, that it won't be possible to demonstrate the subject's notability as an expert in human resources and organizational models.

Additionally, regarding the source itself, it is apparently not among the holdings of any U.S. public library or the US Library of Congress. so it is (a) exceedingly obscure and (b) unverifiable de facto for editors in the U.S. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Waht about WorldCat, Google Books and here, or here... ? --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Closing Comments

There has been a dispute between two editors (RIRed and Hans). Previously one editor had been submitting content and sources that were being removed/deleted by the other editor. To try and clarify the situation I asked that Hans present small portions of proposed text and a supporting source, one at a time, so we could examine and discuss them in light of WP guidelines. The general finding was first, that all of the sources provided were in German which, though permitted on WP, is not ideal. Second, many of the sources provided did not appear to meet WP guidelines (ie the YouTube source) or contained only minor mentions of the BLP subject. Furthermore it is not clear to me that the sources being offered are about the same Helmut Diez. It may be they are sources for the same person, but because no biography of the life of Helmut Diez has been presented, the various sources are like pieces of a German puzzle. Thank you Hans, for your good faith attempts to provide reliable sources but unfortunately, DRN is designed for "small content disputes" and not for prolonged analysis of sources and text that you are still in the process of being developed and researched at your local library. My feeling is that RIRed has some legitimate concerns about the sources and text you have proposed both here and at the BLP talk page. I suggest this issue be taken to another more appropriate community forum such as a WP:RfC on the article talk page or WP:AfD. At either of these forums Hans could provide a link to his sandbox with a list of sources and members of the community could review them and give an opinion as to whether or not the BLP subject is notable based on those sources and qualifies for a WP article. Based on the sources I've seen here in this DRN discussion I think notability is in question and a legitimate concern and consideration.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

24 hr closing notice per the above comments. -- -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Lady.2FBaroness

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Sesh84 on 21:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC).

Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. Though there was some discussion about this topic several months ago, there's been no discussion between the filing editor and Zacwill16 on the article talk page. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

More information Closed discussion ...

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Lady.2FBaroness (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Sesh84 (talk · contribs) Zacwill16 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is a dispute over whether or not Margaret Thatcher should be referred to as "Baroness Thatcher" or "Lady Thatcher" in her article's info box. My view is that it should be "Baroness Thatcher." Although it's not uncommon for a female peer to be referred to as "Lady X," "Baroness X" is the form that's generally used in official contexts (including other Wikipedia info boxes). For example, the Lord Speaker is referred to as "Baroness D'Souza" on Parliament's website, while the Leader of the House of Lords is referred to as "Baroness Stowell of Beeston" on the Number 10 Downing Street website. "Baroness Thatcher" is also the title used in the Letters Patent that conferred her peerage. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've explained why I think it should be "Baroness Thatcher" on the Talk page. How do you think we can help? I'm hopeful you can provide us with guidance and prevent an edit war. To be honest, I'm still new to Wikipedia, and I've never had to contend with a dispute before. Summary of dispute by Zacwill16 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Lady.2FBaroness discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Lady.2FBaroness (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Sesh84 (talk · contribs)
Zacwill16 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute over whether or not Margaret Thatcher should be referred to as "Baroness Thatcher" or "Lady Thatcher" in her article's info box. My view is that it should be "Baroness Thatcher." Although it's not uncommon for a female peer to be referred to as "Lady X," "Baroness X" is the form that's generally used in official contexts (including other Wikipedia info boxes). For example, the Lord Speaker is referred to as "Baroness D'Souza" on Parliament's website, while the Leader of the House of Lords is referred to as "Baroness Stowell of Beeston" on the Number 10 Downing Street website. "Baroness Thatcher" is also the title used in the Letters Patent that conferred her peerage.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've explained why I think it should be "Baroness Thatcher" on the Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I'm hopeful you can provide us with guidance and prevent an edit war. To be honest, I'm still new to Wikipedia, and I've never had to contend with a dispute before.

Summary of dispute by Zacwill16

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Lady.2FBaroness discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:2014 Crimean_crisis#Why_was_this_page_moved_without_prior_vote.3F

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by MyMoloboaccount on 00:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC).

Futile. In light of the degree to which RGloucester has been a primary participant in this dispute, his/her refusal to participate here — which is his/her right, no one is ever required to participate in dispute resolution — dooms any possibility of success here. I have made some extensive comments about this listing and this dispute in my closing notes, set out below at the bottom of the collapsed section. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

More information Closed discussion ...

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:2014 Crimean crisis#Why was this page moved without prior vote.3F (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs) RGloucester (talk · contribs) Haberstr (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The long-standing article 2014 Crimean Crisis was completely blanked after a short conversation between 4 like minded editors in a short timeframe of a couple of hours. When this was pointed out, the editor who carried out this question stated this article was merged with another one, but no Merge request was made, and no discussion started, nor was the template for WP:Merge used. I have proposed to resolve this by restoring the article and starting a proper Merge discussion, I have also pointed out that WP:Merge wasn't followed but this was rejected by pointing out to "WP:BURO" which I think isn't relevant here(I believe the user contradicted himself there as at first he stated that WP:Merge was followed). The user declared that he won't discuss anything to me. I would like to seek an opinion on how the best way to resolve this issue. I added a second user who I believe voiced his opposition to this action. I can either invite or place invitation on talk pages for other users who were involved there, but these two are the most active and relevant. RE RGloucester's statement below and his claim about User Haberstr, the user stated "MyMolo talk is correct and the proper procedures were not followed. The merger should be undone, there should be a discussion (not or ten minutes, but for a week or so) and a vote.Haberstr (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)" Have you tried to resolve this previously? Lengthy discussion on talk page, proposal to restore the article and start Merge process as per procedures How do you think we can help? By looking at the issue and helping with either a solution how to carry out the WP:Merge procedure, view if it was followed correctly, or pointing out other venues where this can be discussed Summary of dispute by RGloucester Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I'm not participating in this nonsense request, and I demand that it be closed immediately. The framing is totally skewed, and the initiator has engaged in a day's worth of intolerable disruption, following my edits and inserting incomprehensible PoV nonsense into decently-written articles. He has selectively chosen the parties to this case. A number of editors have told him to drop the stick, but none of them were chosen as parties to this case. The only editor he chose to canvass was an editor who shares his point of view on the Ukrainian crisis, though not on this matter, as that editor said only disagreed with the article title, not the merger. This is a total bunch of rubbish, and I demand that this request be closed. RGloucester — ☎ 00:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC) What utter tosh, these two spout. Do I really have to listen to it? There comments misrepresent the merger discussion, which already happened, and are clearly neither "on point" nor "NPOV". In fact, Molobo has veered into the realm of the tendentious on repeated occasions, attempting to sabotage a DYK I submitted with nonsensical canards that were easily proven false. Never mind, because this whole DRN is a packed court. None of the editors who participated in the merger discussion are listed as parties, nor are any of the editors who have told Molobo to stop this nonsense. I'm not going to canvass them, because I'm better than that. Regardless, take everything either of these two say with a hefty grain of salt. RGloucester — ☎ 01:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by User:Haberstr I think there needs to be a merger discussion for the obvious reason that the proper Wikipedia merger process -- the usual time is a week to ten days -- allows an opportunity for thoughtful discussion and consensus, and sometimes for better ideas/titles than the one suggested at the outset of the discussion. There has been long-standing difficulty with the Western side of the new cold war's POV bias in the title Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Perhaps a better, NPOV title can emerge from a merger discussion. In fact, 2014 Crimean Crisis is both NPOV and appropriately a more all-encompassing title than the annexation title. Not that discussion should stop there. Perhaps there is a third title that we could in good faith arrive at after the proper Wikipedia procedure. One concept underlying the excellent Wikipedia policy of discussion and voting on mergers is that such discussion and voting sometimes results in even better ideas and compromises. Let's try! (P.S. -- After writing the preceding I read RGloucester's contribution above, and it is extremely unfair and unkind to MyMoloboaccount, who has been reasonable, on point, and NPOV during his discussion of this violation of Wikipedia procedure.)Haberstr (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Talk:2014 Crimean_crisis#Why_was_this_page_moved_without_prior_vote.3F discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Comment by editor involved in the article since its inception Before any volunteer takes this on, I would like to know why have MyMoloboaccount and Haberstr even brought this here as a dispute and only named RGloucester as a party to their dispute. No lengthy discussion took place on that talk page because the discussions regarding articles surrounding recent events in Ukraine are spread across many of the related articles. There are a large number of editors involved in all of these articles who've even started changing hatnotes to the main article involved in this decision. Where are the other ongoing, regular editors who are, even now, having to argue down Haberstr and MyMoloboaccount's IDONTLIKEIT objections. Please feel free to take a look at the relevant talk page, plus make a note of where these two editors stand in terms of their development of the content here. Haberstr only appears in the top editors list due to having played a part in being an edit warrior last year, only just having escaped being subject to ARBEE sanctions in September of 2014 by the skin of his teeth, and suddenly reappeared (03:23, 10 March 2015) and petitioned (read as canvassing) by MyMoloboaccount at 03:23, 10 March 2015. Despite confirmation of consensus for the move (evidenced on the talk page very quickly after the questioning of the move), this is hardly a protracted and ongoing dispute other than in the minds of these two contributors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Closing notes: I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN. Some comments: I'm closing this because of the refusal of a primary participant in the dispute to participate here. That's his/her right, no one is required to participate in dispute resolution if they do not care to do so. This is not, however, an accession to that editor's demand that this be closed: editors do not have that right. I just want to point out in passing that it's kind of ironic that those opposed to the listing editor are throwing up so many procedural objections to this DRN listing when the listing editor's objection to the merger is equally procedural. About those procedural objections here: Had this gone forward any party or a DRN volunteer would have been free to add any parties who anyone thought were necessary or who had participated in the dispute. DRN volunteers are acutely aware of the need for all proper parties to be included, so their initial absence here is not noteworthy. It's common for listing editors to only include the most important or most active participants in a dispute, thinking that's all who are needed. Others may ascribe improper motive to that act, but we don't discuss conduct here. I would point out to the listing editor that his/her procedural objections to the merge are very, very weak. Neither Wikipedia:Proposed mergers nor Wikipedia:Merging (which is the fundamental page for mergers here) are policy or guidelines. Merging is an information page, which is something less than policy or guidelines but more than a mere essay. If I had to characterize it, I would say that it sets best practices, but what it does not do is require that mergers be done in that way. At the end of the day, mergers are nothing more than just another content edit and are to be made and contested in the same manner as any other content edit. In light of that, the listing editor would be much better served by making an argument about why the merger was a bad idea rather than continuing to spend a lot of time on the question of how it was done. (Which is not to say that I do or do not think it was a bad idea; I neither have nor express any opinion on whether the merger was or was not a benefit for the encyclopedia, having not looked at that issue.) On the other hand, the listing editor's opponents' position that, in effect, the merger is over and done and unassailable is not necessarily tenable. The merger was, in fact, done very quickly after only a relatively small amount of discussion. While that would be perfectly acceptable if no one objected, or failed to object until long after the merger was completed, a prompt objection such as has been made here certainly ought to keep the ball in play, at least for some additional discussion. I see no reason why, even though the merger has been completed, the merger could not be listed at Proposed mergers with a note that the merger has been completed but the editor listing it there is contesting the merger or, in the alternative, a request for comments could not be made at the merged article's talk page saying that the merger should be reversed. If the merger has no merit or if it is unquestionably proper then a snowy close may result; if it falls between those extremes, then the entire community has been invited into the discussion and there is never any harm in that. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:08, 12 March 2015 (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.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:2014 Crimean crisis#Why was this page moved without prior vote.3F (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs)
RGloucester (talk · contribs)
Haberstr (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The long-standing article 2014 Crimean Crisis was completely blanked after a short conversation between 4 like minded editors in a short timeframe of a couple of hours. When this was pointed out, the editor who carried out this question stated this article was merged with another one, but no Merge request was made, and no discussion started, nor was the template for WP:Merge used. I have proposed to resolve this by restoring the article and starting a proper Merge discussion, I have also pointed out that WP:Merge wasn't followed but this was rejected by pointing out to "WP:BURO" which I think isn't relevant here(I believe the user contradicted himself there as at first he stated that WP:Merge was followed). The user declared that he won't discuss anything to me. I would like to seek an opinion on how the best way to resolve this issue. I added a second user who I believe voiced his opposition to this action. I can either invite or place invitation on talk pages for other users who were involved there, but these two are the most active and relevant. RE RGloucester's statement below and his claim about User Haberstr, the user stated "MyMolo talk is correct and the proper procedures were not followed. The merger should be undone, there should be a discussion (not or ten minutes, but for a week or so) and a vote.Haberstr (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)"

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Lengthy discussion on talk page, proposal to restore the article and start Merge process as per procedures

How do you think we can help?

By looking at the issue and helping with either a solution how to carry out the WP:Merge procedure, view if it was followed correctly, or pointing out other venues where this can be discussed

Summary of dispute by RGloucester

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I'm not participating in this nonsense request, and I demand that it be closed immediately. The framing is totally skewed, and the initiator has engaged in a day's worth of intolerable disruption, following my edits and inserting incomprehensible PoV nonsense into decently-written articles. He has selectively chosen the parties to this case. A number of editors have told him to drop the stick, but none of them were chosen as parties to this case. The only editor he chose to canvass was an editor who shares his point of view on the Ukrainian crisis, though not on this matter, as that editor said only disagreed with the article title, not the merger. This is a total bunch of rubbish, and I demand that this request be closed. RGloucester — ☎ 00:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
What utter tosh, these two spout. Do I really have to listen to it? There comments misrepresent the merger discussion, which already happened, and are clearly neither "on point" nor "NPOV". In fact, Molobo has veered into the realm of the tendentious on repeated occasions, attempting to sabotage a DYK I submitted with nonsensical canards that were easily proven false. Never mind, because this whole DRN is a packed court. None of the editors who participated in the merger discussion are listed as parties, nor are any of the editors who have told Molobo to stop this nonsense. I'm not going to canvass them, because I'm better than that. Regardless, take everything either of these two say with a hefty grain of salt. RGloucester — ☎ 01:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by User:Haberstr

I think there needs to be a merger discussion for the obvious reason that the proper Wikipedia merger process -- the usual time is a week to ten days -- allows an opportunity for thoughtful discussion and consensus, and sometimes for better ideas/titles than the one suggested at the outset of the discussion. There has been long-standing difficulty with the Western side of the new cold war's POV bias in the title Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Perhaps a better, NPOV title can emerge from a merger discussion. In fact, 2014 Crimean Crisis is both NPOV and appropriately a more all-encompassing title than the annexation title. Not that discussion should stop there. Perhaps there is a third title that we could in good faith arrive at after the proper Wikipedia procedure. One concept underlying the excellent Wikipedia policy of discussion and voting on mergers is that such discussion and voting sometimes results in even better ideas and compromises. Let's try! (P.S. -- After writing the preceding I read RGloucester's contribution above, and it is extremely unfair and unkind to MyMoloboaccount, who has been reasonable, on point, and NPOV during his discussion of this violation of Wikipedia procedure.)Haberstr (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Crimean_crisis#Why_was_this_page_moved_without_prior_vote.3F discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Comment by editor involved in the article since its inception
Before any volunteer takes this on, I would like to know why have MyMoloboaccount and Haberstr even brought this here as a dispute and only named RGloucester as a party to their dispute. No lengthy discussion took place on that talk page because the discussions regarding articles surrounding recent events in Ukraine are spread across many of the related articles. There are a large number of editors involved in all of these articles who've even started changing hatnotes to the main article involved in this decision.

Where are the other ongoing, regular editors who are, even now, having to argue down Haberstr and MyMoloboaccount's IDONTLIKEIT objections. Please feel free to take a look at the relevant talk page, plus make a note of where these two editors stand in terms of their development of the content here. Haberstr only appears in the top editors list due to having played a part in being an edit warrior last year, only just having escaped being subject to ARBEE sanctions in September of 2014 by the skin of his teeth, and suddenly reappeared (03:23, 10 March 2015) and petitioned (read as canvassing) by MyMoloboaccount at 03:23, 10 March 2015. Despite confirmation of consensus for the move (evidenced on the talk page very quickly after the questioning of the move), this is hardly a protracted and ongoing dispute other than in the minds of these two contributors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Closing notes: I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN. Some comments:

I'm closing this because of the refusal of a primary participant in the dispute to participate here. That's his/her right, no one is required to participate in dispute resolution if they do not care to do so. This is not, however, an accession to that editor's demand that this be closed: editors do not have that right.
I just want to point out in passing that it's kind of ironic that those opposed to the listing editor are throwing up so many procedural objections to this DRN listing when the listing editor's objection to the merger is equally procedural.
About those procedural objections here: Had this gone forward any party or a DRN volunteer would have been free to add any parties who anyone thought were necessary or who had participated in the dispute. DRN volunteers are acutely aware of the need for all proper parties to be included, so their initial absence here is not noteworthy. It's common for listing editors to only include the most important or most active participants in a dispute, thinking that's all who are needed. Others may ascribe improper motive to that act, but we don't discuss conduct here.
I would point out to the listing editor that his/her procedural objections to the merge are very, very weak. Neither Wikipedia:Proposed mergers nor Wikipedia:Merging (which is the fundamental page for mergers here) are policy or guidelines. Merging is an information page, which is something less than policy or guidelines but more than a mere essay. If I had to characterize it, I would say that it sets best practices, but what it does not do is require that mergers be done in that way. At the end of the day, mergers are nothing more than just another content edit and are to be made and contested in the same manner as any other content edit. In light of that, the listing editor would be much better served by making an argument about why the merger was a bad idea rather than continuing to spend a lot of time on the question of how it was done. (Which is not to say that I do or do not think it was a bad idea; I neither have nor express any opinion on whether the merger was or was not a benefit for the encyclopedia, having not looked at that issue.)
On the other hand, the listing editor's opponents' position that, in effect, the merger is over and done and unassailable is not necessarily tenable. The merger was, in fact, done very quickly after only a relatively small amount of discussion. While that would be perfectly acceptable if no one objected, or failed to object until long after the merger was completed, a prompt objection such as has been made here certainly ought to keep the ball in play, at least for some additional discussion. I see no reason why, even though the merger has been completed, the merger could not be listed at Proposed mergers with a note that the merger has been completed but the editor listing it there is contesting the merger or, in the alternative, a request for comments could not be made at the merged article's talk page saying that the merger should be reversed. If the merger has no merit or if it is unquestionably proper then a snowy close may result; if it falls between those extremes, then the entire community has been invited into the discussion and there is never any harm in that.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of_Ilovaisk

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 78.68.210.173 on 19:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC).

Conduct dispute. DRN does not handle matters which are primarily conduct disputes, speak to an administrator or file at AN or ANI for conduct disputes. I'll also note that even if this did focus only on content issues, however, that there hasn't been any extensive talk page discussion, as required by DRN and all other forms of moderated content dispute resolution, since October or November of 2014 and this would almost certainly be closed for that reason. The filing editor has made comments on the article talk page, perhaps discussion will result. If an editor will not discuss, but continues to revert, consider the suggestions which I make here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

More information Closed discussion ...

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Battle of Ilovaisk (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Iryna_Harpy (talk · contribs) 78.68.210.173 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Iryna_Harpy) Hi. I am having a problem with this person and her conduct on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Ilovaisk Every single contribution on that page and on my talk page (which I have removed but you can view on my history) consists of her throwing Wikipedia idioms at people without explaining herself. She points at nothing and adds them everywhere. She for example says to a guy that RT is not a reliable source, not why. She tells me in 2 or 3 places that I am making personal attacks in my posts and insinuates that I am a troll by saying "we have had many troubles with trolls" or something akin to this without saying why. I keep asking her to give her opinion but she does not. I will post this on her talk-page too so that she may review it and come back here. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Well not many. Just asking her to explain herself and she doesn't and just keeps posting the same thing she seems to be posting to other users in the same thread without ever explaining herself. How do you think we can help? Explain to her better than I can that just posting links to wikipedia policies without explaining how they relate to the poster will not mean she is right, will not mean that content should be deleted (will result in edit wars) and will possibly mean that people ignore her. Summary of dispute by Iryna_Harpy Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 78.68.210.173 Talk:Battle of_Ilovaisk discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:Battle of Ilovaisk (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Iryna_Harpy (talk · contribs)
78.68.210.173 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Iryna_Harpy) Hi. I am having a problem with this person and her conduct on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Ilovaisk Every single contribution on that page and on my talk page (which I have removed but you can view on my history) consists of her throwing Wikipedia idioms at people without explaining herself. She points at nothing and adds them everywhere. She for example says to a guy that RT is not a reliable source, not why. She tells me in 2 or 3 places that I am making personal attacks in my posts and insinuates that I am a troll by saying "we have had many troubles with trolls" or something akin to this without saying why. I keep asking her to give her opinion but she does not. I will post this on her talk-page too so that she may review it and come back here.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Well not many. Just asking her to explain herself and she doesn't and just keeps posting the same thing she seems to be posting to other users in the same thread without ever explaining herself.

How do you think we can help?

Explain to her better than I can that just posting links to wikipedia policies without explaining how they relate to the poster will not mean she is right, will not mean that content should be deleted (will result in edit wars) and will possibly mean that people ignore her.

Summary of dispute by Iryna_Harpy

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by 78.68.210.173

Talk:Battle of_Ilovaisk discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Dimensionless physical constant

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by ToonLucas22 on 21:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC).

Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here, though seeking semi-page protection may also or alternatively be needed in this case. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

More information Closed discussion ...

Closed 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 Dimensionless physical constant (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved ToonLucas22 (talk · contribs) 77.238.218.96 (talk · contribs) 166.184.170.35 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Per request at WP:AN3. There is seem to be a dispute of wheter a formula for the fundamental physical constants are known to this day or not. Also, there has been some edit warring going on. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I reported the warriors at WP:AN3, though a user made a comment saying there is just seem to be a content dispute. How do you think we can help? Maybe look at the sources given on 77.238.218.96's edits. Summary of dispute by 77.238.218.96 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 166.184.170.35 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Dimensionless physical constant discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Dimensionless physical constant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

ToonLucas22 (talk · contribs)
77.238.218.96 (talk · contribs)
166.184.170.35 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Per request at WP:AN3. There is seem to be a dispute of wheter a formula for the fundamental physical constants are known to this day or not. Also, there has been some edit warring going on.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I reported the warriors at WP:AN3, though a user made a comment saying there is just seem to be a content dispute.

How do you think we can help?

Maybe look at the sources given on 77.238.218.96's edits.

Summary of dispute by 77.238.218.96

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by 166.184.170.35

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Dimensionless physical constant discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:53rd Syedna_succession_controversy_(Dawoodi_Bohra)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Rukn950 on 12:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC).

Conduct dispute. DRN does not handle disputes which are primarily conduct disputes. Speak to an administrator or file at ANI for conduct disputes. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

More information Closed discussion ...

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Rukn950 (talk · contribs) Summichum (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User Summichum claims that he is uninvolved editor but his edits seems consistently to have emphasis on criticism to dawoodi-bohra and related articles, its principles and its spiritual leaders, on whom these articles are based. Anyone who doesn't agree with him is dragged either to sock puppet or COI notice boards. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I am sorry to say, at some point I may have been little zealous, but my intentions were not to undermine any other editor.but to prevent advocacy. How do you think we can help? I would like suggestions how this issue can be handled without being getting aggressive. Summary of dispute by Summichum Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:53rd Syedna_succession_controversy_(Dawoodi_Bohra) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Rukn950 (talk · contribs)
Summichum (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User Summichum claims that he is uninvolved editor but his edits seems consistently to have emphasis on criticism to dawoodi-bohra and related articles, its principles and its spiritual leaders, on whom these articles are based. Anyone who doesn't agree with him is dragged either to sock puppet or COI notice boards.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I am sorry to say, at some point I may have been little zealous, but my intentions were not to undermine any other editor.but to prevent advocacy.

How do you think we can help?

I would like suggestions how this issue can be handled without being getting aggressive.

Summary of dispute by Summichum

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:53rd Syedna_succession_controversy_(Dawoodi_Bohra) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:South Beach_Diet

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by WWB Too on 22:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC).

Lack of adequate participation. The editors who have declined were the ones not in agreement with the filer, the editors who haven't responded or have added comments appear to be in agreement with the filer. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 15:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

More information Closed discussion ...

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:South Beach Diet (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved WWB Too (talk · contribs) Alexbrn (talk · contribs) LaMona (talk · contribs) Jytdog (talk · contribs) Sunrise (talk · contribs) Intermittentgardener (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In 2014 I contracted with South Beach Diet Corp. to seek updates and corrections to this long-neglected article. While discussing proposed changes with editors—in COI cases I always avoid direct edits—Alexbrn joined in and rewrote it almost entirely. He did make improvements. However, in my view, he also brought an adversarial tone and some inaccuracies. This occurs in the first sentence, which now portrays SBD publication history inaccurately, i.e. it is a best-selling book series, not just the one. Most alarmingly, as added by Alexbrn, supported by Jytdog and Sunrise, it immediately characterizes SBD with the contentious term "fad diet". The term appears once more in the "Health effects" section, again in an opinionated manner. Concerns were raised by LaMona and myself, but Alexbrn was unwilling to reconsider, and at times focused on my (acknowledged) COI as much as my content suggestions. I believe "fad" carries a pejorative connotation, creating a POV slant. WP:LABEL suggests such value-laden terms "may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". In fact, the majority of RS used in the article (including the Mayo Clinic), describe SBD without using the phrase. Meanwhile, Curr. Diab. Rep. calls the phrase "unscientific" and says its usage "reflects the contentious nature of the debate" in health matters. Regardless of whether "fad diet" is an apt descriptor for SBD, WP:NOV states: "articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides". I believe unqualified use of this pejorative term in the article's very first clause clearly violates this key content policy, others maintain it is NPOV, and the disagreement continues. Have you tried to resolve this previously? A considerable amount of discussion, most occurring late last year, but again briefly in the past week. The most in-depth debate occurred in a December 2014 RfC and the subsequent thread, "Reworked introduction", both of which I initiated. How do you think we can help? I see no need for a modifier. Something along the lines of "diet plan" or "diet program" would be fine. Recently Intermittentgardener has tried "popular diet", which does occur in many sources, only to be reverted by Alexbrn. In my opinion, any of these would be acceptable. That said, while I don't believe "fad diet" is a necessary phrase, I could support its inclusion if relocated and properly attributed. Summary of dispute by Alexbrn I disagree with the narrative presented above. Since this has been done to death (3 noticeboards, extensive talk page discussion and a RfC) and the policy-based consensus seems firmly established, I regard this as a waste of time. Decline (by which I mean: I decline the invitation to participate). Alexbrn ^{talk\|contribs\|COI} 06:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by LaMona I supported, and continue to support, the removal of "fad" from the opening statement, seeing it as prejudicial and not NPOV. It might be somewhat less prejudicial if not linked to Food faddism which conflates weight-loss diets with diets that are based on belief systems, and itself appears to have some definitional and POV problems. Another possible solution, although it would be better-suited to the body of the article, would be to define what is meant by "fad diet." Without a definition, it isn't clear what the reader will understand. LaMona (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Jytdog Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I don't think this would be productive and decline to participate. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Sunrise Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Just a quick note that my thoughts on this issue are mostly described in this comment. I don't have a strong opinion on whether the term should be used in the first sentence, which seems to be WWB Too's main concern, so I probably won't have much to add here. Sunrise (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Comment added after closure: for the record, I didn't intend to select an option. I was trying to say that I don't regard (what I perceive as) the main concern to be an especially important question. The statement in the initial summary that I support "immediately characteriz[ing]" is incorrect, as can be seen from the comment I linked. So if the DRN had been opened I would not have participated much, though I might have made a few comments. Sunrise (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Intermittentgardener Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:South Beach_Diet discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer's note: I am a regular volunteer here at DRN, but I am neither "taking" nor opening this for discussion at this point. I want to confirm that there has been sufficient talk page discussion and notices have been properly given, but I would also ask Sunrise and Alexbrn to clarify whether their comments, above, mean that they are declining to participate here (which is their right: no one is ever required to participate in dispute resolution if they do not care to do so). If so, then this listing will probably be closed by a volunteer for lack of adequate participation to be able to accomplish anything. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:12, 16 March 2015 (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.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:South Beach Diet (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

In 2014 I contracted with South Beach Diet Corp. to seek updates and corrections to this long-neglected article. While discussing proposed changes with editors—in COI cases I always avoid direct edits—Alexbrn joined in and rewrote it almost entirely.

He did make improvements. However, in my view, he also brought an adversarial tone and some inaccuracies. This occurs in the first sentence, which now portrays SBD publication history inaccurately, i.e. it is a best-selling book series, not just the one.

Most alarmingly, as added by Alexbrn, supported by Jytdog and Sunrise, it immediately characterizes SBD with the contentious term "fad diet". The term appears once more in the "Health effects" section, again in an opinionated manner. Concerns were raised by LaMona and myself, but Alexbrn was unwilling to reconsider, and at times focused on my (acknowledged) COI as much as my content suggestions.

I believe "fad" carries a pejorative connotation, creating a POV slant. WP:LABEL suggests such value-laden terms "may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution".

In fact, the majority of RS used in the article (including the Mayo Clinic), describe SBD without using the phrase. Meanwhile, Curr. Diab. Rep. calls the phrase "unscientific" and says its usage "reflects the contentious nature of the debate" in health matters.

Regardless of whether "fad diet" is an apt descriptor for SBD, WP:NOV states: "articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides". I believe unqualified use of this pejorative term in the article's very first clause clearly violates this key content policy, others maintain it is NPOV, and the disagreement continues.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A considerable amount of discussion, most occurring late last year, but again briefly in the past week. The most in-depth debate occurred in a December 2014 RfC and the subsequent thread, "Reworked introduction", both of which I initiated.

How do you think we can help?

I see no need for a modifier. Something along the lines of "diet plan" or "diet program" would be fine. Recently Intermittentgardener has tried "popular diet", which does occur in many sources, only to be reverted by Alexbrn. In my opinion, any of these would be acceptable. That said, while I don't believe "fad diet" is a necessary phrase, I could support its inclusion if relocated and properly attributed.

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn

I disagree with the narrative presented above. Since this has been done to death (3 noticeboards, extensive talk page discussion and a RfC) and the policy-based consensus seems firmly established, I regard this as a waste of time. Decline (by which I mean: I decline the invitation to participate). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by LaMona

I supported, and continue to support, the removal of "fad" from the opening statement, seeing it as prejudicial and not NPOV. It might be somewhat less prejudicial if not linked to Food faddism which conflates weight-loss diets with diets that are based on belief systems, and itself appears to have some definitional and POV problems. Another possible solution, although it would be better-suited to the body of the article, would be to define what is meant by "fad diet." Without a definition, it isn't clear what the reader will understand. LaMona (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jytdog

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I don't think this would be productive and decline to participate. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sunrise

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Just a quick note that my thoughts on this issue are mostly described in this comment. I don't have a strong opinion on whether the term should be used in the first sentence, which seems to be WWB Too's main concern, so I probably won't have much to add here. Sunrise (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment added after closure: for the record, I didn't intend to select an option. I was trying to say that I don't regard (what I perceive as) the main concern to be an especially important question. The statement in the initial summary that I support "immediately characteriz[ing]" is incorrect, as can be seen from the comment I linked. So if the DRN had been opened I would not have participated much, though I might have made a few comments. Sunrise (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Intermittentgardener

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:South Beach_Diet discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer's note: I am a regular volunteer here at DRN, but I am neither "taking" nor opening this for discussion at this point. I want to confirm that there has been sufficient talk page discussion and notices have been properly given, but I would also ask Sunrise and Alexbrn to clarify whether their comments, above, mean that they are declining to participate here (which is their right: no one is ever required to participate in dispute resolution if they do not care to do so). If so, then this listing will probably be closed by a volunteer for lack of adequate participation to be able to accomplish anything. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of_Power_Rangers_Dino_Charge_episodes

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 108.6.38.122 on 13:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC).

Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editors will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

More information Closed discussion ...

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:List of Power Rangers Dino Charge episodes (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Strongjam (talk · contribs) Salvidrim! (talk · contribs) 2601:A:1700:516E:5842:C69C:1534:3F8D (talk · contribs) 100.2.44.226 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview An IP edit war erupted as to the legitimacy of future unaired episodes. There was a request of protection, which was declined but later fulfilled. We need a way to verify the legitimacy of future episodes. At this point the only reliable sources are nick.com and powerrangers.com Have you tried to resolve this previously? A talk page was opened. How do you think we can help? Come up with a guideline every can agree with. I suggested that either we should wait until the episode airs and write a summary after or leave any unverified summary for one or two weeks. Summary of dispute by Strongjam Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Salvidrim! Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 2601:A:1700:516E:5842:C69C:1534:3F8D Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 100.2.44.226 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:List of_Power_Rangers_Dino_Charge_episodes discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:List of Power Rangers Dino Charge episodes (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Strongjam (talk · contribs)
Salvidrim! (talk · contribs)
2601:A:1700:516E:5842:C69C:1534:3F8D (talk · contribs)
100.2.44.226 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An IP edit war erupted as to the legitimacy of future unaired episodes. There was a request of protection, which was declined but later fulfilled. We need a way to verify the legitimacy of future episodes. At this point the only reliable sources are nick.com and powerrangers.com

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A talk page was opened.

How do you think we can help?

Come up with a guideline every can agree with. I suggested that either we should wait until the episode airs and write a summary after or leave any unverified summary for one or two weeks.

Summary of dispute by Strongjam

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Salvidrim!

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by 2601:A:1700:516E:5842:C69C:1534:3F8D

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by 100.2.44.226

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:List of_Power_Rangers_Dino_Charge_episodes discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Eileen Daly

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed as premature - Not fully discussed on the article's talk page. In fact, no discussion was made at all. On Padenton's talk page a quick exchange took place, which essentially amounted to him saying "Just take it to the DRN". Please discuss with each other first before coming here. For more information look at TransporterMan's essay here. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 19:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

More information Closed discussion ...

Closed 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. Filed by Vburmester on 01:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Eileen Daly (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Vburmester (talk · contribs) Padenton (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I amended the page on this woman - she is only known as a pornographic actress (see Wiki page on her co-star Ben Dover). There is no other reason for her having a Wiki page. The page is being used as a promo page for all her minor endeavours and the very activity for which she has a wiki page is not made clear. I edited the page to change 'is an English actress' to is a 'former pornographic actress' and got reprimanded by Padenton who said I should have provided a reliable source. I copied the source from Ben Dover's Wiki (good enough for another Wiki page) and got accused of vandalism. How on earth do you 1. expect to encourage people to contribute if you treat them this way, 2. expect to continue to be taken seriously as an information source when you provide such trivial information and allow pages to become promotional ventures? Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have explained on Padenton's Talk Page why these edits should go ahead. He is overseeing a page which falls short of Wiki standards and is clearly a bloated promo page. How do you think we can help? Ideally, this page needs culling. This woman is only known for her porn work. The fact she's dabbling in music with her husband and tours locally is not newsworthy. She has more text on her page than famous opera singers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecilia_Bartoli. At the very least, the page should be honest about this woman's career - appearing as an extra in a few TV programmes is not why she is known, she was a porn star. Summary of dispute by Padenton I reverted these edits by the complainant while patrolling recent changes: The first edit removed content without providing new sources nor an explanation as to why the content was removed. The second edit changes the subject's lead description from "English actress" to "pornagraphic actress" citing as the only source an internet message board. In addition to the source not meeting WP:RS, the lead already lists her as an adult model. After the first edit, I used WP:Huggle to post a message to the user's talk page, informing them that I removed their edit for not including a source. After the second, I again posted a message to the user's talk page, this time using the vandalism warning template. --Padenton (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC) I do not know much about the article's subject, but it is a WP:BLP and these were unsourced and unexplained changes. I do agree that the article as a whole (before the edits in question) does seem to need some work with regard to reliable sources. --Padenton (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC) The talk page discussion for this dispute occurred here: User_talk:Padenton#Eileen_Daly --Padenton (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Eileen Daly discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Adding "pornographic" to the "actress" portion is completely uncalled for, if you're going to change that you better cite some good sources. Let's look at her film history at IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0198432/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1 Nowhere in there can I find an actual "Pornographic" or just straight up porn movie she's starred in since 1986. She plays in a several Adult movies that actually have plots to them, some that I checked the reviews of and they received very positive reviews. She is an actress, not a "pornographic actress". If you want to see the film history of a real "pornographic actress", just look at Sasha Grey's IMDB movie history. You'll notice a huge difference, and that term does not apply to Eileen Daly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushbld (talk • contribs) 02:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Misplaced comment moved by DRN volunteer Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2015 (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.*

Closed discussion

Filed by Vburmester on 01:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Eileen Daly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Vburmester (talk · contribs)
Padenton (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I amended the page on this woman - she is only known as a pornographic actress (see Wiki page on her co-star Ben Dover). There is no other reason for her having a Wiki page. The page is being used as a promo page for all her minor endeavours and the very activity for which she has a wiki page is not made clear.

I edited the page to change 'is an English actress' to is a 'former pornographic actress' and got reprimanded by Padenton who said I should have provided a reliable source. I copied the source from Ben Dover's Wiki (good enough for another Wiki page) and got accused of vandalism.

How on earth do you 1. expect to encourage people to contribute if you treat them this way, 2. expect to continue to be taken seriously as an information source when you provide such trivial information and allow pages to become promotional ventures?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have explained on Padenton's Talk Page why these edits should go ahead. He is overseeing a page which falls short of Wiki standards and is clearly a bloated promo page.

How do you think we can help?

Ideally, this page needs culling. This woman is only known for her porn work. The fact she's dabbling in music with her husband and tours locally is not newsworthy. She has more text on her page than famous opera singers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecilia_Bartoli. At the very least, the page should be honest about this woman's career - appearing as an extra in a few TV programmes is not why she is known, she was a porn star.

Summary of dispute by Padenton

I reverted these edits by the complainant while patrolling recent changes:

The first edit removed content without providing new sources nor an explanation as to why the content was removed.

The second edit changes the subject's lead description from "English actress" to "pornagraphic actress" citing as the only source an internet message board. In addition to the source not meeting WP:RS, the lead already lists her as an adult model.

After the first edit, I used WP:Huggle to post a message to the user's talk page, informing them that I removed their edit for not including a source. After the second, I again posted a message to the user's talk page, this time using the vandalism warning template. --Padenton (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not know much about the article's subject, but it is a WP:BLP and these were unsourced and unexplained changes. I do agree that the article as a whole (before the edits in question) does seem to need some work with regard to reliable sources. --Padenton (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The talk page discussion for this dispute occurred here: User_talk:Padenton#Eileen_Daly --Padenton (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Eileen Daly discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Adding "pornographic" to the "actress" portion is completely uncalled for, if you're going to change that you better cite some good sources. Let's look at her film history at IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0198432/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

Nowhere in there can I find an actual "Pornographic" or just straight up porn movie she's starred in since 1986. She plays in a several Adult movies that actually have plots to them, some that I checked the reviews of and they received very positive reviews. She is an actress, not a "pornographic actress".

If you want to see the film history of a real "pornographic actress", just look at Sasha Grey's IMDB movie history. You'll notice a huge difference, and that term does not apply to Eileen Daly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushbld (talk • contribs) 02:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced comment moved by DRN volunteer Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Myrvin on 14:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC).

This dispute is being submitted to a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC) In view of the fact that the disputants have not been taking part in the RFC Survey, but have only been arguing in the Threaded Discussion in the RFC, I am changing the status of this thread to Failed. This doesn't have any effect on the RFC, which will continue running, only on any metrics of DRN success. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

More information Closed discussion ...

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Myrvin (talk · contribs) TDJankins (talk · contribs) Grayfell (talk · contribs) Roger (talk · contribs) Feldkurat Katz (talk · contribs) Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk · contribs) Dispute overview One editor reverts what other editors think is a reasonable alteration (by me) of the section on Psychometrics. I contend that the current words are poor English and do not follow the pattern of the other entries. The reverting editor seems to think that my change would weaken his/her contention that Psychometrics is rubbish. Have you tried to resolve this previously? None How do you think we can help? Rule on the acceptable pattern for entries on this article. Rule on the form of words in contention for this entry. Summary of dispute by TDJankins The sources speak for themselves. The opinions of these Wikipedians do not matter.--TDJankins (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Grayfell The specific dispute is as Myrvin describes it. The broader dispute is on the inclusion of psychometrics in the list at all. Most involved editors agree that it is widely accepted as mainstream, and either should be qualified as such, or should be removed from the list outright. TDJankins, who added the section in January, would like to see it preserved. I wouldn't be bothered if it were removed, but I mildly prefer seeing it more clearly explained as being mostly accepted and only considered pseudoscience by a minority. I'm open to suggestions. Grayfell (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Roger The problem is not just the poor wording. The entry cannot be fixed, and should be deleted. There are 2 sentences on psychometrics that supposedly summarize the pseudoscientific aspects of that topic. However, no pseudoscientific aspect is backed up the main article on the subject. The main reference is one widely-discredited book. Roger (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC) If this entry is salvaged, it must use scientific sources, and not rely on one discredited crackpot book. TDJankins main argument is to go with the view of the larger scientific community. However, that view is overwhelmingly in favor of psychometrics as all the top universities employ professors who recognize it as science. No one has produced any scientific paper saying that psychometrics is pseudoscience. The main source is Gould, and a couple of others who rely on him. But the only part of his book that was published as a science paper was decisively proved wrong, and he is widely regarded as having fudged his numbers for ideological purposes. The 2011 NY Times article says "almost every detail of his analysis is wrong." Nature said "falsified criticisms of skull measurements" Therefore this entry should not mention Gould's book, directly or indirectly, without also explaining that his thesis has been overwhelmingly rejected by the larger scientific community. I proposed an edit , but someone has reverted it, even tho there is no support for the current text in the dispute resolution page. Roger (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Feldkurat Katz TDJankins strongly argues for a definite statement that psychometrics is considered a pseudo-science, and argues that claims of its scientific merits are invalid, since they come from psychometrists themselves. Most of the participants argue that this is a minority opinion, and should be either stated as such, or the entire paragraph should be deleted. My position: Wikipedia should not perform original research to establish the standards to judge pseudo-sciences and to determine whether X or Y is one or not. Wikipedia should refer the consensus of the scientific community, or, if there is no consensus, neutrally enumerate the major positions. In the case of, say, astrology, there is a clear consensus in the scientific community, proponents of astrology as a science are only found outside the scientific community. The case of psychometry is competely different, since it is widely accepted by mainstream science and widely published in academic peer-reviewed journals. While there is no doubt there is much non-scientific psychometry about (e.g. "personality tests" in glossy magazines), the condemnation of the entire field as pseudo-scientific is limited to a small, but vociferous minority of critics. I don't buy the argument that being active in psychometry or using it disqualifies a researcher from judging it. Personally, I'd prefer the entire paragraph to be removed. I can live with a neutral statement that makes it clear it's only a minority that considers psychometry a pseudo-science. --Feldkurat Katz (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer's note: I'm neither "taking" this nor opening it for discussion at this time, but only wish to note for other volunteers' benefit that all listed editors have been notified and there appears to be adequate talk page discussion. (I would note in passing that there are a couple of IP editors, 2601:D:2881:D20:18A1:2C6B:2A82:23F5 and 32.218.152.85, and one registered editor, Fountains of Bryn Mawr, who have taken part in the talk page discussion but who have not been listed or notified; the volunteer taking the case can determine whether or not their participation is needed here to come to a successful result.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC) I have informed, and apologized to, Fountains of Bryn Mawr. Myrvin (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC) First statement by volunteer moderator I will take this case, and will start off with a few ground rules. I am neutral. Do not expect me to address the content dispute. Equally importantly, comment on content, not contributors. Comments about the conduct or attitude of contributors are not permitted. Also, be concise as well as being civil. Long statements are not helpful. I have a few questions for each contributor to address. First, are there any issues besides the status of psychometrics that need to be resolved? Second, exactly what does each party think should be done about psychometrics? (I have some thoughts, but will wait until the participants offer their opinions.) Third, can this dispute be resolved by a Request for Comments? (If the main issue is whether to include psychometrics, that may be binary, either include it or don't include it, in which case compromise is not feasible and consensus is the objective.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC) First statement by Myrvin No extra comment at this time. Myrvin (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC) First statement by TDJankins This seems to have morphed into a conversation about the psychometrics page itself. The psychometrics page clearly has shortcomings such as the lack of a criticism section (a gigantic one). If you don't like the way that page reads then edit it, but the way a Wikipedia page reads is not evidence of anything. I restored the POV tag there as it was illegitimately removed and there have been multiple calls for page balance and a criticism section. I've moved to get the ball rolling toward those ends, but to say a Wikipedia page is evidence of something is beyond the realm of reason, and I don't believe that it's a precedent Wikipedia wants to set. In regards to Roger's problem with one of the seven sources, The Mismeasure of Man, Gould may have been wrong about Morton's skull measurements, but he wasn't wrong about psychometrics. It's very suspicious that you keep bringing up that unrelated issue.--TDJankins (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC) First statement by Grayfell If the choice is between characterizing psychometrics as a pseudoscience without qualification, or removing it from the article, I would absolutely choose removing it. As I said, I wouldn't be bothered by that outcome. The fact that the psychometrics article doesn't go into any of this is a solid argument against its inclusion on the list, as Fountains of Bryn Mawr says. The priority should be preventing confusion over what the field of psychometrics is, vs. what has been lumped-in with, or what it used to be. We should be making readers less confused, not more. Figuring out how to appropriately include that additional information should be a secondary priority, in my opinion. Grayfell (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC) First statement by Roger (1) There is the larger question of whether to include a legitimate science just because some reputable source calls it a pseudoscience. The article introduction implies yes, but such entries are nearly always rejected. (2) A very popular book did attack some psychometrics as pseudoscience, but if the entry is left in for that reason, then it should also say that all the reputable scientific sources say that the book is wrong, and all the top universities employ professors doing legitimate psychometrics research. (3) Not sure about RfC, but this is an ideological dispute with no chance that one side is going to persuade the other. If psychometrics were a pseudoscience, then that should be explained in the psychometrics article, with references to both sides. There is no mention of it. One WP article should not be giving a 1-sentence summary of a subject when there is no support on the main article. Roger (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC) First statement by Feldkurat Katz First statement by Fountains of Bryn Mawr My involvement was to throw a revert in because of a noticed technical citing/WP:SYNTH, I was not expressing an opinion on the List content. But... what articles should be listed in this List Article has come up before (this is an old argument) so here is a suggestion: The items at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience seem to conform to a list of articles. Lists are alternative ways to organize articles based on some aspect of the content of the article that relates to the list def. Therefor --> The content that is organized in an article's entry in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience should first already appear in the parent article, that is the place where the experts on the subject are congregating and can judge whether the claimed "label" is "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject" and where the contentious opinion/WP:LABEL stuff should be hashed out. (I think there should be a guideline subsection at WP:LIST called WP:FIXITFIRST stating "don't state something in an article's entry on a list unless it is stated in the parent article first - fix the article first". - just a pet idea of mine since other list articles have this same problem e.g.List of Italian inventions) Psychometrics does not contain a "Criticism" section of any type so it should not be in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience - this list should not be the place to throw a contentious WP:LABEL or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Further: List of topics characterized as pseudoscience should only contain entries that are articles, articles are where you sort out notable aspects of a topic/WP:UNDUE The entry descriptions for each article/topic at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience should be short --> the full description of the controversy is at the parent article. There is no need for references for the criticism/claims for an article/topic at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience --> the references are at the parent article. Comparing what we have at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience to the guideline as it exists in my head shows how far out on a limb the Psychometrics entry is. two cents given... Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC) First statement by any unregistered editors Staszek Lem (talk · contribs): IMO the phrase of TDJankins , but to say a Wikipedia page is evidence of something is beyond the realm of reason, is a misunderstanding. The major point is that any coverage of any opinion on any topic must be primarily in the article on this topic: this is the place where all people interested in editing this topic congregate. A topic may be included in many lists, and spreading any decisive opinons across these lists basically leads to what is called WP:FORK. Therefore "a Wikipedia page" is not an "evidence of something": "a Wikipedia page" it the primary place to present "evidence of something" (based on WP policies), a clearing house of the discussion about "evidence of something". Any list entry must be a mere summary of the consensus reacted at "a Wikipedia page" on the topic. Therefore in this context an argument which relies on "a wikipedia page" is valid. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Second statement by volunteer moderator I see that there are at least two parts to this dispute. The first has to do with the list article. That is whether psychometrics should be: (1) included in the list, without further comment, as it currently is; (2) included in the list, but with a restrictive note saying that it is only considered pseudoscience by a few (possibly defined) scholars; (3) excluded from the list. That can either be resolved by agreement here, or resolved by RFC. The second has to do with the article on psychometrics itself, and that is whether a Criticisms section should be added, including the arguments by scholars who say that the field is pseudoscience. Are there any other parts to this dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Also, there is mention of "a book", which is being both cited and criticized. Is that book "The Mismeasure of Man" by Gould, or is there also another book about which there is controversy? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Second statement by Myrvin No comment. Myrvin (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Second statement by TDJankins I think the reasonable option is one not on your list. That being to keep it approximately as is and add a varying viewpoint, so long as it is something that is not a lie or something trying to confuse the public. One person mentioned that one can get a degree in psychometrics from any one of several universities and that papers on psychometrics are accepted by some APS journals. Those are undeniable truths, so it would make sense to include something to that effect. Just a suggestion.--TDJankins (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Second statement by Grayfell Second statement by Roger The successes and limitations of psychometrics are already detailed in that article. There is no way the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience article should have a 2-line dismissal of the whole subject with allegations that are not substantiated anywhere on the psychometrics article. In this case, there is a popular crackpot book attacking psychometrics as pseudoscience, but that should not mentioned without also mentioning the scientific consensus that the book is wrong in its main claims. Roger (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Second statement by Feldkurat Katz Second statement by Fountains of Bryn Mawr I was weighing my comments against WP:WINARS which TDJankins also hit on. I don't think we can follow the logic of WP:WINARS because of the accepted guideline WP:LABEL, a label like "pseudo-" has to be widely supported in reliable sources before we start tossing it around. If it has sufficient reliable sources then it should be in the parent article or should be immediately added to the parent article. In this case the lengthy entry for Psychometrics at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience could be moved to Psychometrics and a summary of that section could be inserted at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Not addressing it in the parent article first is basically setting up a POV fork. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Second statement by any other editors Staszek Lem (talk · contribs) The lede of the list says: Each section summarizes the pseudoscientific aspects of that topic.. - The item in question does have refs to the point, but the item text in not a reasonable summary thereof. On a side note, why the heck nobody works on the article itself? I briefly look into it, it sucks even by low wikipedia average. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Third statement by volunteer moderator I am going to have to restate myself more or less. There are at least two aspects to the dispute. The first is about the list. The second is about the article, psychometrics. 1. On the first issue, the list, I will ask each of the editors, which of the following options would you be willing to agree to: (1) leave psychometrics in the list as is; (2) mention that some but not all (be specific if possible) scholars identify psychometrics as a pseudoscience; (3) omit psychometrics from the list? An editor identified "a reasonable option not on [the] list. That might be (4). What is that option? 1a. If there is not agreement on whether and how to include psychometrics in the list, are the parties willing to have an RFC published for the purpose? 2. On the second issue, the psychometrics article, what options are editors willing to consider: (1) leave it as is; (2) add a Criticisms section; (3); something else? 3. Do the editors agree that, if psychometrics is in the list, the article should expand on criticisms by those who consider it to be pseudoscientific? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Third statement by Myrvin On the first issue, I prefer 2 or 3. It can't be left as it is; it's badly written. I, too, have had no dealings with psychometrics article. I should think any article could do with a criticisms section. The list entry should include criticisms of the critics. Myrvin (talk) 07:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Third statement by TDJankins We can leave the psychometrics section of the list as it is. See my second statement above about another reasonable alternative. The psychometrics article itself will include criticisms when editors devote the time and effort to do so. It appears that this dispute is essentially over.--TDJankins (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Third statement by Grayfell For the first question, I would accept (2) or (3). I have no problem with an RFC. I haven't been participating in the discussion or edits at the psychometrics article, so I would be open to any options there. I agree with #3. If it is on the list, at least some mentions of the controversy should be included in the article, but as I said, I've not been participating fully in that discussion, so I'm not going to push for it either way. Grayfell (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Third statement by Roger Third statement by Feldkurat Katz Third statement by Fountains of Bryn Mawr Third statement by any other editors Fourth statement by volunteer moderator One editor says that this dispute is essentially over. I don't see that, unless TDJankins means that I should fail the dispute, because I don't see agreement to remove psychometrics from the list. Also, TDJankins says that their second statement proposed another reasonable alternative. I saw that they said that, but I didn't know what that alternative was, and will ask again for a clarification. Unless there is either apparent agreement on a resolution, or a new idea, I will publish an RFC on whether to: (1) leave psychometrics in the list; (2) state that a few scholars would include psychometrics in the list; (3) exclude it from the list. Also, it may be necessary to tag the main article with a tag as needing a Criticisms section. If I don't see any further sign of progress, after publishing the RFC and tagging the main article, I will declare a general close (neither a resolution nor a failure). Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC) An editor asks: "Why is the moderator unable to come to a conclusion? " It isn't the moderator's job to come to a conclusion, but to help the editors with the dispute to come to a conclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Fourth statement by Myrvin Go for the RFC. Thanks for your time. Myrvin (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Fourth statement by TDJankins Sorry, but censorship of content with independent reliable sources is not allowed, especially content with abundant independent reliable sources. Also, some are still having difficulty with the fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The fact that the psychometrics article does not yet include criticism is not relevant to the topic at hand. This appears to just be a case of editors not fully understanding how Wikipedia works. It may save time and heartache in the long run to invest a little time up front familiarizing one's self with Wikipedia's policies.--TDJankins (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Fourth statement by Grayfell Fourth statement by Roger Why is the moderator unable to come to a conclusion? The article on psychometrics seems to reflect expert knowledge. Does anyone dispute that? If so, then go fix that article. It is completely inappropriate for a List page to dismiss a whole subject with criticisms that did not even merit mention on the main article for that subject. Does anyone dispute that? Why? The subject of psychometrics was called psychoscience by one popular and controversial book. While some people defend the book, it was widely denounced as wrong by leading science journals and newspapers. The issues are detailed on the WP page for that book. Does anyone dispute any of this? Why? No WP article should cite that book for anything without also mentioning the controversy about the book, at the least. Does anyone dispute that? Why? If you accept these points, then it is obvious that the entry must be deleted. Or if someone puts a Criticism section into the psychometrics article, then perhaps the List could cite that criticism, but only if it also mentions the mainstream view that the criticism is wrong. Roger (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Fourth statement by Feldkurat Katz Fourth statement by Fountains of Bryn Mawr Fourth statement by any other editors 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.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Myrvin (talk · contribs)
TDJankins (talk · contribs)
Grayfell (talk · contribs)
Roger (talk · contribs)
Feldkurat Katz (talk · contribs)
Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

One editor reverts what other editors think is a reasonable alteration (by me) of the section on Psychometrics. I contend that the current words are poor English and do not follow the pattern of the other entries. The reverting editor seems to think that my change would weaken his/her contention that Psychometrics is rubbish.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None

How do you think we can help?

Rule on the acceptable pattern for entries on this article. Rule on the form of words in contention for this entry.

Summary of dispute by TDJankins

The sources speak for themselves. The opinions of these Wikipedians do not matter.--TDJankins (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Grayfell

The specific dispute is as Myrvin describes it. The broader dispute is on the inclusion of psychometrics in the list at all. Most involved editors agree that it is widely accepted as mainstream, and either should be qualified as such, or should be removed from the list outright. TDJankins, who added the section in January, would like to see it preserved. I wouldn't be bothered if it were removed, but I mildly prefer seeing it more clearly explained as being mostly accepted and only considered pseudoscience by a minority. I'm open to suggestions. Grayfell (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Roger

The problem is not just the poor wording. The entry cannot be fixed, and should be deleted. There are 2 sentences on psychometrics that supposedly summarize the pseudoscientific aspects of that topic. However, no pseudoscientific aspect is backed up the main article on the subject. The main reference is one widely-discredited book. Roger (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If this entry is salvaged, it must use scientific sources, and not rely on one discredited crackpot book. TDJankins main argument is to go with the view of the larger scientific community. However, that view is overwhelmingly in favor of psychometrics as all the top universities employ professors who recognize it as science. No one has produced any scientific paper saying that psychometrics is pseudoscience. The main source is Gould, and a couple of others who rely on him. But the only part of his book that was published as a science paper was decisively proved wrong, and he is widely regarded as having fudged his numbers for ideological purposes. The 2011 NY Times article says "almost every detail of his analysis is wrong." Nature said "falsified criticisms of skull measurements" Therefore this entry should not mention Gould's book, directly or indirectly, without also explaining that his thesis has been overwhelmingly rejected by the larger scientific community. I proposed an edit , but someone has reverted it, even tho there is no support for the current text in the dispute resolution page. Roger (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Feldkurat Katz

TDJankins strongly argues for a definite statement that psychometrics is considered a pseudo-science, and argues that claims of its scientific merits are invalid, since they come from psychometrists themselves.

Most of the participants argue that this is a minority opinion, and should be either stated as such, or the entire paragraph should be deleted.

My position:

Wikipedia should not perform original research to establish the standards to judge pseudo-sciences and to determine whether X or Y is one or not. Wikipedia should refer the consensus of the scientific community, or, if there is no consensus, neutrally enumerate the major positions. In the case of, say, astrology, there is a clear consensus in the scientific community, proponents of astrology as a science are only found outside the scientific community. The case of psychometry is competely different, since it is widely accepted by mainstream science and widely published in academic peer-reviewed journals. While there is no doubt there is much non-scientific psychometry about (e.g. "personality tests" in glossy magazines), the condemnation of the entire field as pseudo-scientific is limited to a small, but vociferous minority of critics. I don't buy the argument that being active in psychometry or using it disqualifies a researcher from judging it.

Personally, I'd prefer the entire paragraph to be removed. I can live with a neutral statement that makes it clear it's only a minority that considers psychometry a pseudo-science. --Feldkurat Katz (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer's note: I'm neither "taking" this nor opening it for discussion at this time, but only wish to note for other volunteers' benefit that all listed editors have been notified and there appears to be adequate talk page discussion. (I would note in passing that there are a couple of IP editors, 2601:D:2881:D20:18A1:2C6B:2A82:23F5 and 32.218.152.85, and one registered editor, Fountains of Bryn Mawr, who have taken part in the talk page discussion but who have not been listed or notified; the volunteer taking the case can determine whether or not their participation is needed here to come to a successful result.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I have informed, and apologized to, Fountains of Bryn Mawr. Myrvin (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

I will take this case, and will start off with a few ground rules. I am neutral. Do not expect me to address the content dispute. Equally importantly, comment on content, not contributors. Comments about the conduct or attitude of contributors are not permitted. Also, be concise as well as being civil. Long statements are not helpful.

I have a few questions for each contributor to address. First, are there any issues besides the status of psychometrics that need to be resolved? Second, exactly what does each party think should be done about psychometrics? (I have some thoughts, but will wait until the participants offer their opinions.) Third, can this dispute be resolved by a Request for Comments? (If the main issue is whether to include psychometrics, that may be binary, either include it or don't include it, in which case compromise is not feasible and consensus is the objective.)

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Myrvin

No extra comment at this time. Myrvin (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

First statement by TDJankins

This seems to have morphed into a conversation about the psychometrics page itself. The psychometrics page clearly has shortcomings such as the lack of a criticism section (a gigantic one). If you don't like the way that page reads then edit it, but the way a Wikipedia page reads is not evidence of anything. I restored the POV tag there as it was illegitimately removed and there have been multiple calls for page balance and a criticism section. I've moved to get the ball rolling toward those ends, but to say a Wikipedia page is evidence of something is beyond the realm of reason, and I don't believe that it's a precedent Wikipedia wants to set.

In regards to Roger's problem with one of the seven sources, The Mismeasure of Man, Gould may have been wrong about Morton's skull measurements, but he wasn't wrong about psychometrics. It's very suspicious that you keep bringing up that unrelated issue.--TDJankins (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Grayfell

If the choice is between characterizing psychometrics as a pseudoscience without qualification, or removing it from the article, I would absolutely choose removing it. As I said, I wouldn't be bothered by that outcome. The fact that the psychometrics article doesn't go into any of this is a solid argument against its inclusion on the list, as Fountains of Bryn Mawr says. The priority should be preventing confusion over what the field of psychometrics is, vs. what has been lumped-in with, or what it used to be. We should be making readers less confused, not more. Figuring out how to appropriately include that additional information should be a secondary priority, in my opinion. Grayfell (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Roger

(1) There is the larger question of whether to include a legitimate science just because some reputable source calls it a pseudoscience. The article introduction implies yes, but such entries are nearly always rejected. (2) A very popular book did attack some psychometrics as pseudoscience, but if the entry is left in for that reason, then it should also say that all the reputable scientific sources say that the book is wrong, and all the top universities employ professors doing legitimate psychometrics research. (3) Not sure about RfC, but this is an ideological dispute with no chance that one side is going to persuade the other. If psychometrics were a pseudoscience, then that should be explained in the psychometrics article, with references to both sides. There is no mention of it. One WP article should not be giving a 1-sentence summary of a subject when there is no support on the main article. Roger (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Feldkurat Katz

First statement by Fountains of Bryn Mawr

My involvement was to throw a revert in because of a noticed technical citing/WP:SYNTH, I was not expressing an opinion on the List content. But... what articles should be listed in this List Article has come up before (this is an old argument) so here is a suggestion:

The items at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience seem to conform to a list of articles.
Lists are alternative ways to organize articles based on some aspect of the content of the article that relates to the list def.
Therefor --> The content that is organized in an article's entry in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience should first already appear in the parent article, that is the place where the experts on the subject are congregating and can judge whether the claimed "label" is "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject" and where the contentious opinion/WP:LABEL stuff should be hashed out. (I think there should be a guideline subsection at WP:LIST called WP:FIXITFIRST stating "don't state something in an article's entry on a list unless it is stated in the parent article first - fix the article first". - just a pet idea of mine since other list articles have this same problem e.g.List of Italian inventions)
Psychometrics does not contain a "Criticism" section of any type so it should not be in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience - this list should not be the place to throw a contentious WP:LABEL or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

Further:

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience should only contain entries that are articles, articles are where you sort out notable aspects of a topic/WP:UNDUE
The entry descriptions for each article/topic at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience should be short --> the full description of the controversy is at the parent article.
There is no need for references for the criticism/claims for an article/topic at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience --> the references are at the parent article.

Comparing what we have at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience to the guideline as it exists in my head shows how far out on a limb the Psychometrics entry is.

two cents given... Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

First statement by any unregistered editors

Staszek Lem (talk · contribs): IMO the phrase of TDJankins , but to say a Wikipedia page is evidence of something is beyond the realm of reason, is a misunderstanding. The major point is that any coverage of any opinion on any topic must be primarily in the article on this topic: this is the place where all people interested in editing this topic congregate. A topic may be included in many lists, and spreading any decisive opinons across these lists basically leads to what is called WP:FORK. Therefore "a Wikipedia page" is not an "evidence of something": "a Wikipedia page" it the primary place to present "evidence of something" (based on WP policies), a clearing house of the discussion about "evidence of something". Any list entry must be a mere summary of the consensus reacted at "a Wikipedia page" on the topic. Therefore in this context an argument which relies on "a wikipedia page" is valid. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer moderator

I see that there are at least two parts to this dispute. The first has to do with the list article. That is whether psychometrics should be: (1) included in the list, without further comment, as it currently is; (2) included in the list, but with a restrictive note saying that it is only considered pseudoscience by a few (possibly defined) scholars; (3) excluded from the list. That can either be resolved by agreement here, or resolved by RFC. The second has to do with the article on psychometrics itself, and that is whether a Criticisms section should be added, including the arguments by scholars who say that the field is pseudoscience. Are there any other parts to this dispute?

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, there is mention of "a book", which is being both cited and criticized. Is that book "The Mismeasure of Man" by Gould, or is there also another book about which there is controversy? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by Myrvin

No comment. Myrvin (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by TDJankins

I think the reasonable option is one not on your list. That being to keep it approximately as is and add a varying viewpoint, so long as it is something that is not a lie or something trying to confuse the public. One person mentioned that one can get a degree in psychometrics from any one of several universities and that papers on psychometrics are accepted by some APS journals. Those are undeniable truths, so it would make sense to include something to that effect. Just a suggestion.--TDJankins (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by Grayfell

Second statement by Roger

The successes and limitations of psychometrics are already detailed in that article. There is no way the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience article should have a 2-line dismissal of the whole subject with allegations that are not substantiated anywhere on the psychometrics article. In this case, there is a popular crackpot book attacking psychometrics as pseudoscience, but that should not mentioned without also mentioning the scientific consensus that the book is wrong in its main claims. Roger (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by Feldkurat Katz

Second statement by Fountains of Bryn Mawr

I was weighing my comments against WP:WINARS which TDJankins also hit on. I don't think we can follow the logic of WP:WINARS because of the accepted guideline WP:LABEL, a label like "pseudo-" has to be widely supported in reliable sources before we start tossing it around. If it has sufficient reliable sources then it should be in the parent article or should be immediately added to the parent article. In this case the lengthy entry for Psychometrics at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience could be moved to Psychometrics and a summary of that section could be inserted at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Not addressing it in the parent article first is basically setting up a POV fork. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by any other editors

Staszek Lem (talk · contribs) The lede of the list says: Each section summarizes the pseudoscientific aspects of that topic.. - The item in question does have refs to the point, but the item text in not a reasonable summary thereof. On a side note, why the heck nobody works on the article itself? I briefly look into it, it sucks even by low wikipedia average. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by volunteer moderator

I am going to have to restate myself more or less. There are at least two aspects to the dispute. The first is about the list. The second is about the article, psychometrics.

1. On the first issue, the list, I will ask each of the editors, which of the following options would you be willing to agree to: (1) leave psychometrics in the list as is; (2) mention that some but not all (be specific if possible) scholars identify psychometrics as a pseudoscience; (3) omit psychometrics from the list? An editor identified "a reasonable option not on [the] list. That might be (4). What is that option?

1a. If there is not agreement on whether and how to include psychometrics in the list, are the parties willing to have an RFC published for the purpose?

2. On the second issue, the psychometrics article, what options are editors willing to consider: (1) leave it as is; (2) add a Criticisms section; (3); something else?

3. Do the editors agree that, if psychometrics is in the list, the article should expand on criticisms by those who consider it to be pseudoscientific?

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by Myrvin

On the first issue, I prefer 2 or 3. It can't be left as it is; it's badly written.

I, too, have had no dealings with psychometrics article. I should think any article could do with a criticisms section.

The list entry should include criticisms of the critics. Myrvin (talk) 07:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by TDJankins

We can leave the psychometrics section of the list as it is. See my second statement above about another reasonable alternative. The psychometrics article itself will include criticisms when editors devote the time and effort to do so. It appears that this dispute is essentially over.--TDJankins (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by Grayfell

For the first question, I would accept (2) or (3). I have no problem with an RFC.

I haven't been participating in the discussion or edits at the psychometrics article, so I would be open to any options there.

I agree with #3. If it is on the list, at least some mentions of the controversy should be included in the article, but as I said, I've not been participating fully in that discussion, so I'm not going to push for it either way. Grayfell (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by Roger

Third statement by Feldkurat Katz

Third statement by Fountains of Bryn Mawr

Third statement by any other editors

Fourth statement by volunteer moderator

One editor says that this dispute is essentially over. I don't see that, unless TDJankins means that I should fail the dispute, because I don't see agreement to remove psychometrics from the list. Also, TDJankins says that their second statement proposed another reasonable alternative. I saw that they said that, but I didn't know what that alternative was, and will ask again for a clarification.

Unless there is either apparent agreement on a resolution, or a new idea, I will publish an RFC on whether to: (1) leave psychometrics in the list; (2) state that a few scholars would include psychometrics in the list; (3) exclude it from the list. Also, it may be necessary to tag the main article with a tag as needing a Criticisms section. If I don't see any further sign of progress, after publishing the RFC and tagging the main article, I will declare a general close (neither a resolution nor a failure). Comments?

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

An editor asks: "Why is the moderator unable to come to a conclusion? " It isn't the moderator's job to come to a conclusion, but to help the editors with the dispute to come to a conclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Fourth statement by Myrvin

Go for the RFC. Thanks for your time. Myrvin (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Fourth statement by TDJankins

Sorry, but censorship of content with independent reliable sources is not allowed, especially content with abundant independent reliable sources.

Also, some are still having difficulty with the fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The fact that the psychometrics article does not yet include criticism is not relevant to the topic at hand.

This appears to just be a case of editors not fully understanding how Wikipedia works. It may save time and heartache in the long run to invest a little time up front familiarizing one's self with Wikipedia's policies.--TDJankins (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Fourth statement by Grayfell

Fourth statement by Roger

Why is the moderator unable to come to a conclusion? The article on psychometrics seems to reflect expert knowledge. Does anyone dispute that? If so, then go fix that article.

It is completely inappropriate for a List page to dismiss a whole subject with criticisms that did not even merit mention on the main article for that subject. Does anyone dispute that? Why?

The subject of psychometrics was called psychoscience by one popular and controversial book. While some people defend the book, it was widely denounced as wrong by leading science journals and newspapers. The issues are detailed on the WP page for that book. Does anyone dispute any of this? Why?

No WP article should cite that book for anything without also mentioning the controversy about the book, at the least. Does anyone dispute that? Why?

If you accept these points, then it is obvious that the entry must be deleted. Or if someone puts a Criticism section into the psychometrics article, then perhaps the List could cite that criticism, but only if it also mentions the mainstream view that the criticism is wrong. Roger (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Fourth statement by Feldkurat Katz

Fourth statement by Fountains of Bryn Mawr

Fourth statement by any other editors

Talk:Sigma Alpha_Epsilon#OU_Chapter_Suspension

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Inicholson on 14:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC).

Closing due to no discussion by other parties to case after three days. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

More information Closed discussion ...

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Sigma Alpha Epsilon#OU Chapter Suspension (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Inicholson (talk · contribs) Zigzig20s (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I believe that the recent racist chanting by members of the fraternity is significant enough to warrant it's own subheading, while another editor disagrees and has reverted my subheading. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We've talked it over in the talk page and have been unable to come to an agreement How do you think we can help? I don't know what the rules are for putting information in subsections. If it's an appropriate stylistic technique, then I think it should be done, but I don't have a lot of experience editing. Summary of dispute by Zigzig20s Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Sigma Alpha_Epsilon#OU_Chapter_Suspension discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer's note: I am neither "taking" nor opening this for discussion at this time pending a summary being made by the other editor, but I wanted to note that all parties have been notified and that there is adequate article talk page discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC) First statement by volunteer moderator I am willing to act as the volunteer moderator for this dispute. I have no special knowledge about the issue, although I have heard and read about the incident. My role as volunteer moderator is not to provide an opinion but to help the editors to work the dispute out in a collaborative manner. I will remind the editors to comment on content, not on contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to agree on article content. Please be civil and concise in all discussions. I see that one of the issues is whether a separate heading in the article is in order for the recent racially derogatory chanting incident, or whether to include it under an existing heading. Are there any other issues? If there is only one issue, whether to include a heading for the recent incident, one possibility would be to publish a Request for Comments to request that other editors provide their opinions and establish consensus. Are the editors in this dispute willing to rely on an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Now that an article has been created about the OU incident, are editors satisfied, or is dispute resolution still in order? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC) First statement by Inicholson I'd be fine with an RFC. It should be noted that since I opened this DR, other editors have created a new article for this issue, so maybe it's a moot point? First statement by Zigzig20s First statement by any other editors 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.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:Sigma Alpha Epsilon#OU Chapter Suspension (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Inicholson (talk · contribs)
Zigzig20s (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I believe that the recent racist chanting by members of the fraternity is significant enough to warrant it's own subheading, while another editor disagrees and has reverted my subheading.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We've talked it over in the talk page and have been unable to come to an agreement

How do you think we can help?

I don't know what the rules are for putting information in subsections. If it's an appropriate stylistic technique, then I think it should be done, but I don't have a lot of experience editing.

Summary of dispute by Zigzig20s

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Sigma Alpha_Epsilon#OU_Chapter_Suspension discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer's note: I am neither "taking" nor opening this for discussion at this time pending a summary being made by the other editor, but I wanted to note that all parties have been notified and that there is adequate article talk page discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

I am willing to act as the volunteer moderator for this dispute. I have no special knowledge about the issue, although I have heard and read about the incident. My role as volunteer moderator is not to provide an opinion but to help the editors to work the dispute out in a collaborative manner. I will remind the editors to comment on content, not on contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to agree on article content. Please be civil and concise in all discussions.

I see that one of the issues is whether a separate heading in the article is in order for the recent racially derogatory chanting incident, or whether to include it under an existing heading. Are there any other issues?

If there is only one issue, whether to include a heading for the recent incident, one possibility would be to publish a Request for Comments to request that other editors provide their opinions and establish consensus. Are the editors in this dispute willing to rely on an RFC?

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Now that an article has been created about the OU incident, are editors satisfied, or is dispute resolution still in order? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Inicholson

I'd be fine with an RFC. It should be noted that since I opened this DR, other editors have created a new article for this issue, so maybe it's a moot point?

First statement by Zigzig20s

First statement by any other editors

Talk:Simona Halep#Can_we_identify_Simona_as_Aromanian

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Simona Halep#Can we identify Simona as Aromanian (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Adrian two (talk · contribs) 2a02:2f09:41ef:ffff::4f72:5edf (talk · contribs) Dispute overview anonymous user on a mission to remove the established fact that Simona Halep is of Aromanian descent Have you tried to resolve this previously? left appropriate comments as edit summary How do you think we can help? maybe semi-protect the page Summary of dispute by 2a02:2f09:41ef:ffff::4f72:5edf Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Simona Halep#Can_we_identify_Simona_as_Aromanian discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.*

Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Request_for_comment_-_Capitalise_universe

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Fyunck(click) on 06:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC).

This case is being closed for two reasons. First, there is an open RFC, and this noticeboard is not a forum to request that RFCs be withdrawn. Second, there are conduct issues involved. The parties are directed to arbitration enforcement or WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

More information Closed discussion ...

Closed 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:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Request for comment - Capitalise universe (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs) Cinderella157 (talk · contribs) and many others at MoS (talk · contribs) Dispute overview It said you could at least point me in the proper direction. We have just had RFCs/proposals on the capitalization of Universe/universe... along with Galaxy/galaxy and others. Editors have failed to come to an agreement on when the words should be capitalized or if MoS should be changed at all. The last RfC closed hours ago with no consensus. User Cinderella157 just opened another RfC on the same subject... no breathing room at all. Editors haven't even had a chance for some lengthy discussions on if or how we would proceed. Maybe small steps.. maybe something else. But this new instant RfC is very disruptive. One editor removed it to stop more infighting and bang... it was plopped up again. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I'm still in shock this was plopped up already. His talk page and the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters page. How do you think we can help? Either point us in the right direction to end the disruptive RfC or politely ask Cinderella157 to remove it. Summary of dispute by Cinderella157 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The statement: "The last RfC closed hours ago with no consensus. User Cinderella157 just opened another RfC on the same subject" is false. The reasons given for removing the RfC were quite inconsistent with the question posed by the RfC (as noted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Try again for "Universe/universe" consensus? Cinderella157 (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by and many others at MoS Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Request_for_comment_-_Capitalise_universe discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note: See the statement at the top of this page: "We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves." This request states that it wants to remove a Request for Comments that it is said to be disruptive. This noticeboard does not discuss whether to remove existing RFCs. There does appear to be a conduct dispute, although different parties have different ideas as to who is guilty of a conduct issue. Since this is a Manual of Style dispute and such disputes are subject to discretionary sanctions, one possibility would be arbitration enforcement, and another possibility would be WP:ANI. Unfortunately, the avenues for orderly resolution of the content issue appear to have been exhausted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2015 (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.*

Closed 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:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Request for comment - Capitalise universe (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs)
Cinderella157 (talk · contribs)
and many others at MoS (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

It said you could at least point me in the proper direction. We have just had RFCs/proposals on the capitalization of Universe/universe... along with Galaxy/galaxy and others. Editors have failed to come to an agreement on when the words should be capitalized or if MoS should be changed at all. The last RfC closed hours ago with no consensus. User Cinderella157 just opened another RfC on the same subject... no breathing room at all. Editors haven't even had a chance for some lengthy discussions on if or how we would proceed. Maybe small steps.. maybe something else. But this new instant RfC is very disruptive. One editor removed it to stop more infighting and bang... it was plopped up again.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I'm still in shock this was plopped up already. His talk page and the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters page.

How do you think we can help?

Either point us in the right direction to end the disruptive RfC or politely ask Cinderella157 to remove it.

Summary of dispute by Cinderella157

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The statement: "The last RfC closed hours ago with no consensus. User Cinderella157 just opened another RfC on the same subject" is false. The reasons given for removing the RfC were quite inconsistent with the question posed by the RfC (as noted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Try again for "Universe/universe" consensus? Cinderella157 (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by and many others at MoS

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Request_for_comment_-_Capitalise_universe discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer note: See the statement at the top of this page: "We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves." This request states that it wants to remove a Request for Comments that it is said to be disruptive. This noticeboard does not discuss whether to remove existing RFCs. There does appear to be a conduct dispute, although different parties have different ideas as to who is guilty of a conduct issue. Since this is a Manual of Style dispute and such disputes are subject to discretionary sanctions, one possibility would be arbitration enforcement, and another possibility would be WP:ANI. Unfortunately, the avenues for orderly resolution of the content issue appear to have been exhausted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Rainbow table

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 97.88.168.200 on 00:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC).

Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. At this point it doesn't even appear that there is a dispute over the talk page edits. And even if there were, it would be much more likely a conduct matter which does not belong here. If you want to ask whether or not what you did was acceptable, you might ask at Editor assistance. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

More information Closed discussion ...

Closed 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 Rainbow table (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved 97.88.168.200 (talk · contribs) User-multi error: no username detected (help). Dispute overview Talk::Rainbow Tables I found out I was fired and prevented from multiple job opportunities due to someone posting my name on here with false information. I first attempted to delete, then explain, but to no avail. It uses personal information while attempting to display opinions and statements that are not my own. I felt the proper way to do this was to eliminate the posts, but editors keep altering/replacing everything. I advised the following at the bottom of that talk page: There were several sections here that violates wikipedia talk page guidelines. Namely, I have removed sections that are not on topic, that are meant to criticize or vent about the subject, argue personal points of view that also do not cite reliable sources of information, that are not based on verifiable facts, includes insults or personal details between various parties, Have you tried to resolve this previously? delete, edit, remove, attempt to explain the error briefly. How do you think we can help? Remove the section permanently, as it breaks even the discussion page guidelines. Summary of dispute by null Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Rainbow table discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Rainbow table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

97.88.168.200 (talk · contribs)
User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

Talk::Rainbow Tables

I found out I was fired and prevented from multiple job opportunities due to someone posting my name on here with false information. I first attempted to delete, then explain, but to no avail. It uses personal information while attempting to display opinions and statements that are not my own. I felt the proper way to do this was to eliminate the posts, but editors keep altering/replacing everything.

I advised the following at the bottom of that talk page:

There were several sections here that violates wikipedia talk page guidelines. Namely, I have removed sections that are not on topic, that are meant to criticize or vent about the subject, argue personal points of view that also do not cite reliable sources of information, that are not based on verifiable facts, includes insults or personal details between various parties,

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

delete, edit, remove, attempt to explain the error briefly.

How do you think we can help?

Remove the section permanently, as it breaks even the discussion page guidelines.

Summary of dispute by null

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Rainbow table discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:State of Somaliland

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

It appears that the issue of whether to redirect the title or to leave the stub in place was resolved by agreement to leave the stub in place, and the other parties have not objected. Closing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

More information Closed discussion ...

Closed 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. Filed by Largoplazo on 22:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:State of Somaliland (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Largoplazo (talk · contribs) Hadraa (talk · contribs) AcidSnow (talk · contribs) Middayexpress (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This is a longstanding article, which is on my watchlist but in which I am not actively involved and have no personal stake, about a political entity that was British Somaliland until 26 June 1960 and that merged to become part of the Somali Republic five days later. Today two people decided that the article should be merged to British Somaliland. Another person who disagrees has reverted it, and there have been several re-reversions. Two people were actively arguing over it, and I decided to review their arguments and do my own research and see if I could clarify things, serving as an unrequested WP:3O. I believe I have justified the article's existence, but the person who wants it redirected seems to be ignoring my commentary and repeating his original rationales, all of which, in my judgment, lack merit. I'm inclined to restore the article again, but I thought I'd open the question up to more people. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Nothing besides discussing it with them directly. How do you think we can help? Opinions from additional objective editors on my reasoning as well as that of the others, perhaps a different way of expressing the relevant considerations. Summary of dispute by Hadraa Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. AcidSnow redirected the State of Somaliland page to British Somaliland which i think was wronge simply because there was a country called the state of somaliland and was from 26 June to 1 July 1960 and with all my best reliable sources which can be found on talk page. but both of AcidSnow and Middayexpress keep redirecting the State of Somaliland page to British Somaliland Hadraa (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by AcidSnow Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Middayexpress Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The post above is factually inaccurate. First, the dispute was originally between AcidSnow and Hadraa. AcidSnow redirected the State of Somaliland page to British Somaliland for reasons he explained beforehand on its talk page, and Hadraa subsequently took exception to that. The discussion then proceeded from there. Middayexpress (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Talk:State of Somaliland discussion First statement by volunteer moderator As a volunteer at this noticeboard, I am accepting this dispute for moderated discussion. I don't have any specific knowledge about Somaliland or Somalia, and I don't intend to impose a solution; that isn't what this noticeboard is for. I expect the parties to present their own cases, and I will try to facilitate discussion. Please be concise and civil. (Civility is not merely requested. It is required here and elsewhere in Wikipedia.) I understand that there is a dispute about whether to merge or redirect this article. Will each of the parties please state concisely what they think should be done? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC) First statement by Largoplazo First statement by Hadraa First statement by AcidSnow First statement by Middayexpress Posted to moderator's talk page: Hi Robert McClenon. The dispute over whether the State of Somaliland should redirect to British Somaliland or remain a stub was already resolved. All parties agreed that it should remain a stub. Given this, could you please close the discussion and note this agreement per the talk page? Best regards Middayexpress (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2015 (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.*

Closed discussion

Filed by Largoplazo on 22:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

Dispute overview

This is a longstanding article, which is on my watchlist but in which I am not actively involved and have no personal stake, about a political entity that was British Somaliland until 26 June 1960 and that merged to become part of the Somali Republic five days later. Today two people decided that the article should be merged to British Somaliland. Another person who disagrees has reverted it, and there have been several re-reversions. Two people were actively arguing over it, and I decided to review their arguments and do my own research and see if I could clarify things, serving as an unrequested WP:3O. I believe I have justified the article's existence, but the person who wants it redirected seems to be ignoring my commentary and repeating his original rationales, all of which, in my judgment, lack merit. I'm inclined to restore the article again, but I thought I'd open the question up to more people.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Nothing besides discussing it with them directly.

How do you think we can help?

Opinions from additional objective editors on my reasoning as well as that of the others, perhaps a different way of expressing the relevant considerations.

Summary of dispute by Hadraa

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

AcidSnow redirected the State of Somaliland page to British Somaliland which i think was wronge simply because there was a country called the state of somaliland and was from 26 June to 1 July 1960 and with all my best reliable sources which can be found on talk page. but both of AcidSnow and Middayexpress keep redirecting the State of Somaliland page to British Somaliland Hadraa (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by AcidSnow

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Middayexpress

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The post above is factually inaccurate. First, the dispute was originally between AcidSnow and Hadraa. AcidSnow redirected the State of Somaliland page to British Somaliland for reasons he explained beforehand on its talk page, and Hadraa subsequently took exception to that. The discussion then proceeded from there. Middayexpress (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:State of Somaliland discussion

First statement by volunteer moderator

As a volunteer at this noticeboard, I am accepting this dispute for moderated discussion. I don't have any specific knowledge about Somaliland or Somalia, and I don't intend to impose a solution; that isn't what this noticeboard is for. I expect the parties to present their own cases, and I will try to facilitate discussion. Please be concise and civil. (Civility is not merely requested. It is required here and elsewhere in Wikipedia.) I understand that there is a dispute about whether to merge or redirect this article. Will each of the parties please state concisely what they think should be done? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Largoplazo

First statement by Hadraa

First statement by AcidSnow

First statement by Middayexpress

Posted to moderator's talk page: Hi Robert McClenon. The dispute over whether the State of Somaliland should redirect to British Somaliland or remain a stub was already resolved. All parties agreed that it should remain a stub. Given this, could you please close the discussion and note this agreement per the talk page? Best regards Middayexpress (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Southern strategy#Proposed_changes

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Getoverpops on 17:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC).

Lack of adequate participation, none of the named parties are willing to participate. Two of the three named parties also stated that this is a conduct issue, which this board is not the proper place for. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 02:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

More information Closed discussion ...

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Southern strategy#Proposed changes (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Getoverpops (talk · contribs) North Shoreman (talk · contribs) The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) MastCell (talk · contribs) Gamaliel (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The initial article contains only references which support the claim of a "racist southern strategy". I attempted to add additional articles from academic and other sources which dispute the claim. Since sources that both support and refute the "racist southern strategy" are available both should be included in the article and the article should not be written in a way that indicates consensus among sources. My attempts to make this change have been blocked. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion on the talk page. How do you think we can help? Review the sources I have suggested and offer an independent opinion regarding their inclusion. I believe they rise to a level similar to the sources in the article and thus indicate that the article should include text that says the facts of the mater are in dispute. Summary of dispute by North Shoreman This is really only an edit warring issue -- see . The initiator's positions have been unanimously rejected by all of the listed participants. The issue is largely the interpretation of sources -- his arguments are largely the result of cherry-picking quotes and ignoring language that doesn't support his POV. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by The Four Deuces The article does not say the Southern Strategy was racist but that it appealed to racism. While the proposer has presented sources to say that whether the strategy was racist is in dispute, they also say that the strategy appealed to racism. He needs to find sources supporting his views. TFD (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MastCell Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. In my view this is a clear case of tendentious editing by one editor, who refuses to listen to anyone else. This venue is probably useful for handling content disputes among constructive contributors, but it's not the appropriate venue to deal with tendentious editing and I'm not interested in participating in this request. MastCell ^Talk 19:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Gamaliel There's nothing to dispute. Consensus is firmly against Getoverpops' desired changes. S/he has used the talk page in a way that indicates a battleground mentality. Gamaliel (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Talk:Southern strategy#Proposed_changes discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Welcome User:Getoverpops to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. As the filing party it is your obligation to make certain that all parties are immediately notified of this filing. The notice must be placed on each party's user talk page and link to the DRN page. The easiest way to do this is to add: {{subst:drn-notice\|Southern Strategy}} to their user talk page. If the other parties have not been notified within three to five days this filing will likely be automatically closed. Let me know if you need help or have questions. Please leave a message here verifying that you have read this message and have notified all parties on their user talk page. After all parties have created a Summary of the Dispute, then a random DRN volunteer will accept and moderate the discussion. Thank you! -- — *Keithbob* • Talk • 17:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC) All parties have been notified. --Getoverpops (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2015 (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.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:Southern strategy#Proposed changes (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

The initial article contains only references which support the claim of a "racist southern strategy". I attempted to add additional articles from academic and other sources which dispute the claim. Since sources that both support and refute the "racist southern strategy" are available both should be included in the article and the article should not be written in a way that indicates consensus among sources. My attempts to make this change have been blocked.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Review the sources I have suggested and offer an independent opinion regarding their inclusion. I believe they rise to a level similar to the sources in the article and thus indicate that the article should include text that says the facts of the mater are in dispute.

Summary of dispute by North Shoreman

This is really only an edit warring issue -- see . The initiator's positions have been unanimously rejected by all of the listed participants. The issue is largely the interpretation of sources -- his arguments are largely the result of cherry-picking quotes and ignoring language that doesn't support his POV. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by The Four Deuces

The article does not say the Southern Strategy was racist but that it appealed to racism. While the proposer has presented sources to say that whether the strategy was racist is in dispute, they also say that the strategy appealed to racism. He needs to find sources supporting his views. TFD (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MastCell

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

In my view this is a clear case of tendentious editing by one editor, who refuses to listen to anyone else. This venue is probably useful for handling content disputes among constructive contributors, but it's not the appropriate venue to deal with tendentious editing and I'm not interested in participating in this request. MastCell ^Talk 19:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Gamaliel

There's nothing to dispute. Consensus is firmly against Getoverpops' desired changes. S/he has used the talk page in a way that indicates a battleground mentality. Gamaliel (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Southern strategy#Proposed_changes discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Welcome User:Getoverpops to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. As the filing party it is your obligation to make certain that all parties are immediately notified of this filing. The notice must be placed on each party's user talk page and link to the DRN page. The easiest way to do this is to add: {{subst:drn-notice|Southern Strategy}} to their user talk page. If the other parties have not been notified within three to five days this filing will likely be automatically closed. Let me know if you need help or have questions. Please leave a message here verifying that you have read this message and have notified all parties on their user talk page. After all parties have created a Summary of the Dispute, then a random DRN volunteer will accept and moderate the discussion. Thank you! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

All parties have been notified. --Getoverpops (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Electric motor

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Biscuittin on 18:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC).

You should wait to see the result of the AfD discussion before you bring this here to discuss merging it. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 21:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

More information Closed discussion ...

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Electric motor (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Biscuittin (talk · contribs) Doorknob747 (talk · contribs) GliderMaven (talk · contribs) Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User:Doorknob747 created the article Reciprocating electric motor. It was almost immediately tagged for deletion. I felt that the deletion proposal was premature and that User:Doorknob747 was being treated unfairly. I have (in consultation with User:Doorknob747) expanded the article and I would like to continue the process. However, the article's opponents seem determined to get it deleted or merged but they cannot even agree amongst themselves. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Doorknob747 has got advice from an administrator but the article's opponents are not taking this advice. How do you think we can help? By protecting the article until Doorknob747 and I and any other editor of good will can finish editing it. Summary of dispute by Doorknob747 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by GliderMaven Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Andy Dingley Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Electric motor discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:Electric motor (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

User:Doorknob747 created the article Reciprocating electric motor. It was almost immediately tagged for deletion. I felt that the deletion proposal was premature and that User:Doorknob747 was being treated unfairly. I have (in consultation with User:Doorknob747) expanded the article and I would like to continue the process. However, the article's opponents seem determined to get it deleted or merged but they cannot even agree amongst themselves.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Doorknob747 has got advice from an administrator but the article's opponents are not taking this advice.

How do you think we can help?

By protecting the article until Doorknob747 and I and any other editor of good will can finish editing it.

Summary of dispute by Doorknob747

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by GliderMaven

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Andy Dingley

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Electric motor discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

My article detele

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Ubskjt on 04:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC).

Not within the scope of this noticeboard. See Deletion Review for procedures involving article deletion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

More information Closed discussion ...

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute My article detele (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Ubskjt (talk · contribs) User-multi error: no username detected (help). Dispute overview Yesterday I create a article on our college co founder Gurdip sing Anand and your reviewer delete the article why ?? there is no any harm or beyond wikipedia rule i can not write but your reviewer delete my article ...please clear the matter Mayur Phatak System Admin Universal business School india Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to setup article properly and it was set it but your reviewer delete the page How do you think we can help? I want my artivle back i.e on Gurdip sing Anand Summary of dispute by Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. My article detele discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. You did not write that article- you appear to have copy / pasted it from here. which means it is not your own and is against the fundamentals of WP. Now, can someone please close this case? Thanks. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:07, 26 March 2015 (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.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

My article detele (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Ubskjt (talk · contribs)
User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

Yesterday I create a article on our college co founder Gurdip sing Anand and your reviewer delete the article why ?? there is no any harm or beyond wikipedia rule i can not write but your reviewer delete my article ...please clear the matter

Mayur Phatak System Admin Universal business School india

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to setup article properly and it was set it but your reviewer delete the page

How do you think we can help?

I want my artivle back i.e on Gurdip sing Anand

Summary of dispute by

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

My article detele discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

You did not write that article- you appear to have copy / pasted it from here. which means it is not your own and is against the fundamentals of WP. Now, can someone please close this case? Thanks. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Old Trafford#David-King's edits

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by PeeJay2K3 on 17:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC).

Lack of constructive response from the editors either here or on talk pages. The editors should be aware that if non-constructive discussion on talk pages continues, they may be blocked from editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

More information Closed discussion, This is more about a contributor than about content. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC) ...

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:Battle of Old Trafford#David-King's edits (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs)
David-King (talk · contribs)
Cliftonian (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:David-King made a comprehensive edit to the Battle of Old Trafford article which introduced a great many things that, in my opinion, were either unencyclopaedic or detracted from the quality of the writing in the article. A full list of issues under discussion is available at Talk:Battle of Old Trafford#David-King's edits.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I raised a discussion on the article talk page in which I itemised each of the issues I felt worsened the article and I attempted to bring in a third party to provide a different and unbiased perspective by posting a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football.

How do you think we can help?

I would like to think someone here could provide a more experienced hand at resolving the dispute through having no vested interest in the topic under discussion and more staying power when it comes to explaining to either user involved why one version is better than the other.

Summary of dispute by David-King

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Cliftonian

I joined the discussion after PeeJay requested a third opinion at WP:FOOTY. The conversation already seemed quite heated to me (PeeJay had reverted David-King's edits, then initiated discussion) and I asked both parties to calm down. I listed the disputed proposed changes and gave my opinion on each. In my recollection my views coincided closer with PeeJay's than David-King's. PeeJay was unable to continue taking part in the conversation after he was temporarily blocked over an unrelated matter. David-King and I went on debating for a few days; on some issues we reached compromise solutions we both found satisfactory but on others we were unable to do so. After about a week of silence on my part—I must be frank and say I don't feel so involved in this issue as to devote large sections of my time to a vigorous argument about it—David-King made edits to the page implementing the agreed compromises where they existed, and implementing his preferred wordings where agreement had not been reached. He (not totally unreasonably, in my view) said he took the silence to be tacit approval. I do not know if he was aware PeeJay was prevented from editing or responding at the time. An IP editor reverted much of what David-King changed, leading him to revert it back. On his return from the aforementioned unrelated suspension PeeJay reverted the edits again, restarted the discussion and the situation soon returned to basically where it had been when I entered. PeeJay asked me on my talk page to step in again, and I recommended bringing the matter here. — Cliftonian (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Old Trafford#David-King's edits discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer note: User:David-King wasn't properly notified of this request. He has now been notified. I am neither accepting nor declining the case at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

I am willing to accept this case as the volunteer moderator. I don't know anything in particular about this association football match. (As an American, I will refer in future comments to the sport as soccer, the name by which it is known in this English-speaking country.) I expect the parties to the case to explain what the issues are; it isn't my job to decide the issues, but to help the parties. Please be civil and concise. Civility is mandatory here and elsewhere in Wikipedia. Will each party please explain briefly what the issue or issue is about this article about a soccer match? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to say: "Comment on content, not contributors." The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, not to complain about its editors (who may also be trying to improve the article). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry that you perceived my attempt to explain the issues in dispute and how we came to this stage in this way. I have re-read my statement and on reflection I think you are correct that it focuses unduly on the people involved. I will try to approach things differently in future. — Cliftonian (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement 1.5 by volunteer moderator

Comment on content, not contributors. What changes, if any, do you want made to the article? If you think that the article is fine as it was most recently edited, but if you are aware that other editors have criticized your edits, please explain why you think that your edits are an improvement. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

First statement by PeeJay2K3

The matter at issue here is the introduction of various changes to the text of the article. At first glance some of the changes appear innocuous, but taken as a whole, I believe they detract from the quality of what has been rated as a "Good Article". I believe the article has a chance of making it to FA status, but one of the requirements of FA status is that the writing be of a professional standard; I take this to mean that the writing should be concise, but clear at the same time. The introduction of phrases such as "Lehmann applied distraction and intimidation techniques to put Van Nistelrooy off" (I'm paraphrasing) when you can just say "Lehmann tried to put Van Nistelrooy off" (again, paraphrasing) does nothing to help tighten up the language. There are other instances where the language of the article has been altered, mostly to make it more colloquial and jargonistic, but I'm pretty sure that's against policy. Finally, the other user keeps trying to shoehorn in a mention of the specific brand and model of ball used for this game, despite there being no evidence that the structure and aerodynamics of the ball had any effect on the outcome of the game whatsoever. – Pee Jay 08:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

First statement by David-King

First statement by Cliftonian

This is more about a contributor than about content. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The main points of contention in my view regarding the proposed additions by David-King are the following:

David-King is adamant that his revisions to the prose are improvements and will not brook any assertion to the contrary. The compromises reached were all essentially concessions on my part. When PeeJay said there was "nothing wrong with the writing as it was. It flowed just fine", David-King called this "plain petulance" and used similar terms to describe every other objection PeeJay had with David-King's preferred version. When PeeJay asked repeatedly why adding the words "as it transpired" would be an improvement, David-King riposted "It's three fucking words. Just get over it." In particular, David-King seems very attached to his chosen way of describing the actions of the Arsenal goalkeeper Jens Lehmann at the time of a decisive penalty kick at the end of the match. Lehmann strafed up and down the line waving his arms; David-King insists that this be worded as "Lehmann applied distraction and intimidation techniques" or similar. PeeJay said this was unclear and made it "sound like Lehmann had studied "distraction and intimidation techniques" at university or something"—I agree.
Both David-King and PeeJay could have conducted themselves better, in my humble opinion. The discussion went off topic and descended basically into a big-dick contest in which average IQs, A-level results, university degrees and so on were bandied about. None of this counts for anything in this venue and I personally found it extremely tiresome. David-King brought up his A-level results at least three times.
David-King does not seem to me to properly understand what reliable sources and referencing are. For example. when I posited that the "distraction and intimidation techniques" wording amounted to original research, he suggested sourcing to (his own interpretation of) "original footage of the match". He insists on adding the exact brand and model of ball used in the match in the middle of the passage on the aforementioned decisive penalty kick, even though there is no evidence whatsoever in reliable sources that the brand or model of the ball had any impact on this kick specifically or any aspect of this match. When PeeJay upbraided David-King on the need for sources, charging that "You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know you can't add content without a source", David-King said "Not every flaming word on Wikipedia is there because of a source."
On 2 March David-King said "Just leave it, PLEASE! I want my name stamped on this excellent page." This does not seem to me to reflect well on his motivations here. When PeeJay brought this up again on 19 March, David-King clarified that "I never said it was the 'only reason'. Another reason is I think this page could do with some improvement. Literally only you believes that my association is bad."

I hope that this statement is helpful. All the best to all concerned, — Cliftonian (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Jabel Mukaber#Negative information inserted on a flimsy excuse

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by IRISZOOM on 00:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC).

Stale and/or futile. Listed for a week with no volunteer willing to take the case and with two nonresponsive parties. Consider a request for comments. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

More information Closed discussion ...

Closed 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 Jabel Mukaber#Negative information inserted on a flimsy excuse (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved IRISZOOM (talk · contribs) Debresser (talk · contribs) Zero0000 (talk · contribs) ShulMaven (talk · contribs) Al Ameer son (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In the article Jabel Mukaber, some users are adding examples they can find on which attackers have come from the area. They also add some other details, like describing one attack and some residents erected a tent where they mourned the attacker. None of this belong to the article about the neighbourhood in Jerusalem but in the different articles mentioned. Debresser and ShulMaven think the info is relevant, while I, Zero0000 and Al Ameer son have said the opposite. But we are stuck so I ask here for comments. Have you tried to resolve this previously? None. How do you think we can help? Give your comments so hopefully a resolution could be found. Summary of dispute by Debresser The sentence "A number of Jabel Mukaber residents have been involved in acts of anti-Israel violence" is relevant and very important. But it is unsourced. The rest of that paragraph and the two next paragraphs are examples. That means they are original research and synthesis, to support the unsourced statement by providing it with sources. That is not allowed on Wikipedia, and those paragraphs, including the unsourced statement, need to be removed. Which is really a shame, because the unsourced statement is actually true and, as I said, very important to have it in the article IMHO. In my opinion, the ideal solution would be to find a source which supports the unsourced statement, and perhaps even mentions a few examples. But without such a source, I am afraid I agree this must go. Summary of dispute by Zero0000 If someone from New York shoots a few people in Washington, do we put this in New York City? Obviously not, and few editors would even consider it. But this is exactly what several editors are doing here. They have trawled the internet for negative mentions of Jabel Mukaber and added them to the article regardless of whether they are about the village or not. With one exception that I'll mention in a moment, none of the items refer to events in the village and none of them tell us anything about the village beyond the trivial fact that some person came from there. Debresser argues on the talk page that these things are relevant because it is a "militant village that breads terrorists", but since the sources don't actually state that Debresser's argument is an admission of SYNTH. Finally, one event mentioned did actually happen in the village, I'll address it. When Palestinians have funerals it is common to erect a tent outside their former home for a few days to provide shelter for people who visit. This might get a mention in the newspaper if the person who died was notable, but it has no lasting significance and says nothing about the village where the home is. The text encourages us to think that some sort of memorial was constructed, but it wasn't; this fails WP:WEIGHT. Zero^talk 00:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by ShulMaven Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Al Ameer son Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Jabel Mukaber#Negative information inserted on a flimsy excuse discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Jabel Mukaber#Negative information inserted on a flimsy excuse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

In the article Jabel Mukaber, some users are adding examples they can find on which attackers have come from the area. They also add some other details, like describing one attack and some residents erected a tent where they mourned the attacker. None of this belong to the article about the neighbourhood in Jerusalem but in the different articles mentioned.

Debresser and ShulMaven think the info is relevant, while I, Zero0000 and Al Ameer son have said the opposite. But we are stuck so I ask here for comments.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None.

How do you think we can help?

Give your comments so hopefully a resolution could be found.

Summary of dispute by Debresser

The sentence "A number of Jabel Mukaber residents have been involved in acts of anti-Israel violence" is relevant and very important. But it is unsourced. The rest of that paragraph and the two next paragraphs are examples. That means they are original research and synthesis, to support the unsourced statement by providing it with sources. That is not allowed on Wikipedia, and those paragraphs, including the unsourced statement, need to be removed. Which is really a shame, because the unsourced statement is actually true and, as I said, very important to have it in the article IMHO. In my opinion, the ideal solution would be to find a source which supports the unsourced statement, and perhaps even mentions a few examples. But without such a source, I am afraid I agree this must go.

Summary of dispute by Zero0000

If someone from New York shoots a few people in Washington, do we put this in New York City? Obviously not, and few editors would even consider it. But this is exactly what several editors are doing here. They have trawled the internet for negative mentions of Jabel Mukaber and added them to the article regardless of whether they are about the village or not. With one exception that I'll mention in a moment, none of the items refer to events in the village and none of them tell us anything about the village beyond the trivial fact that some person came from there. Debresser argues on the talk page that these things are relevant because it is a "militant village that breads terrorists", but since the sources don't actually state that Debresser's argument is an admission of SYNTH. Finally, one event mentioned did actually happen in the village, I'll address it. When Palestinians have funerals it is common to erect a tent outside their former home for a few days to provide shelter for people who visit. This might get a mention in the newspaper if the person who died was notable, but it has no lasting significance and says nothing about the village where the home is. The text encourages us to think that some sort of memorial was constructed, but it wasn't; this fails WP:WEIGHT. Zero^talk 00:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ShulMaven

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Al Ameer son

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Jabel Mukaber#Negative information inserted on a flimsy excuse discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Rape in_India#Unproven.2Fnon-notable_allegations

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by TCKTKtool on 23:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC).

Futile due to insufficient acceptance by parties. See additional comments at bottom of the collapsed section. Consider a request for comments if dispute resolution is still desired. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

More information Closed discussion ...

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Rape in India#Unproven.2Fnon-notable allegations (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved TCKTKtool (talk · contribs) OccultZone (talk · contribs) Zhanzhao (talk · contribs) Padenton (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Some seem to be removing content saying its not proven yet there are quite a few references. They are also removing other pieces that are well referenced. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Many reverts How do you think we can help? Give a outside view from a impartial view point. Summary of dispute by OccultZone Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Zhanzhao Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I'd like to hands off on this, seriously.... Its sucking me back in even though I though the issue has been resolved. I've been accused of plagiarism(even though I was merely reverting a previous edit), socking(Please someone run a Checkuser) among other things. The only thing I've mainly done to the article is to reorganize content, revert what I though were questionable edits, and beef up existing content with a few more facts and sources. The only significant thing I added fresh to the article was small section to end off the "reported rape on foreigners" section stating that because the reported rapes of their citizens in India (which is already mentioned in the article), a number of countries have issued updated travel advisories (the correlation of which is explicitly stated on the advisories and the news reports about the advisory updates themselves), and that the tourism minister has taken note of it and taken action to address these concerns (that one is fairly straight forward). And one of the editors I was discussing this with is figuratively doing the "finger in the ear going la-la-la-la-la I can't hear you" jig by repeatedly removing my answer to him . If we can see some editors/admins who have not been involved in this article previously, to have a look at it, and make a unbiased judgement call on it. Thats all I hope to see here. Zhanzhao (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC) And then there's this SPI thats frivolously directed at me even though I was not involved in the edit war that resulted in the wave ban just because there is only so many ways you can write this is about XXX article... Zhanzhao (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Padenton Submission here is WP:FORUMSHOP. This dispute has already been reported here as well: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:TCKTKtool_reported_by_User:Padenton_.28Result:_.29 I will provide my summary in a few hours when I can give this a little more attention. ― Padenton \|☎ 23:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Rape in_India#Unproven.2Fnon-notable_allegations discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 24-hour closing notice: Of the three opposing editors, one has not responded, one apparently does not wish to participate as s/he considers this forum shopping, and only one wants to participate. That's not enough to be able to resolve this dispute through moderated discussion. This will be closed as futile if the other two do not change their minds and indicate that they wish to participate here. No editor is required to participate in dispute resolution if they do not care to do so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer) 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.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:Rape in India#Unproven.2Fnon-notable allegations (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Some seem to be removing content saying its not proven yet there are quite a few references. They are also removing other pieces that are well referenced.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Many reverts

How do you think we can help?

Give a outside view from a impartial view point.

Summary of dispute by OccultZone

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Zhanzhao

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I'd like to hands off on this, seriously.... Its sucking me back in even though I though the issue has been resolved. I've been accused of plagiarism(even though I was merely reverting a previous edit), socking(Please someone run a Checkuser) among other things. The only thing I've mainly done to the article is to reorganize content, revert what I though were questionable edits, and beef up existing content with a few more facts and sources. The only significant thing I added fresh to the article was small section to end off the "reported rape on foreigners" section stating that because the reported rapes of their citizens in India (which is already mentioned in the article), a number of countries have issued updated travel advisories (the correlation of which is explicitly stated on the advisories and the news reports about the advisory updates themselves), and that the tourism minister has taken note of it and taken action to address these concerns (that one is fairly straight forward). And one of the editors I was discussing this with is figuratively doing the "finger in the ear going la-la-la-la-la I can't hear you" jig by repeatedly removing my answer to him . If we can see some editors/admins who have not been involved in this article previously, to have a look at it, and make a unbiased judgement call on it. Thats all I hope to see here. Zhanzhao (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

And then there's this SPI thats frivolously directed at me even though I was not involved in the edit war that resulted in the wave ban just because there is only so many ways you can write this is about XXX article... Zhanzhao (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Padenton

Submission here is WP:FORUMSHOP. This dispute has already been reported here as well: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:TCKTKtool_reported_by_User:Padenton_.28Result:_.29 I will provide my summary in a few hours when I can give this a little more attention. ― Padenton |☎ 23:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Rape in_India#Unproven.2Fnon-notable_allegations discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

24-hour closing notice: Of the three opposing editors, one has not responded, one apparently does not wish to participate as s/he considers this forum shopping, and only one wants to participate. That's not enough to be able to resolve this dispute through moderated discussion. This will be closed as futile if the other two do not change their minds and indicate that they wish to participate here. No editor is required to participate in dispute resolution if they do not care to do so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)