Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 163

< Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Bill Shorten

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Jack bulldog 2012 on 22:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Bill Shorten is a major Australian politician. He was accused of rape in 2013. In October 2014 Shorten publicly addressed the allegation when police said they would not press charges (because of insufficient evidence, not fallacious claim). This story was discussed throughout Australian news media, by an influential biography of Shorten, by the Prime Minister of Australia, by the police and the alleged victim.

Repeated attempts have been made by some editors to add this content, but it has repeatedly been blocked for these reasons: the story only lasted a week and because of infringement of BLP and UNDUE rules. With regard to the former, it actually lasted from September 2013 until mid-2016. With regard to the latter, the rules are not infringed. BLP rules allow for the publication of an alleged event that is based on uncontentious and well sourced material that is cited and easily verified and where no undue weight is placed on it. It was positioned at the bottom of the wiki, it was made clear that it was an allegation, the sources were cited with links, the sources were reputable, the story lasted much longer than a week and the subject (Shorten) himself addressed the allegations (as well as the police, the Prime Minister, the subject's biographer, the press, the alleged victim). Further, Geoffrey Rush's allegation is on his wiki, it is more prominently placed (higher up the article), it received less attention, hasn't lasted as long and is not nearly as serious as a an alleged rape. It should also be considered that other people have had far less serious allegations made of their alleged conduct: Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein, Don Burke, and Dustin Hoffman, to name a few.

Proposed addition: In 2013 a woman, known as Kathy, accused Shorten of having raped her during a 1986 Young Labor camp in Portarlington when she was 16 and he was 19.(http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/woman-who-accuses-opposition-leader-bill-shorten-of-rape-says-police-failed-her/news-story/a92bad447392ff36830daa5ef2f8971e; https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-man-in-the-machine-20160512-gotfb2.html) Rumours of the allegation proliferated "for some time" in Canberra and online before it became public. (https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2014/08/21/bill-shorten-rape-allegations/; https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-man-in-the-machine-20160512-gotfb2.html) Victoria Police interviewed Shorten and various witnesses over a ten month period and decided not to lodge charges when the DPP advised "there was no reasonable prospect of conviction" based on the evidence collected.(http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-21/no-charges-for-labor-figure-over-alleged-rape-in-1980s/5685846) Afterward, Shorten said the allegation was "untrue and abhorrent".(http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-21/bill-shorten-says-name-cleared-over-rape-allegation/5687172) According to journalist and Shorten biographer, David Marr, Kathy's "allegation [was] detailed" but he also noted her "confusion and distress". (https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-man-in-the-machine-20160512-gotfb2.html) In November 2014, Kathy's lawyer revealed that she had not consulted a lawyer about the rape allegation until after the police closed their investigation.(https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bill-shorten-faces-bid-to-revisit-sex-claim/news-story/6621d8e7906a412d012ca81d4eb21f86)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on talk page. Undo deletion of edit (x1).

How do you think we can help?

By considering the text I propose to add and whether this meets Wikipedia guidelines and, if it does, by ensuring that it is not deleted by obstructionist editors. I am happy to accept an objective judgment (I am a lawyer and appreciate due process).

Summary of dispute by User:Bilby

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

Summary of dispute by User:AlanS

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

Summary of dispute by User:Pete

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

Summary of dispute by User:Birdy1234

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

Summary of dispute by User:Nick-D

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

Summary of dispute by User:Frickeg

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

Summary of dispute by User:Collect

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

Summary of dispute by User:Advocata

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

Summary of dispute by User:The Drover's Wife.

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

Bill Shorten discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - I have a few comments before closing. First, referring to other editors as obstructionist editors is not a good idea, even if the other editors are being obstructionist. It certainly isn't useful to insult other editors who may have different strict interpretations of biographies of living persons policy. Second, this noticeboard isn't usually a good place for a discussion with a very large number (e.g., ten) of editors. The best way to resolve a dispute which already has a very large number of editors is a Request for Comments on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sander van_der_Linden

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Science contributor101 on 21:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The editor "Jytdog" decided to delete 80% of the content of this page after a conflict of interest warning issued against my user account. I work in the area of environmental social science and it is true that I have only selectively edited a few wikipedia pages, and created only a few biographies, including van der Linden. However, I did this in good faith with factual and mostly neutral language. As a guiding example, I looked at other academic biographies for appropriateness and style. It took me a long time to do all the background research and it's been deleted for no good reason other than a claim that I have a conflict of interest, which I do not have, unless being familiar with someone's work is a conflict of interest (but so are thousands of other people).


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried talking to the editor directly but seems to accuse me of acting in bad faith because the van der Linden page has only been edited by a small number of users including two of my accounts, but all of the edits have been factual and objective and in good faith.

How do you think we can help?

I recommend that other perhaps more understanding editors RESTORE the original page and fix it up to fit Wikipedia guidelines in a more nuanced way rather than just deleting most of it for no apparent reason. I thought it was a good and informative page. Very similar to what you see for other notable scientists.

Also, the editor "Jytdog" seems to be deleting content based on what he/she thinks is "fake news", which is getting to a WHOLE new level of absurd.

On deleting a whole section that merely describes a program of research to help the public resist fake news (without making a value judgment or giving an opinion), Jytdog writes; "The section was "post-truth" because as I noted above, the obvious manipulation of Wikipedia, even while writing about other people manipulating the public with fake news (and other ways to manipulate the public to prevent them being affected by fake news) is terrible and bitter irony."

Regardless of my supposed COI, before we decide academic research we don't like is "fake news", maybe someone else should look at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science contributor101 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Sander van_der_Linden 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.

Vegaphobia

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by NessieVL on 19:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

One editor is very defensive and seems to have major emnity on the subject. Frivolous and excessive tagging and deletions. Any minor transgression is deleted with seeming aggression. Pleas for calm get swearing in return. Refuses to fix things, only deletes and tags.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

asked on IRC, got sent here

How do you think we can help?

More calm voices can't hurt

Summary of dispute by Kleuske

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

Summary of dispute by MapSGV

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.

Vegaphobia 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:Notability (sports)

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by RonSigPi on 23:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Change to the boxing SNG were requested by Bennyaha on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing page. The issue revolves around changing the SNG from a top-10 presumption to a top-15 presumption (current standard for being a world title challenger) and addition of Boxrec and TBRB as ranking entities. From a vote standpoint it was 4-0 for these changes (yes votes from Bennyaha, Michig, Okeeffemarc, and myself). When Bennyaha made the changes consistent with the vote, it was reverted under the rationale that it was not discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) (in truth, Bennyaha probably should have put a courtesy notice on the page that discussion was occurring on the talk page and did not). While the generally devolved into a more broad conversation on SNGs, the relevant discussion focused on if the change from 10 to 15 was appropriate and addition of other organizations. Specifically, DJSasso put out a challenge to show that these would pass GNG. I took on this challenge and not only did I think it showed it was valid, I was massively impressed with the results. After 1 week, only 1 dissenting comment was made - DJSasso stated that s/he was not satisfied with the results (discussed below).

Edits were reverted by Bagumba and Oknazevad under the rationale that only three editors supported the change (its four counting the nom). The page was also admin protected by JJMC89 stating discussion was ongoing despite no conversation in five days and only DJSasso commenting in over a week (and expressly said s/he has no opinion).

Also, DJSasso appears to me to put the burden on those making the change to research 1920's era fighters to show the notability. Note this would require extensive hard-copy research.

The simple question is "should the SNG be edited consistent with the outcome of the discussion on the Boxing Project page." The broader question is how much discussion is needed from how many editors.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page. Also reviewed past precedent on if four editors deciding something should go forward is enough to make a change (from what I saw it was). Also, if discussion on a sports-specific talk page is an adequate place to discuss changes for SNGs and if deference is commonly given to project pages in these matters (from what I saw they are). Additionally, reviewed other SNGs to determine if the 95-year old evidence requirement was common (did not appear to be so).

How do you think we can help?

Deciding if the SNG for boxing should be edited in accordance with the outcome on the project specific talk page. In other words, should criterion #3 read "Has been ranked in the world top fifteen of any weight class by the IBF, WBA, WBC, WBO, BoxRec, TBRB, or The Ring magazine."

Summary of dispute by Bennyaha

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

First of all I don't think anything here is in intention to do anything wrong doing, we all here because we either passionate about boxing or passionate about Wikipedia.

I did originally make the proposal that we should review the boxing notability guidelines. This is due to the fact that I believe the guidelines were outdated. Also I had some experiences in the passed where editors argued that a page shouldn't be notible enough because it didn't meet the boxing notability guidelines. In saying that when claiming general notability then an argument will start on what classifies the amount of coverage as significant coverage for general notability.

The boxing project had their own discussion and vote which was unanimous, however we had no idea that there was specific procedure on how to change these guidelines.

In fairness changing the guidelines was probably not best way to do things but I requested multiple times that have we come to a consensus with no reply. And the changes I proposed had no real disputes and when all votes came in unanimous I thought it was fine.

The proposed changes were really no brainers that they should be added. For one changing the rankings from top 10 to top 15 was made due to the fact that all sanctioning bodies work off a top 15 system. A world champion can defend their title in an optional defence against any boxer that is in the top 15 of their rankings. Including the top 15 rankings from boxrec and Transnational Boxing Rankings Board should be as notible as a sanction body rankings. Not only do they act independently but boxrec works off an unbiased computer system that no one that argue their top 15 are not credible.

The ibo world has had many world champions that world extremely credible, the likes of floyd mayweather, wladimir klitschko, Anthony Joshua, Chris eubank jr, Roy Jones Jr, Lennox Lewis, Ricky Hatton, Tyson fury, Manny pacquioa. I could continue but I think I made my point. The anmount of credible boxers that has held this title have made the title itself notible and future world champions should be known as notible when they capture this title.

Finally adding the wbc, wba, ibf and wbo to the female world title as notible. Not only do the santioning bodies recognise each other as world champions but also if their men are notible world champions then their female world champions should be recognise as notible world champions.

Anyway I really hope we can come to a decision and work this out. --Bennyaha (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Michig

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

Discussion has taken place since 21 March at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing, and since 29 March at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). In that time, no reasonable arguments against the changes have been made, and the suggestion that boxers from earlier years didn't receive as much coverage as in recent years has been rebutted. I think we need to decide here how long is long enough for people to chip in, if we haven't had long enough already, and then go with consensus, however much input we have. --Michig (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Okeeffemarc

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

I think RonSigPi has put across their points succinctly and I agree with them.

  • Unanimously voted for on project page.
  • Lessons learnt; will put courtesy note on page next time.
  • The worlds major boxing recorders and publishers already recognise the top 15 as notable.
  • There is precedent for changes to be made this way.
  • There isn't a precedent for 95 year old evidence requirement, which additional to hard-copy research, would normally need access to paid subscription archives.

Okeeffemarc (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by DJSasso

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

Yes, per long standing consensus the NSports page and the wider community needs to be notified of such discussions, it wasn't done in this case which is why the changes were reverted. As has been well established in the past, a Wikiproject cannot change the guidelines on their own and require a discussion on the guidelines talk page or a notice at the very least of an ongoing one. (I believe there was an RfC on this) As for the 1920's that was a random year I picked off the top of my head, you are missing the more general point, consensus is long established that you should be able to proove that athletes that meet your proposed new guidelines will meet the GNG with a 99% or so likelihood. If that means hard-copy research, then yes that is what needs to be done. This is to avoid issues with recentism, it is very likely people in 2018 might get press up to your choosen point, but would the people in the early years get it as well, that is what the whole purpose of the NSPORTS guidelines are, to be a strong rule of thumb that in this case a boxer will meet the GNG if they meet the NSPORT guideline. In order for us to know that is the case we often like to see it proven for those more fringe cases. And I note I only asked for 10, if the guidelines are as good as you think they are, 10 shouldn't be hard to do with only web resources. -DJSasso (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bagumba

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

One disagreement is whether WP:LOCALCONSENSUS was sufficient to make changes to the WP:NSPORTS guideline. After some discussion on the guideline's talk page, there is now a dispute on whether consensus has been reached, with some interpreting WP:SILENCE as acceptance.

There is also disagreement on whether the proposed new criteria needs to ensure WP:GNG is met or not. If GNG is required, there is disagreement over how many test cases are needed to demonstrate that the proposed changes are valid, and to what extent WP:RECENTISM bias in coverage is a concern; namely, how many years back should the examples cover?

Another dispute is over how prescriptive this SNG should be. When should new criteria be added, and when is it sufficient to just use GNG? The existing FAQ for NSPORTS, which is transcluded on its talk page from Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)/FAQ#Q5, advises: It's best to keep your criteria fairly conservative, since for most contemporary persons, establishing notability via the general notability guideline is straightforward enough and the additional buffer time provided by a sports-specific notability guideline isn't needed, so trying to draw a more liberal line isn't worth the effort.—Bagumba (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Oknazevad

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

My only concern is that the discussion needs greater visibility and time. The small number of participants and short time period (less than a week) are not enough for changing a significant, high visibility guideline. I think a formal RFC is probably needed. oknazevad (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by JJMC89

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

Wikipedia:Notability (sports) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  •   Note to participants: Given that the issue seems to be a matter of broader consensus alone, @RonSigPi: would you be willing to file an RFC on the proposed policy change, to avoid objection to any such change that may arise? -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Iazyges - yes, I am willing and believe I did so (in response to your request). I put RFC on the boxing project page and left a notice at the end of the topic discussion on sports page. If not do this right, then please let me know my error and I will try to correct. RonSigPi (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@RonSigPi: Assuming your RFC is to make changes to Wikipedia:Notability (sports) and not Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing, I would suggest moving the RfC from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Boxing#RfC_on_SNG_criterion_3_change to Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports), where it is more relevant and will receive more traffic. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - As noted above, the purpose of the RFC is to make changes to a Wikipedia guideline, and should be discussed on the guideline talk page. The WikiProject is a good place to publicize the discussion to bring interested editors to the guideline talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - Do the filing parties need help in composing the RFC? If so, a volunteer here will assist in wording a neutral RFC. This thread will be closed once the RFC is posted. It will then run for 30 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: No, far as I am concerned the wording is fine. However, if the RFC does need moved, then I don't quite know how to do that considering some editors have already commented and I don't know if a straight copy and paste will work. If you could just move it, then that would be very helpful. RonSigPi (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - Just open the RFC at the guideline page, and insert a comment and pull the header at the project page. In this particular case, notifying those who have already !voted either by pings or otherwise should not be considered canvassing, so go ahead and do it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I have decided I am not going to open the RFC there. I am not a monkey. I have already: contributed on a project page, contributed on the general page, done research at the request of a user, opened a dispute resolution, and placed the RFC when requested. That is enough. It was said "I would suggest moving the RfC" and "should be discussed on the guideline talk page" - suggestions and shoulds are not requirements. I am done taking everyone's minute requests for what they want. I have done everything asked that was required. RfC is up, in addition to what has been discussed here we will see how everything falls. RonSigPi (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - We are all catarrhines, except for a few editors who are not primates and who are subject to the bot policy. I am not aware of any carnivorans or octopuses editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:United Daughters of_the_Confederacy#Photo_of_Caleb_Glover

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Gi076011 on 20:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

I added a photo of Caleb Glover wearing a Southern Cross of Honor when I added the section on the Southern Cross of Honor. It was removed because it was not "representative" of the medal recipients. The reasoning appears to be that Caleb Glover as an African American does not represent the typical Confederate veteran, but that is incorrect. I have two other photos of African American Confederate veterans wearing Southern Crosses of Honor, and a newspaper article on another. All of this information was discounted and I was told that the photo did not mean what I thought it did, which I do not understand. The photos is a Confederate veteran wearing the Southern Cross of Honor. Given the responses on the Talk page, it would appear that the photo does not fit with the narrative that the UDC is a promoter of white supremacy. No organization that believes that the white race is superior would bestow their highest award on a person of color. When I stated that fact, I was met with an emotional response about the 13th Amendment and Confederate monuments, which does not have anything to do with the photo. In addition, one statement about the photo was that it was 100 years old and the allegations of white supremacy are about now. All of the cited sources on the page are about the UDC prior to 1940, with the exception of the Southern Poverty Law Center reference. The administrator of the page apparently knows nothing about the resources used to craft a biased narrative about the organization. So the photo and the sources are about the same time period. None of the reasons given for removing the photo of Caleb Glover are valid. They are hot button phrases used to elicit an emotional response, rather than a well-constructed argument based on a clear understanding of the topic. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia of neutral information written by those who understand the subject. None of those arguing for the removal have exhibited that type of knowledge.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I responded to all of the reasons given for the removal of Caleb Glover's photo, indicating the reason that they are not valid.

How do you think we can help?

The photo of Caleb Glover needs to be returned to the page to accompany the Southern Cross of Honor section.

Summary of dispute by gi076011

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

I am open to an RFC, but I have concerns about fairness, given the tone of the comments from the other editors in response to this request. The UDC is not an “inherently racist organization” nor is it neo-Confederate, despite Wikipedia’s efforts to make them appear as that type of group. Jim Crow laws were established during Reconstruction and they are based on Northern laws to keep the races separate. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the United States Supreme Court upheld Jim Crow’s “separate but equal” laws. There were eight supreme court justices and the vote was 8-1. There were only two Southerners on that court, and one of them was the lone dissenting vote. The culture of the United States was inherently racist, both North and South. The country, and the UDC, have moved beyond that. The UDC has made statements condemning hate groups, including new-Confederates. But, those statements are not allowed on the Wikipedia page because they don’t fit the narrative that Wikipedia has chosen, based on books about the UDC in the early 1900s.50.236.13.35 (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Legacypac

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

The overwhelming evidence from both the present and the past is that UDC has always been are remains an inherently racist organization. The monuments controversy largely revolves around items they placed to celebrate the Confederate cause, support Jim Crow laws and push back against civil rights. They are neo-confederates promoting a lost cause narrative. The award of a few medals to black soldiers fits with the faithful slave angle the organization has long pushed. Shepherd Heyward is a similar situation. I'm happy to include the photo so long as it is placed in context, not as proof that UDC can't be racist because they awarded their highest honor, but that the award is part of their racist narrative. I've not tried to source that yet because I was not in favor of the photo. I recognize that individual supporters of the UDC may be horribly offended at the racist label, but we need to follow the academic sources and history of UDC activity. I may improve my statement as this discussion develops. Legacypac (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by K.e.coffman

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

Summary of dispute by Doug Weller

An RfC might work, I'm not sanguine about anything else working. The only problem with an RfC might be editors being solicited off-wiki, there's already and off-wiki petition to change the article. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:United Daughters of_the_Confederacy#Photo_of_Caleb_Glover discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  •   Note to participants: Given that the dispute is based solely around the inclusion of an image, where the options for compromise are likely non-existent, as the objection is to the nature of the image rather than the image itself, and therefore any objection to this image would likely apply to any similar image the other side may support, I would suggest a neutrally worded RFC on the subject be drafted. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Gi076011: Would you consider filing a RFC, and if so, would you like assistance in the creation of such? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps this should be closed soon as the filer hasn't responded and on the article talk page has moved on to other issues. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Note to participants: @Doug Weller: Please note that they have agreed within their own section to do so (Assuming the IP is in fact the user). @Gi076011: I would suggest the RFC be something along the lines of:

==RFC on the inclusion of a photo of Caleb Glover==

{{rfc|hist}} Should a photo of Caleb Glover be included within the article? ~~~~.

If you wish to have myself or any other volunteers here at the DRN act as the closer of such an RFC, after a designated time, feel free to ask. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Thanks, I missed the comment. However, reading the talk page the issue isn't simply whether a photo should be included but the context in which the photo should be included, so that would need a bit of discussion first. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

University of California, Berkeley

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 50.250.227.83 on 02:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

User 205.208.121.107 has only presented his own arguments, dismissed any opposing statements to the UC Berkeley page's edits and went ahead with editing the page without consensus. Furthermore, he has been abrasive, rude, and condescending and refused to cooperate in reaching a consensus. He should not be able to edit the Wiki page on his own terms because he disrespects an opposing perspective. He pretty much ignored the purpose of Talk and then accused me of sockpuppeting.

The UC Berkeley page has a sentence that the editor wrote himself - WITHOUT consensus while the discussion was going on in the Talk page. "It is often ranked as a top-ten university in the world and a top public university in the United States."

It was originally "It is often ranked as one of the best universities in the world and a top public university in the United States." Going to several university Wiki pages, I've identified that words such as "best" and "prestigious" are often open to subjective interpretation and is classified as "Academic Boosterism" according to another Wiki guideline essay. On several pages, this issue has been resolved by simply deleting the statement since it is not objective information (i.e. Columbia University, Stanford University, Yale University) while others, like the University of Chicago and Princeton University, have opted for a much more quantitative measure.

The NEWLY edited sentence that was done without consensus "It is often ranked as a top-ten university in the world and a top public university in the United States." is still academic boosterism because only UC Berkeley's graduate programs are ranked top ten (i.e. AWRU, TIMES, and US News Global uses publication data). Forbes and US News National uses undergraduate measure like SAT scores, undergrad admit rates, etc. They rank UC Berkeley #20-30. I proposed "Its graduate programs often ranked as a top-ten university in the world and a top public university in the United States."

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've suggested 1. deleting the sentence altogether (no information is better than debatable information. There's a lot of info on the page that I think provides a good background on the university already); 2. agreeing to an edited sentences with quantitative measures ("top-ten" instead of "best") and adding "graduate programs" because that's what the data indicates to "Its graduate programs often ranked as a top-ten university in the world and a top public university in the United States."

How do you think we can help?

I think we need a third party to voice their opinion on the issue. There are three options 1. keep the original sentence with "best" (in favor of 205.208.121.107). 2. Edit the sentence to state "top-ten" and "graduate programs" (compromise) OR 3. delete the sentence altogether (in favor of my position).

Seeing that other pages such as Emory University were unable to come to terms, the editors there just deleted the sentence altogether.

Summary of dispute by 205.208.121.107

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

50.250.227.83 (talk · contribs) is being blocked for disruptive editing. He/she also uses at least five other IP addresses (if needed, please refer to the end of Talk:University of California, Berkeley for details, where I have written a summary) This IP is a possible sock puppet or same person of User:Pdyusmep and User:RabidMelon, whom have been blocked indefinitely. In short, this editor insists that major ranking agencies such as ARWU, US News Best Global Universities, Times Higher Education, CWUR and etc are rankings of universities' graduate programs worldwide, which are obviously wrong. He/she argues that these rankings use "publication data" and research output, instead of SAT scores etc, so these rankings are for graduate programs. This editor continued to attack the following well-cited statement in UC Berkeley's page (1st paragraph), which is similar to UChicago's statement and which was supported and recognized by this editor himself/herself:

"It is often ranked as a top-ten university in the world and a top public university in the United States.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16]"

The editor 50.250.227.83 (talk · contribs) himself/herself has made the following claim:

"As a solution, I don't understand what is wrong with following UChicago's model of "It holds top-ten positions in various national and international rankings." That seems to meet a pretty middle ground in speaking of UC Berkeley's successes on the national and international stage but doesn't make the generalized claim that they are among "the best."

However, this editor now consistently changed such saying into "graduate programs" only, despite the objections from other editors. 205.208.121.161 (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

University of California, Berkeley discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - The unregistered editor is advised that registering an account has several advantages. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:University College_London

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Moraun on 18:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

There is an ongoing dispute regarding the lead for University College London (UCL). There have been a number of disagreements regarding the wording of the sentence "UCL is ranked in the top thirty in the world in each of the four major international rankings, and in the top ten in all the national league tables."

In addition, there is no consensus regarding the international rankings to be used in the lead, notably CWTS Leiden. Robminchin asserts that the current wording is in keeping with editorial standards, while others claim that the wording and the stated range is misleading.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have brought my concerns to the talk page. There have been a number of editors, registered and unregistered, who have raised similar concerns to my own over a period of months.

How do you think we can help?

A third party should be asked to mediate and/or clarify a compromise, as it applies to the wording and the rankings to be used in the lead. This resolution should be in line with the appropriate editorial standards and in keeping with the leads for peer institutions.

Summary of dispute by Robminchin

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

My consistent take has been that the language needs to be neutral (which all parties currently active seem to have accepted) and that the rankings used should be those agreed for the UK university rankings infobox, which is included on the UCL page, in order to have the same set of rankings as other British universities. Some others have disputed this and want to omit one particular international ranking (the one in which UCL ranks lowest, but also probably the least well known) and/or the national rankings. That UCL would have a different set of rankings from other UK universities, particularly in the lead, looks to me like cherry-picking. I have thus opposed this. Robminchin (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Aloneinthewild

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

Summary of dispute by Traveltheworld100

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

Talk:University College_London discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editors. The editors are requested to keep discussion to a minimum until a volunteer opens the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

I am willing to try to act as the moderator in this dispute. Please read the ground rules and follow them. Your attention is called to the need to be civil and concise, and comment only on content, not on contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Do not edit either the article page or the talk page while this discussion is in progress.

I don't know what the issue is about the language, but I understand that the issue involves the language about rankings. Will each editor please state, in one or at most two paragraphs, what the issues are and what changes they want made to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement 1.5 by moderator

Will each editor please note, in one or at most two paragraphs, what the issues and are what changes they think should be made to improve the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

First statements by 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.

Mark Worth

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Quinn2425 on 07:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

This article has been proposed for deletion even though Worth is an author, journalist and public interest activist (whistleblower protection) who is very active and public in that field. The initial pro-deletion comment is mean-spirited an random. Another editor has stated that the Worth entry does meet the criteria to be included in Wikipedia.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There is a back-and-forth discussion on the page about deletion.

How do you think we can help?

Intervene as appropriate.

Mark Worth discussion

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

The AFD -- not proposal -- can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Worth.

The editor seems to fundamentally misunderstand both the deletion process and the purpose of this noticeboard [1]. --Calton | Talk 14:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Talk:Origin of_the_Romanians#Densusianu_is_fringe

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Iovaniorgovan on 10:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

hi, I am trying to post arguments from well-respected linguists and historians who contend that the "origin of the Romanians" is mainly Thraco-Dacian, with minimal input from the Roman invaders. This theory has been around for centuries and it has many supporters in the academe, yet this user (Tgeorgescu) keeps deleting my entries because he's somehow decided that this theory is "fringe". As you can see from the talk thread (at the bottom) I've named many well-established advocates of this theory (and I can name more) so I think it should be given proper weight in the Wiki arena of debate. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. Cheers!

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've asked the user Tgeorgescu to stop deleting my entries/edits, to no effect.

How do you think we can help?

allow me to post properly cited/quoted entries.

Summary of dispute by Tgeorgescu

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

Dacia Preistorică by Nicolae Densușianu is a close encounter of the WP:FRINGE kind. All the OP could quote from among the contemporary "scholars" are Protochronist authors and their walled garden. DRN is not an excuse to violate WP:FRINGE and per WP:ONEWAY pseudohistory is not welcome in a mainstream history article.

Source for ND's book is "mystical delirium": Dan Alexe (2 August 2016). Dacopatia şi alte rătăciri româneşti. Humanitas SA. p. 95. ISBN 978-973-50-4978-2. (Alexe's book is of the popularized science sort, but it was published by the prestigious publishing house Humanitas).

Here is an article by Zoe Petre: [2], one by Mircea Babeș: [3], and one by Eugen Ciurtin: [4].

The verdict of conscious Romanian historians is unanimous: ND's book is pseudohistory/fantasy trying to pass for history. It is totally ignored by international scholarship and rejected by the Romanian academics by consensus.

DRN is not the proper channel to settle this, rather WP:FTN would be more appropriate. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Origin of_the_Romanians#Densusianu_is_fringe 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.

Talk:2018 AFL season

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
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 Flickerd on 04:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Thejoebloggsblog has introduced a new column in the attendance section called "Home state games against interstate opposition" and there is a dispute whether it should be included on the page. My issues with the introduction of the new column are;

a) This is not commonplace within the AFL to display data like this and there does not appear to be any sources that does it this way, therefore it is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH.
b) There are too many conditions (of which the conditions have already been changed multiple times by Thejoebloggsblog) to this new column and attendances should remain equal, which is what was originally displayed. This is also backed up by sources [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] (note each just has raw home figures, not against travelling opposition).
c) The reasoning behind the inclusion of this column requires too much explanation and therefore falls into WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the simple justification by Thejoebloggsblog on Talk:2018 AFL season is not detailed enough for explanation
d) We should be editing for the sake of readers, and when readers come across this, there has already been confusion raised by an IP user about the face value of this (note most readers may not be aware of talk pages and therefore would not know how to seek clarification) and if the reader understands face value, then they would wonder why is the data being displayed this way when it hasn't been displayed like this anywhere else.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Waited to let other users have their say on the issue and the talk page had gone stale for three days, which in my opinion meant it was unlikely to have other editors comment. AFL season talk pages very rarely have more than two to three editors commenting on an issue, so in my mind (Flicked) a consensus had been reached.

How do you think we can help?

Help decide whether the new column should be introduced and/or if a consensus has already been reached

Summary of dispute by Thejoebloggsblog

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

Summary of dispute by Aspirex

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

Thejoebloggsblog wants to present statistics in a synthesised manner not common in any 3O publication. All other editors involved object on OR and INDISCRIMINATE basis, as well as disagreeing with the actual statistical story Joebloggsblog is trying to tell. Joebloggsblog has resorted to personal attacks of bias in the discussion. Aspirex (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 203.59.21.19

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

Talk:2018 AFL season discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Flickerd note – just adding a quick note, and I won't add any more until this is opened by a volunteer, but HiLo48 has added their opposition to the discussion since this dispute resolution opened. Not sure if that changes anything or if HiLo48 should be added to this as this is my first time at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but I just thought I'd mention it. Flickerd (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Volunteer question - Is this a case where one editor is trying to make a change that is being resisted by multiple editors, or are there multiple positions? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • From what I've gathered it appears to be one editor trying to make the change and it's been resisted by multiple (three) editors and the three editors who oppose it all have very similar arguments for the opposition. Flickerd (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • As one of those other three editors, I agree with that comment from Flickerd. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - I am neither opening nor declining this case. However, this noticeboard isn't normally the best place to resolve a one-against-many dispute. A Request for Comments works better. The editor who wants to add the extra information has been notified. Waiting for their response. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your response Robert McClenon. Since opening this dispute resolution, I've had the feeling it would most likely go to a RfC. I'll wait a bit to see if Thejoebloggsblog responds, but I'm not holding out a lot of hope considering they have continued to edit the article and talk page but nothing here, but we'll wait and see. If there is no response, then I'm open to a RfC. Flickerd (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon: I think this should probably be closed now as the discussion at the talk page has finished and the editor who wanted to add the content has now removed it. There has also been a discussion opened at WP:ANI, which I think means this has to be procedurally closed as it is now being discussed at a different noticeboard. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Channel NewsAsia

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Sosialpath on 04:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

My contribution has been unfairly tagged "COI", "advert" and "overly detailed". The COI tag, in particular, is of concern as the Singapore government has a long history of prosecuting journalists, academics and even perceived critics (please see Internal Security Act (Singapore), Human rights in Singapore, Press Freedom Index, Oxford professors demand apology from Singapore). Asked by The Banner about any possible connection to the subject, I made the honest disclosure that I had worked in another newsroom within the same conglomerate, but not in CNA, but left the industry years ago to lecture on journalism in a tertiary institution and have since retired. I noted my concern over giving away personal info and signalled my intention to redact, which I did four days later. The Banner did not assume good faith on my part and the "COI" tag puts me at further risk. Prior to my contribution, the article was under 250 words (with one citation) and had remnants of press-release jargon (such as "MediaCorp is Singapore's leading media company"), which I naturally deleted. From what I gather, the article has been dogged by edit wars as Singapore's press freedom is a divisive issue, and it seems no one wants to touch it. The article is also semi-protected due to sock-puppetry attempts. While I applaud the close scrutiny, my contribution has been unfairly judged and tagged. I added roughly 2,000 words on March 21 and asked for feedback on the talk page, to which The Banner immediately labelled my addition as a "blatant promo piece". I had made every effort to ensure that notability was established, with NPV throughout, and that referencing was thorough. I had used the CNN and CNBC Wikipedia articles as guides on what content to include and for structure.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I explained my rationales and shared my proposed structure based on CNN and CNBC. Questions about improvements were unanswered. Despite The Banner mentioning no specifics, I volunteered which areas could be fixed, while justifying the inclusion of passages supporting the central thesis (CNA's "Asia first" positioning, which is puffery), and noted that a "criticism" section would be added for balance. The Banner has been. On April 17, I posted to his talk page but was curtly rebuffed.

How do you think we can help?

I would like for the "COI" tag to be removed. Besides personal concerns, I have explained my position and feel, most crucially, that my contribution was not “written like an advertisement” to promote a subject which I have no love for. On that latter point, I would like for a neutral arbiter to determine if the tags are justified, especially since The Banner deleted those passages of concern to him ‘’’before’’’ adding the tags, leading me to question his motives.

Summary of dispute by The Banner

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

The disclosure only came today, and does not diminish my fears as Sosialpath has only edited two articles, the one now under discussion and Conversation With, a program of that network.

But to my opinion this thread can be speedily closed, as Sosialpath has started a RfC as another method of dispute resolution. The Banner talk 08:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Channel NewsAsia 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.

Talk:George Bernard_Shaw/Archive_3

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by RaWander on 11:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview


Irish is subjects nationality. This was agreed on. Having British and dual nationality listed in the infobox is incorrect and confusing to users, especially those who do not know Ireland history.

Gandhi was born in British ruled Indian - Nationality Indian, not British. Things in Wiki need to be consistent.

Re-edit was knowingly, falsely labelled vandalism.


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tim riley

How do you think we can help?

Set nationality as Irish, or remove it altogether, from infobox.

Talk:George Bernard_Shaw/Archive_3 discussion

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

Hi. I have not been involved in this dispute before, but I note that, although two different editors reverted RaWander's changes, and two other editors communicated with RaWander on their Talk page, asking them to stop edit warring and to bring their concerns to the Talk page if they wished to discuss it, RaWander has failed to engage in any discussion there. Note that this article is a Featured Article, and this issue has been discussed previously on its Talk page here and here. The article states: "Shaw remained a British subject all his life, but took dual British-Irish nationality in 1934." (citing Holroyd, Michael. Bernard Shaw, Volume 2: 1898–1918: The Pursuit of Power (1989), Chatto & Windus, p. 384. ISBN: 978-0-7011-3350-4). Note that the Irish Free State was not established until long after Shaw had moved to London, and he never lived under Irish rule. So his ethnicity was Irish, but his nationality was British until 1934, when he took dual nationality. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Steven Soderbergh

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Zeldathequark on 01:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Someone keeps deleting references to Steven Soderbergh's second daughter, a child who was conceived with an Australian woman who was not his wife. There are numerous reputable references on the web to the fact that Mr. Soderbergh had a love child. His own publicist confirmed it. Therefore, this is not a disputed fact. It is highly relevant to the discussion about Mr. Soderbergh's personal life. I am having trouble communicating with the party that keeps reverting back to delete the reference to the love child.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I gave a warning on LivingRealGud's talk page twice.

How do you think we can help?

An authoritative editor may get more respect if they ask LivinRealGüd to stop deleting the reference.

Summary of dispute by LivinRealGüd

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

Steven Soderbergh discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editor. Has the filing party considered requesting a Third Opinion? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Oa01#Indiscriminate lists

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Oa01 on 19:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Encyclopedic content has been repeatedly deleted from new articles.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

An attempt to discuss the disagreement has been made.

How do you think we can help?

A fresh look at the disagreement by neutral editors would be appreciated.

Summary of dispute by Randykitty

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

Summary of dispute by Ajf773

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

The user Oa01 has been using Wikipedia to list indiscriminate lists of websites to open access repositories and journals. The lists have been removed from various articles, such as Open access in Italy, (see history [10] although there are many more they have participated in under Category:Open access by country. Further more, as a result of a previous AfD, a bundle of list articles created by the user were deleted by consensus, see [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of open access repositories in India]. This content is not encyclopedic and has been removed both myself and Randykitty on numerous occasions per policy WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTLINKFARM. The user has already been reminded that this Wiki forum is not appropriate for the content they wish to publish. Ajf773 (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Oa01#Indiscriminate lists 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.

Talk:The Bank_of_New_York_Mellon

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Hkong22 on 18:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The article currently states that it was the first company to be traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Firstly the claim is made by on BNY Mellon's website under its timeline. It is stated on the NYSE website under its history timeline that it was the first company to list. From checking other sources the information is a bit limited, but all the sources available do state that the Bank of New York was the first company traded. I feel this is a historical fact and merits inclusion in the article. Jytdog has been quote argumentative about this just claiming they are just parrot myths, however, has not provided any clear evidence to suggest why they feel this is the case.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to discuss the points raised by Jytdog and have asked for Jytdog to provide sources which I can view which suggests it is all parrot myths.

How do you think we can help?

Help view the available evidence and liaise with Jytdog and persuade them to discuss the points raised as opposed to just claiming things are myths without providing any evidence/sources and state that they don't want to discuss further.

Summary of dispute by Jytdog

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

I am just looking for better sourcing, and the OP appears unable to understand what I am even asking for, much less why. This is a claim about the past and like any other such claims it should be supportable by books or journals produced by historians. As I noted at Talk here I have spent a few hours looking at serious references about the history of the NYSE and I have not found this claim in them yet. That is a concrete statement about what the problem is. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:The Bank_of_New_York_Mellon discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - It isn't clear what the filing party is asking for. Jytdog is asking for a reliable source that supports the claim to have been the first stock traded on the NYSE. The filing party appears to be asking Jytdog for a reliable source to the contrary. It doesn't work like that; a historical claim should be backed up by some historical record. Can the filing party please explain if I have misunderstood? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Volunteer question - Two editors who have contributed to the article were paid editors. Is User:Hkong22 also a paid editor? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I feel there is already sufficent evidence to support the claim. Without anything to the contra,ry I feel this is sufficent for inclusion. The OP is stating that he knows it is all 'parrott myth without stating how they know this. Consequently, it is backed up with a cite, including on the firsts and records of the NYSE itself.Hkong22 (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

That is not what I have said or am saying. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Ariana Grande discography#Single and Promotional Single

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Fan4Life on 14:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The dispute is over whether "Jason's Song (Gave It Away)" is a single or a promotional single. The argument for it being a single is that a Billboard article refers to it as "the lastest single" and it has "- Single" on iTunes. The argument against this and for it being a promotional single is that a later Billboard article, other media sources and Ariana Grande herself all refer to "Everyday" as the fourth single (which wouldn't be the case if "Jason's Song (Gave It Away)" were a single), along with "Jason's Song (Gave It Away)" not meeting the criteria for a single set out in Wikipedia guidelines (WP:SINGLE?). Previous consensus is that the song is a single, however this has been continually disputed through both discussions and edits. As well as this the consensus wasn't solidly one way or the other, right now "Jason's Song (Gave It Away)" is classed as a sort of single-but-not; it is listed in the singles table, but it isn't counted in the singles section in the infobox, and on the album page is referred to as a promotional single and isn't listed in the infobox. For a while it was actually listed in both the singles and the promotional singles table, which is why I started the most recent discussion. Due to all this there is no real consensus, a song is either a single or a promotional single, it can't be both and it can't be a single-but-not, therefore a new consensus is needed to move forward.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Several discussions and RfCs.

How do you think we can help?

The dispute comes down to which sources are reliable and which sources aren't, as well as which argument is better sourced, therefore having a neutral party identify the most and least reliable/appropriate sources would help to resolve it. Also, the dispute has stalled due to a lack of input, so offering input whether it be neutral or opinion would help to resolve it.

Summary of dispute by Aoi

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

Summary of dispute by Snuggums

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

Summary of dispute by DannyMusicEditor

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

Talk:Ariana Grande discography#Single and Promotional Single discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Not-a-volunteer note Perhaps it would help if you provided links to the "Several discussions and RfCs" and you would have given a link to Promotional recording#Promo single and Wikipedia:Promotional singles so we know the difference. Wikipedia:Promotional singles seems possibly outdated, it hasn't been substantially changed since it was created 7 years ago. The requirement of being "sold by the label as a CD single or 7" or 12" single" seems strange today. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page. There was an RFC, which apparently was never properly tagged, but the RFC was placed more than 30 days ago and does not prevent consideration of this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - Is this a question of a yes-no nature, or is this a slightly more complex matter where some compromise on the wording is possible? (A compromise would be to say that some reliable sources have labeled it as a promotional single.) If this is a yes-no question, a Request for Comments is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Not-a-volunteer note Look like people have been fighting over the definition of (promotional) singles for a long time: Talk:4 (Beyoncé album)#Confusion over Singles. Alexis Jazz (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

I am accepting this issue for moderated discussion. Please read the mediation rules. Is the only issue whether to label the one particular song as a single or as a promotional single? Would a compromise be to say that some reliable sources have labeled it as a promotional single?

Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what their view is on what if anything needs to be done to improve the article? (Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

First statements by editors

As I stated in the last RfC, I have no opinion one way or another as to whether this song was a single or a promotional single. I want to point out, however, that there was a very lengthy discussion late last year that included an RfC (which was open for three days before Fan4Life withdrew it) and a WP:3O. The consensus from this discussion was that the track should be described as a single. I don't believe any of the participants from the 2017 RfC participated in the newer RfC that Fan4Life opened, but I could be wrong. It might be a good idea for Fan4Life to invite them to participate in this discussion to see if they have had a change of mind since the initial RfC. (There was also another subsequent discussion in the talk page archive of the relevant talk page; see here). Thanks, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

Since most of the editors don't appear to be participating, it seems best to use a new Request for Comments. The choices can be that it is a single, that it is a promotional single, or that some call it a single and some call it a promotional single. If no one objects, an RFC will be used. (An RFC will probably be used even if there is objection.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Second statements by 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.

Talk:Mark Z. Jacobson/Archive 1#Intro

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Rwbest on 08:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The template on Mark Z. Jacobson asks to improve it. I try to do that since 4 April, starting with the lead. The lead is very short and not a proper summary. The lawsuit, which is a tiny part of Jacobsons career, is given excessive weight. The lead must adhere to BLP which includes NPOV. It does not. NPOV demands fairness and proportionalty, which are not nearly met. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

I proposed to replace the unbalanced lead by the text on the Talk page, see And another new version. Following the opinion of DGG the lawsuit is not mentioned in the lead, it should be summarized in the main text. My new version summarizes Jacobson's research including the Wind-Water-Solar proposal and its scientific foundation. WWS is a way to reduce fossil emissions, as are Nuclear and Coal-Capture-Storage. Of course proponents of the latter two ways criticize Jacobson, that's ok. It's not ok that Clack et al. publish error claims which are demonstrably false. The lawsuit was over publishing false statements, it was not to silence criticism.

It was imposible to get consensus about the lead. The Banner and Guy are prejudiced and prefer the old lead. I tried to replace the old lead with the new one but it was reverted.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to replace the lead many times but my text was reverted fast.

How do you think we can help?

Allow me to improve the lead and then proceed to improve the main text.


Summary of dispute by The Banner

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

One of the main problems with Rwbest is that does not seem to grasp WP:RS, as he is often using sources written or co-written by Jacobson. I have suggested that he should improve the article first and only then rewrites the lead, but effectively he refuses that. The Banner talk 09:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by JZG / Guy

Jacobson is a controversial figure with ideas that are often at the fringes, and our article has been seriously compromised in the past by edits by the subject himself. Rwbest is an out and out fan of Jacobson, as is clear from his edits on the Dutch Wikipedia. He wants to include claims sourced from Jacobson and downplay a lawsuit where Jacobson sued for libel to try to suppress scientific criticism with which he disagrees: this is his sole definition of "improve the lede". His proposed edits consistently fail WP:NPOV and WP:PRIMARY. This is a one-against-many dispute. Only Rwbest has any evident emotional investment in this topic. His proposals are minor variations on the same theme: Jacobson is a visionary, source: Jacobson.

Rwbest has limited and narrow history on Wikipedia, others with much wider experience, specifically including WP:FRINGE, dispute his proposed edits. It is not clear whether the subject has contacted Rwbest off-wiki, but it is entirely plausible given that he is now making exactly the same claims at his user talk page. Assuming the best of good faith, I think he is here to Right Great Wrongs.

Rwbest's attitude to compromise can best be summed up in his own words in response to a 3RR warning: Consensus with these others is not likely as long as they prefer the existing lead. I find your message on my talk page intimidating and I won't stop my attempts. Consensus, apparently, means acceding to his demands, and nothing else. He won't stop his attempts, he hates the existing lede because it does not represent Jacobson as a universally admired visionary, and his successive proposed versions all have exactly the same core problems, which he does not seem to accept are a problem at all. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ronz

Simply, we're continuing to have problems at this article that were identified last year: promotional content, poorly referenced.

My response was fairly standard for such situations: I suggest finding and identifying independent sources, highlighting those that provide historical and other broad contexts, then working from those sources. While other sources can be used, especially for providing details on topics already identified in the better sources, care should be taken not to use the poorer sources to determine weight or other emphasis. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by DGG

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

The page is being attempted to be used for advocacy of the subject's views. It needs to be greatly truncated, and the subject of the articles and his advocates need to keep out of the discussion. I suggest blocking Rwbest for violation of NOT ADVOCACY; I'm somewhat involved, or I would have already done this.There will then be no difficulty in editing the page in the usual manner. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Mark Z. Jacobson/Archive 1#Intro discussion

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

Please note [[11]], hardley a neutrally worded request for input.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Talk:Invasion of Privacy (album)

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Bardigang on 12:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Hi there. I was hoping someone could assist me with a content dispute going on at Talk:Invasion of Privacy (album). There are me and 3 other editors and 1 IP editor who have reverted/disagreed with a user regarding Drip (song) being a single and the user has reverted all of us. We need to achieve consensus because at the moment it is going nowhere and despite everyone disagreeing with the user, he says no consensus has been reached. Thanks Bardigang (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have discussed it on Talk:Invasion of Privacy (album) but it's going nowhere. 2 editors have also tried to discuss it on User talk:Hayman30#Drip.

How do you think we can help?

By establishing consensus from the discussions so we can move forward as this is a disagreement that is likely to continue and involve more users in future.

Summary of dispute by Cornerstonepicker

As I said before, media rarely uses the title "promotional single", they go with "single" most of the time for all the songs released ahead of the album. The artist herself hasn't called it a single, while Idolator called it buzz track Cornerstonepicker (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ELEMONATED

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

As I originally pointed out and what has been said by many users, Cardi B did not refer to Drip as a single herself and it was not sent to radio stations. It was meant to generate "hype" for the album release, which by Wikipedia's own definition, is the meaning of a promotional single. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ELEMONATED (talk • contribs) 21:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 82.1.245.70

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

Summary of dispute by Hayman30

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

Summary of dispute by Nice4What

I just joined this dispute but it's apparent that "Drip" is a promotional single; it can be seen in other album articles how to note the difference, such as "Supastars" off Culture II being a promotional single despite some publications just stating it as a "single". Nice4What (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Invasion of Privacy (album) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - This dispute has been properly discussed. However, in looking over the dispute, it appears that a Request for Comments may be more likely to resolve this.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

If the real question is whether a particular recording should be listed as a single or a promotional single (since this is single-promotional-single issue week), a Request for Comments will be used. If there is no objection, or there are neutral or positive comments, I will construct the Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

First statements by 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.

Talk:Corruption in Lithuania#Neutrality

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Alexis Jazz on 10:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

First: I am not a party in this dispute. Just helping with formalities. I don't recommend reading the discussions linked in detail: they are very long. Probably better to skim or even skip them.

It started on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#User:Detektyw z Wilna. Detektyw z Wilna was accused of adding mostly negative information about Lithuania.

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 748#Are these statements NPOV? looked like a case of "asking the other parent" by Detektyw z Wilna.

Accusations of Detektyw z Wilna being a sock and/or a Russian troll factory were made, but not proven.

What we have now is the Corruption in Lithuania article. I added an NPOV header to it (there certainly is a dispute, even if I have no position in it) but consensus has not been reached.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to get the users to talk to each other, but this is not working. Now both are asking me to tell them they are right.

How do you think we can help?

An uninvolved editor who is actually interested in or knows things about Corruption in Lithuania (I do not) could take a look at the disputed edits and say something about all this.

Summary of dispute by Detektyw z Wilna

  • This particular article did not have any controversial edits and there is no dispute that I am involved in.
  • The article is not perfect in terms of NPOV. Revision would be beneficial, and it seems that @Ke an and Pofka: are keen on making some improvements. That's good. It is important though, that the changes do not censor accurate and relevant facts which are currently present in the article.

Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ke an

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

I have presented main POV points starting with Short summary on the Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Corruption_in_Lithuania#Neutrality -- Ke an (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Pofka

I have not analyzed this page extensively, however my quick thought in this is: do we really need to mention individual cases? This is so minor, even if it is named "Famous cases" and it is not censorship. Just imagine if the Corruption in the United States had section about "Famous cases". -- Pofka (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Corruption in Lithuania#Neutrality discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been lengthy discussion at the article talk page and at WP:ANI. The ANI thread was eventually archived without any action being taken, and so is no longer open. A volunteer can accept this case for moderated discussion if the editors agree to be civil and concise and to refrain from forum shopping. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Please keep discussion to a minimum until a volunteer accepts the case for discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Detektyw z Wilna note – @Ke An: the "short summary" you linked to is riddled with inaccuracies and wildly speculative claims. That is not the core of the issue though, since I agree that the article would benefit from some form of revision. There is no dispute as far as I can see. Improvement is needed. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Ke An note – @Detektyw z Wilna: In order dispute to take place, one must present the arguments. "riddled with inaccuracies and wildly speculative claims" tells nothing, sadly, nor it does help to find the consensus. -- Ke an (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Detektyw z Wilna note – @Ke An: the core issue is to decide whether or not Corruption in Lithuania should be improved. I agree that it should be improved, just without censorship. So there is no dispute. Your piece of writing is still riddled with inaccuracies and wildly speculative claims, but I do not want to engage in a side discussion and create an artificial an unnecessary dispute. There is no dispute, and we should not try to make one. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Ke an note – @Detektyw z Wilna: There is a dispute about POV of the article. If you have a position you should explain it with arguments, not accusations. Taking the place of the authority doesn't help. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
  • Detektyw z Wilna note – @Ke An: And I agree that there are NPOV issues. So where is the dispute? I simply think that pointing out factual errors in a sideline discussion will get this discussion off the rails. That is hardly "position of authority". Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

I am willing to accept this dispute for moderated discussion. Will each editor please read the mediation rules? Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Comment on content, not contributors.

I see that one editor says that the article should be improved, but without censorship. Please read Yelling Censorship and comment on whether there really is an issue about censorship, or about content and balance.

Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what improvements they think should be made to the article? It is all right to say that something is wrong with the article, but the purpose of this noticeboard is not to tag an article as needing improvement, but to get compromise on how to improve it. Be specific in suggestions for improvement. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

First statements by editors

  • Thank you for moderating the discussion @Robert McClenon:. I read up on Wiki standards, compared to other articles and there definitely are NPOV issues in this article. @Pofka: is correct in his statement that specific examples used in the article make it unbalanced and one-sided. As for censorship, there have not been any attempts to censor so far. But then again, there have not been any attempts to edit the article. However, statistics like "48% believe that corruption is pervasive in the legal system" or "70% of companies don't participate in tenders due to belief that they are rigged" (in my view) should remain even in the updated version of this article and removing them would be a form of censorship. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • My suggestions would be these: 1) replace the faked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Lithuania#Extent table with ratings table from reputable sources - Transparency International, World Economic Forum or other international organisations. 2) rewrite (well, write essentially) the Summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Lithuania#Summary so it would be a balanced text, but not a biased selection or a cherry picking of various chaotic facts from media. 3) remove the Lidl case as it is not a corruption case at all. 4) review and leave only few corruption cases/samples, so that the text would be an ecyclopedic review of the situation, but not a random collection or an unordered heap of links to various secondary media articles. 5) remove POV Section forking such as 'Nepotism', 'Lobbying in Lithuania', 'Impunity from corruption'. -- Ke an (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

Comment on content, not contributors. It is not necessary to ping other editors. Will each editor please say, in one paragraph, what improvement they propose to the article? We are here to talk about improving the article, not to complain about the article except to improve it, and not to complain about the other editors.

Read Wikipedia is not censored. Notice that it doesn't apply to questions about undue weight or balance. Read Yelling Censorship. Do not use opposition to "censorship" as an argument for why an edit should or should not be made (unless you can really explain why Wikipedia is not censored is applicable. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

One editor has proposed changes to the article. Another editor has made an argument which has no policy basis, that the removal of details would constitute censorship. What do other editors think about the proposed changes to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


Third statements by editors

@Ke an: suggested five changes. In general, I agree that summary revision/rewrite is needed. Lidl case can be debatable, so it would probably be better to remove it. Removing individual corruption cases in favour of a more extensive overview is also good. I am unsure by what is meant by "POV Section forking" so I have no comment here. As for "fake" extent table, I strongly disagree with the implied removal of this table. There is nothing fake about the table as far as I can see and removal would serve no objective purpose. Furthermore, this table gives a country level overview, and does not deal with individual cases. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator

I will follow up with a few questions about previous statements. First, an editor refers to the "fake" extent table, and says that it should be removed (which it clearly should if it is fake), but another editor defends it. Why does the editor who opposes it consider it to be fake? Second, an editor complains about POV Section Forking. Please identify the sections that are considered to be POV forks. Maybe they are really simply considered to be non-neutral, since forking refers to duplication of topics, and POV forking is duplication of topics in order to present a non-neutral viewpoint. Third, I see that there is agreement that the summary should be rewritten. Will each of the editors please provide a draft? Fourth, is there agreement that there are too many individual cases, and that a more general treatment is in order? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Fourth statements by 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.

Talk:Thiruvendran Vignarajah#A_reminder_that_WP:BLP_applies_to_living_people_other_than_the_subject_of_the_article

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by MummyHands on 12:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

There's a number of issues here. One is that an extensive discussion has started around a legal case that goes beyond the topic on the page. While the subject of the page is a part of the appeal today, the way the editor has described it makes the page subject sound like he is guilty of misdeeds of others during the trial stages, which he was not a party to. In at least one instance a source (the Guardian cite #36) is used incorrectly to make claims that make the subject of the page sound unethical. Not only does the source say that the podcast mentioned has found no evidence, but the subject of the page was not involved in the trial and thus not a party to anything discussed in that paragraph. Tying decisions make by prosecutors 20 years ago to the subject of this page is a theme in the "Syed Case" section, and misleading as the subject only handled the appeal.

Second, there is heavy reliance on discredited sources including James O'Keefe, Project Veritas, and the Daily Caller. Not only do these sources are used to make unfounded, and sometimes legal conclusions with no basis, on this page, but their history indicates they do not meet basic standards regarding journalistic integrity. Further, the claims some of these sources make potentially libelous claims. There is support from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard that these sources are not reliable.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Back and forth edits that found small bits of common ground, but ultimately didn't lead to resolution. Some back and forth on the talk page with no resolution.

How do you think we can help?

There is a need for neutrality on this page, hopefully this process can provide that.

Summary of dispute by Adoring Nanny

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

Talk:Thiruvendran Vignarajah#A_reminder_that_WP:BLP_applies_to_living_people_other_than_the_subject_of_the_article 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.

Talk:Dorothy Kilgallen#My_summary_of_why_I'm_asking_an_uninvolved_third_party_to_look_at_this_situation

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Deisenbe on 02:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Dorothy Kilgallen’s death is thought by some, or many, to be a suicide. There have been two books, the movie rights to the latter of which have just been purchased, and some articles, maintaining that her death was not a suicide but was linked to her investigations of Kennedy's assassination. The question is not whether these theories are correct or not. The question is whether the public discussion has reached the point that some reference to this theory is necessary and appropriate. The tone of the discussion has at times been quite unpleasant, at least as perceived by me.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I posted it on Wikipedia:Third opinion and was referred here.

How do you think we can help?

By reading the Talk page discussions and giving an uninvolved opinion about whether the question has been dealt with properly, and if not, what steps you would recommend.

Summary of dispute by Ad Orientem

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

OP desires to introduce discussion of various non-notable FRINGE THEORIES regarding the death of Kilgallen. Specifically they wish to mention a recently published non-notable book by a known promoter of multiple fringe theories. Neither the book nor the theories have been the subject of significant coverage by multiple reliable independent secondary sources. The article has a long history of attracting conspiracy theorists who have made multiple attempts to introduce WP:PROFRINGE material into the article in contravention of the aforelinked guidelines and WP:DUE. This issue has been discussed ad nauseum on the article talk page and at WP:FTN with the repeated WP:CONSENSUS that that there is insufficient RS coverage to discuss said theories or book. I note in particular that WP:FRINGE requires that any discussion of fringe theories must not be UNDUE and must contain material explaining why the theory is fringe and explaining the mainstream view. Given that the theories have received scant RS coverage this is not possible. Any discussion of the theories or book would necessarily rely almost exclusively on unreliable (fringe) sources in direct contravention of WP:PAG. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Nor does it exist to promote every kooky conspiracy theory that is pumped in non-notable PROFRINGE books that are studiously ignored by mainstream reliable sources. Unless the OP can find in depth coverage of the book and conspiracy theories in reliable secondary sources any introduction of these topics would violate almost every relevant policy and guideline in the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TroyBradenton

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

Summary of dispute by Akld guy

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

Summary of dispute by LuckyLouie

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

Summary of dispute by Cullen328

Works of fiction cannot be used for any factual claims in a biography, as should be obvious. Of the other two books, one was written by a convicted forger and thief, and the other by a well known conspiracy theorist. Those books are worthless as reliable sources. So, what we need are not fictional or unreliable sources. What we would need to add any such content is neutrally written prose summarizing discussion of the conspiracy theory in actual reliable sources, plus consensus that the new content does not devote undue weight to the conspiracy theory in this biography. A vague complaint of what is thought to be lacking is not enough. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment in your own section or in general discussion only. This section is for the summary of the dispute by the named editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Lee Israel was not a convicted forger or thief during the three years she worked on her biography of Dorothy Kilgallen. She was indicted for forgery thirteen years after the publication of her biography. Mark William Shaw, author of the other book about Dorothy Kilgallen, cannot be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. He has authored more than 24 books. Most of them have nothing to do with conspiracy theories. You can find summaries of them on Amazon.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.50 (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
We cannot accept anything written by a convicted forger and thief as a reliable source no matter when those crimes were committed. No way under the sun. Take it to WP:RSN if you disagree with me. As for Shaw, he is the author of The Poison Patriarch: How the Betrayals of Joseph P. Kennedy Caused the Assassination of JFK, his contribution to the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory genre. Even more relevant, his Kilgallen book has been ignored by professional book reviewers and historians, despite an aggressive promotional campaign. That is conclusive. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Dimadick

Dorothy Kilgallen died in 1965, due to "a fatal combination of alcohol and barbiturates". There has been plenty of speculation on whether it was an accidental overdose, or a suicide, since the autopsy never determined that. There have also been theories that it was a murder, with some of them being part of the wider John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. For several years, all speculation and conspiracy theories have been deleted from the article, which covers her death in two lines of the article. There is not even a description of the circumstances of her last day.

A number of users have attempted to introduce material concerning the death and the various theories, the books written on the subject, and even popular culture mentions. Other users delete any such mention, citing Wikipedia:Fringe theories. While I have some interest in her death and the source we use about it (a newspaper report published a week after her death), I am not certain if there is enough material to add another article to Category:Death conspiracy theories. Dimadick (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Edward 321

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

I have not participated in the discussion at Talk:Dorothy Kilgallen and my only edit to Dorothy Kilgallen was a minor edit made in November of 2015.[12] As an uninvolved editor, having now read the discussion at Talk:Dorothy Kilgallen, deisenbe has done an impressive job of showing that consensus is against the inclusion of marginally sourced conspiracy theories about Kirgallen's death. deisenbe also appears to be refusing to accept that consensus as well as refusing to accept that they do not have reliable sources to back this non-notable conspiracy theory. Edward321 (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by NewYorkActuary

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I'm not sure why I'm listed here as a party. Although I did make a posting to the article's Talk page, it was in regards to an unrelated matter. But as long as I'm here, I'll offer a few brief comments.

This notion of Kilgallen being murdered is not new -- I remember hearing about it back in the '70s. No one back then was thinking of Wikipedia's notion of "reliable sources", but I still recall the general attitude being that this was just yet another wacky theory put forth by the JFK-conspiracy folks. And I don't think that has changed much in the intervening decades. It still looks like a fringe theory that should be accorded little (if any) weight in the article.

But I'm much more sympathetic to the notion that the existence of the theory can be given a mention. The article's Talk page offers four books that relate to the subject (either as "journalism" or as fiction). At least two of them are published by well-known imprints (Delacorte/Dell and Ballantine), and so can not be considered "self-published". But I'm also sympathetic to the fear that any mention at all (even if only to acknowledge the existence of the theory) might cause the article to become a coatrack for the fringe theory.

And so, I see good arguments on both sides and I suspect that nothing short of a Request for Comments is going to resolve this. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by JoJo Anthrax

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

As presented and discussed on the Talk Page, neither the details of the fringe theories concerning Kilgallen's death, nor the existence of such theories, are supported by reliable secondary sources. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by JzG

This dispute has been going on for over ten years. Here's a diff from 2007. We have seen an endless succession of demands to include the conspiracy theories, every time these demands are listened to politely and the proponents asked for reliable independent sources. None exist. Instead, the same handful of conspiracy theorist books and websites are proposed. As Cullen328 notes, I don't think we've seen a new source proposed for some time, and every one that has been proposed, fails WP:RS, often by a wide margin.

The dispute here is exactly as normal: one person won't take no for an answer. We could resolve it pretty quickly with a topic ban. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Dorothy Kilgallen#My_summary_of_why_I'm_asking_an_uninvolved_third_party_to_look_at_this_situation discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editors. This noticeboard is not usually a good way to resolve a dispute among ten editors. If the editors really want facilitated discussion, with this many editors, a Request for Mediation is more likely to be useful. However, if the editors really just want to establish consensus, the best way to do that is a Request for Comments. I am leaving this open in case a volunteer wants to try to handle a case with ten editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

I am willing to try to get this case moving, either in the direction of expansion or in the direction of a Request for Comments. I will advise the editors to re-read the statement by User:Cullen328 and take it into account. I will also advise the editors to read my personal mediation rules. Now, within 48 hours, will each editor please say what, if anything, they think needs to be done to improve this article's coverage of the death of Kilgallen (such as nothing, or mentioning the conspiracy theories but in a way that does not give them credit, or whatever else)? Please provide one paragraph only; we have ten editors. Do not reply to other editors. Do not talk about other editors. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

First statements by editors

  • Regarding the various conspiracy theories and books promoting them, in the absence of significant coverage by independent reliable sources they cannot be discussed in the article. There is a reason why we require reliable sources to be cited when introducing anything into an article that is not obviously non-controversial. What are we going to source any discussion of the fringe theories to? How are we going to answer them? You can't do it. See my statement above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • As directed above I have read the mediation rules of User:Robert McClenon and re-read the above statement by User:Cullen328. Neither the content of the conspiracy theories regarding Kilgallen's death, nor the existence of the theories themselves, are currently supported by independent, reliable secondary sources. Their addition to the article would therefore not improve it, and indeed would have the opposite effect. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I do not favor any additions regarding the conspiracy theory to the article at this time, based on the reliable sources that I have read. I might change my mind if currently unknown existing reliable sources are brought forward, or if new reliable sources are published that cover the matter in the future. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I continue to agree that the JFK angle is a wacky theory that should receive little weight in the article. However, I also find it exceedingly unusual that the Bibliography section of this biography does not list major works that have been written about the subject. Just to be clear -- I am not arguing that the Shaw book is a "major work" that should be listed in either the Bibliography or a Further Reading section. But if there are other books (or chapters in books or entries in specialist encyclopedias) that have been published by reputable publishers, then the reader should be told of their existence. Off hand, I am aware of only one -- the Israel biography from Delacorte/Dell. Expanding the Bibliography to include works from reputable publishers might go a long way to achieving a compromise between the opposing parties here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

Unless I hear a compelling argument otherwise, I will be closing this with the statement that there is a rough consensus against adding anything about Kilgallen's death, and that anyone who wants to add anything about her death can first go to a Request for Comments, which establishes a new consensus. This doesn't exclude NYA's suggestion to add other reputable works about her. (The Israel work is not a reputable work because its author is not a reputable author, being a convicted liar.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (if necessary)

I believe that we have a clear consensus reaffirming the consensus that has been in place for many years. If/when reliable sources take some kind of serious notice of this subject, we can revisit the topic. Until then we are where we are and absent a dramatic change to WP:PAG, consensus is not going to change. This issue has been an enormous multi-year time sink and frankly it's time to move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:Deletion review/Log/2018 April 17

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Snoopydaniels on 01:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The article on Gunter Bechly was deleted, ostensibly because he was not sufficiently notable. Two subsequent deletion reviews were closed with the deletion being upheld.

My participation begins with the most recent deletion review. I provided ample sources documenting his general notability and academic notability and quoted extensively from Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to support my position.

None of the advocates of upholding the deletion showed any real interest in discussing the issue. They failed to address the sources I provided and didn't even bother to justify their positions in terms of specific language in policies and guidelines. Many of them did little more than vote. One of them even suggested that I was bludgeoning because I was doing what editors are supposed to do: discuss.

An admin just closed the DRV claiming that there was a "consensus" to uphold the deletion. I showed him, based on WP:Consensus, that the real consensus was exactly the opposite, but he, too, showed no interest in a substantive discussion.

I'm not sure how we're supposed to arrive at a *real* consensus if nobody is willing to discuss the issue in any meaningful way. I'm also not sure how to make any progress when nobody on the other side seems to appreciate the nuances of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Any guidance or insight will be much appreciated.


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Before I got involved, this issue was discussed on the talk page, but since the page is now deleted that was no longer an option. A deletion review was submitted back in February, and I opened another deletion review In April. After the review was erroneously closed, I discussed that decision with the closing admin.

How do you think we can help?

It's entirely possible (though unlikely) that I'm just misreading the policies and guidelines. But since none of those in favor of deletion have bothered to justify their position in any detail, I have no idea how. My hope is that other editors not involved can clarify the relevant policies and guidelines and provide a collective third opinion.

I'm also hoping to find some guidance on how to proceed if there is a more appropriate procedure than the DRN.

Summary of dispute by Sandstein

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

Summary of dispute by RoySmith

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

Summary of dispute by Starblind

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

Summary of dispute by DDG

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

Summary of dispute by Szzuk

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

Summary of dispute by Hobit

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

Summary of dispute by Kevmin

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

Summary of dispute by Eggishorn

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

Summary of dispute by Indie_beetle

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

WP:Deletion review/Log/2018 April 17 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.

Talk:Splitting of_the_moon#factual_statements_on_theological_topics

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Fabrickator on 00:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Other user deleted a factual statement regarding the miracle of the splitting of the moon, as told in the Qur'an, offering the explanation that (in my own words) facts are irrelevant to a theological topic.

My counter is that this is about the visibility of a change to a physical object, or the appearance of such a change. There have been numerous claims made on the internet to the effect that actually happened, offering NASA photographs as evidence that a split had occurred. One can argue the credibility of such claims, but it is a factual issue, and facts surrounding this supposed event should not be suppressed merely because this is offensive to a particular theology.


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This is the first effort aside from the discussion on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

UtaUtaNapishtim states these facts are harmful to those who believe it happened.

On Santa Claus, no evidence is presented either way. That's because Santa's existence is not in dispute.

As indicated by the extent of discussion on the internet and UtaUtaNapishtim's own statements, it would appear that the splitting of the moon is actually in dispute.

You can resolve the dispute about page content by determining whether, based on this, such factual information is pertinent to the page.


Summary of dispute by UtaUtaNapishtim

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

Talk:Splitting of_the_moon#factual_statements_on_theological_topics 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.

Talk:Jehovah%27s Witnesses%27_handling_of_child_sex_abuse#Footnote_2_reliability

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by TruthSeekerJC on 11:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

After a lot of discussion with Jeffro77 about the reliability of footnote 2 on the Wikipedia article about JW abuse I feel that we're at an impasse. It would be helpful if an outside editor could review things.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We've had discussion going back and forth for a long time on this, and I put a lot of effort in to find the original source of a Norwegian book and find a Norwegian friend that could translate, but Jeffro77 quickly dismissed that and continued on with his original opinion despite being shown that the facts do not back up the original reference but in fact are almost the opposite.

How do you think we can help?

I feel that Jeffro77 is being extremely unreasonable in all of this and think that an objective editor looking at it will be able to see that.

Summary of dispute by Jeffro77

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

Firstly, TruthSeekerJC has not presented this issue in a neutral manner above.

The crux of the matter is that from the outset, TruthseekerJC has 'decided' that the rate of abuse among JWs 'must' be higher than in general society. Authorities such as the Royal Commission in Australia have consistently indicated that there are serious problems with the way JW 'elders' handle cases of abuse, but none of these authorities has suggested that the rate of abuse is higher than in general society. I have also demonstrated at article Talk that the rate of abuse actually is about the same as in general society with figures for Australia. Having found no statement in the large volume of information published by sources such as the Royal Commission that supports his view (though this would be of paramount concern to such authorities if it were the case), TruthseekerJC is desperately trying to assert his incorrect interpretation of a Norwegian source, apparently relying on a sliver of doubt that the foreign source 'might' support his viewpoint, without regard to the fact that his interpretation makes the comparison with the rate of abuse in general society in the same sentence of the source redundant. The Norwegian source indicates that there is no documentation indicating a higher rate of abuse among JW compared to the rate in general society. TruthSeekerJC contends that this means there is no documentation of the rate of abuse among JWs at all, (invalidating any comparison with the rate in general society). His preferred wording adds nothing to the article, as it essentially becomes, 'this source provides no useful comparison'. (His preferred wording also adds a separate statement that the study was critical of JW handling of abuse cases, however there are already more and better sources in the article that clearly express those other points.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A month ago, his preferred option was to delete the entire statement and source[13] because he didn't like the conclusion made. Now that he has decided (his interpretation of) the source supports his own point of view, he objects to it being deleted, even though his preferred wording adds no value to the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Jehovah%27s Witnesses%27_handling_of_child_sex_abuse#Footnote_2_reliability discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been extensive discussion on the article talk page. The other party has been properly notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - Does the filing party want a neutral party to facilitate discussion (a moderator), or does the filing party want a neutral party to say that the other party is being unreasonable? The latter appears to be what is requested, but isn't what this noticeboard is for, which is discussion to facilitate compromise. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

I will try to facilitate discussion. Please read my ground rules for the discussion. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issue is with respect to article content? (Do not state a complaint about editor conduct.) Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

First statements by editors

Authorities such as the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Australia have consistently indicated that there are serious problems with the way JW 'elders' handle cases of abuse, but none of these authorities has suggested that the rate of abuse is higher than in general society, even though that would be a primary concern if authorities thought it to be the case. I have also demonstrated at article Talk that the rate of abuse actually is about the same as in general society with figures for Australia. A Norwegian source indicates that the rate of abuse is not higher than in general society. The source does not support an interpretation that it is not known 'whether or not' abuse rates are higher than in general society. Any (incorrect) interpretation suggesting that the Norwegian source cannot assess the rate compared to general society makes the point from the source irrelevant. Either the source should be honestly presented as confirming that the rate of abuse has not been found to be higher than in general society, or the otherwise redundant point should not rely on the source at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Future Frigate_Program#BAE_Systems_(Type_26)

  – New discussion.
Filed by 62.102.148.166 on 23:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

User removes any and all info which may be negative for BAE, claiming arbitrarily info is oudated

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Added justification

How do you think we can help?

Revert deletions

Summary of dispute by Nick-D

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

Future Frigate_Program#BAE_Systems_(Type_26) 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.

Talk:UBS, Talk:Kanye West

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by LivinRealGüd on 19:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

LivinRealGüd is trying to clean up a couple of talk pages to make them more readable and remove unnecessary templates that only fetter the usage of the talk page. For example if the talk page is just arbitrarily ordered (if it has cautions all the way at the bottom, I'd bring it up; if the talk header was in the middle, I'd bring it to the top so editors can see it). In line with this I have also been cleaning up archives according to Wikipedia's policies and updating the talk pages accordingly. What seems like boring, uncontroversial administrative task seems to have bugged out Davey2010, who seems to deem them inappropriate. FYI the policies I use for clean up are Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Wikipedia:Talk page layout, and Help:Archiving a talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've discussed it fairly extensively on edit summaries citing various policies to no avail. After he reverted my edits are reverted him as I thought he was just drive-by reverting. He left a note on my talk page where I calmly explained to him the policies I was looking at and what I was doing. All he did was tell me to "stop messing with the layouts" clearly not reading my work or the polices.

How do you think we can help?

Either assist Davey2010 with learning these policies, showing me why following these policies is not constructive, or find some sort of compromise. It could very well be that I'm wrong, but I have been cleaning up talk pages for over a year without a single objection (even from really high profile pages; even got a couple 'thanks'). Lets get this tussle fixed.

Summary of dispute by Davey2010

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
  • In my eyes talkpages shouldn't be meddled around with, especially when like with Talk:Kanye West the edits consist of nothing more than layout changes and bot archive removals (the latter which should be replaced), We have 5 million articles so why are we focusing all of our time and energy on something that realistically no one cares about when in fact one edit and source a whole bunch of articles:,
We all enjoy doing different things but I feel this thing is of no help or benefit to our readers who are our main concern and top priority here - That's why we're all here - For our readers. –Davey2010Talk 20:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:UBS, Talk:Kanye West discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Note for moderator: I just realized the article talk pages don't really encapsulate what we are talking about too well. See User talk:LivinRealGüd#Talkpages: that explains the dispute perfectly. Talk:Kanye West comment refers to a specific issue with the article (not the dispute) and the Talk: UBS tussle was in the talk edit history, not the talk page. LivinRealGüd (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Dolores O%27Riordan#Suddenly_vs_unexpectedly_adjective_edit_war

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Jazzbox on 17:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

There is an argument about whether the use of "sudden" or "unexpected" is more descriptive regarding the recent death of celebrity. In my view "sudden" is fine but really everybody dies suddenly. Example: I know a man who had heart disease. Doctors gave him up to a year to live. One day his heart stopped and he simply died. His death was sudden, but not unexpected. In the O'Riordan case, her death was sudden and unexpected. The use of "unexpected" alone better conveys the fact that there was no known physical ailment that would have caused her death, nor has any cause yet been found. Given her age and background she would be expected to live 30 more years. The opposition argues that mainly since the sources say "sudden" we should too. I don't agree with this argument. At one point I used both words, and that was quickly deleted.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

talk page is at dead end

How do you think we can help?

A neutral party can weigh both arguments and we will abide by the decision. Both sides should be allowed to submit arguments and rebut the opposing argument.

Summary of dispute by SummerPhD

This is a one-against-many issue. Jazzbox does not like "suddenly", tying it to their theory that it is an "attempt by fans to lessen any likelihood that one would suspect suicide in this case." Three other editors (including me) disagree with them.

I am neither a fan of O'Riordan/the Cranberries nor do I particularly dislike them. I don't have any particular concerns about anyone's guess about the cause of death. I think this is an absurd dispute that will be completely moot within a month.

"Suddenly" ("quickly and unexpectedly") covers that apparently she was not expected to die and her death was not lingering. Additionally, it is used by the sources cited in the article and the published statement from her family.

"Unexpectedly" ("in a way that was not expected or regarded as likely") is less descriptive. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

This section is for a statement by SummerPhD. As the banner says, "Please do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread." If a volunteer does open the thread, rebuttal will be under control of the volunteer. This section is not for rebuttal. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Rebuttal.

I think your assumptions are as follows: 1) if three people hold an opinion then that renders the single person's opinion irrelevant or minor in comparison on the basis of majority of opinion which means less than strength of argument. 2) That a word once defined means the same thing regardless of context. 3) That because other sources use a word we are obliged to use the same words. I think that is basically what you are arguing.

You argument is not bad, but I think I have a stronger one, and it mostly hinges off of points #2 and #3. I have made a life study of AI. A friend told me once that "there are no independent concepts." I think it's a great interpretation also of words in that there are no independent words. A concept is about the same as a word. The problem is that when we abstract these concepts and words by the time we have separated them from their context they become very general. You say "suddenly includes unexpectedly." It is when we apply the word to the context at hand the word/concept takes on useful meaning. There is no one-size-fits-all formula here. OK, assuming "suddenly" includes the concept of "unexpectedly." By your argument, the unexpectedly here must mean the same thing in all cases in which suddenly is used. But it doesn't work that way as my examples show. A soldier in battle may die from a sudden bullet. But, we know that there is a strong likelihood this may happen, it is *not* really unexpected so it would not be fair to use "suddenly" in precisely the same sense as for the O'Reardon where the circumstances are totally different, because in her case we expect her to live around 30 more years (given her background). SO here, I have defeated your second claim. A word does not have a uniform and fixed meaning across all contexts.

As far as #1, I reject and #3 I would say that we should interpret the available information.

I still have not presented my case. I am just commenting on your opinion.

Summary of dispute by John

Nothing to add to what I said at article talk. Per above. --John (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bastun

Likewise, nothing to add to what I've said at the article talk page. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Dolores O%27Riordan#Suddenly_vs_unexpectedly_adjective_edit_war discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. This appears to be a one-against-many argument. Editors are advised not to bludgeon the process in a content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - I will point out that the proposed method of handling this case isn't typical of how this noticeboard works. This noticeboard is primarily oriented toward discussion leading to compromise, not to arbitration or adjudication by a volunteer. I also have my doubts as to whether the filing party is really prepared to accept the judgment of a neutral arbitrator, given that, on the talk page, they rejected one offer to resolve the dispute, and, here, they argued with another presentation as soon as it was presented. This may make it difficult to find a volunteer to handle this case, or at least to handle it in the way that the filing party has requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I think I can post now... I am not as seasoned as the other editors in the (what appears to be) highly regimented and procedure oriented forms of resolution. I will be happy to participate in a discussion leading to compromise. Jazzbox (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

Okay. I will try to facilitate discussion, although I am not optimistic. If anyone wants a different moderator, then they can ask me to step aside, and I will. Please read the mediation ground rules. This will be brief, since it supposedly has to do with one word. Will each editor please explain, in no more than one paragraph, what they think should be in the lede and why? I will not adjudicate or referee the matter. If the editors don't agree, we will use a Request for Comments. Be civil and concise. Now: What should it say, and why?

First statements by editors

  • 3 of 5 sources use "suddenly", the others use no modifier. As "suddenly" means "quickly and unexpectedly", using "unexpectedly" seems to be against saying she died quickly. There were no reports of lingering or progressing illness, hospitalizations, indications of declining health, etc. to contradict that the death was both unexpected and quick. I see no basis for (essentially) removing the sourced indications that her death was quick. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

.

We are here to talk about the article. If we want to talk about how to do dispute resolution, the talk page is thisaway.
  • Having cooled off a little bit, most of my frustration I think stems from the desire by the opposition to stick to procedures and precedent and quickly dismiss any threat to the order which holds wikipedia together. The claim is made that somewhat more than half of the sources say "suddenly."

So what? My argument is simply that everybody dies suddenly and not much is gained by saying "X died suddenly". As my examples illustrate a man with heart disease or a soldier near the front lines could die suddenly but NOT unexpectedly. The unexpected way that O'Reardon died was different in meaning. I think the opposition argument rests on the mistaken assumption that a dictionary definition means the same thing regardless of context. They say "unexpectedly is already within the definition of suddenly." But the context in our case is that the unexpected component is more relevant, so much so that it is better to just say "unexpectedly" than "suddenly." I would be happy though with a compromise that captured the issue that she died totally without known cause and there is no cause identified yet. That is really the issue. "Suddenly" alone is inadequate because as I argue -- everybody dies suddenly but with some we expected it (as in terminal illness) and others not.Jazzbox (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

I think that both sides have made their cases. We don't need to discuss the merits of either adjective further. Does anyone have a proposed compromise? Otherwise there are two choices. The first choice is that the editor who is in the minority can accept the consensus. The second is to use a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

"Died suddenly of an unknown cause" or the like would help. Jazzbox (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

It looks like I commented under the wrong heading. My compromise offer would be to use "died suddenly from an unknown cause" or perhaps "died suddenly from a cause either unknown or not disclosed to the public." This better captures the essence of the situation. Jazzbox (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

I will close this case in 24 hours. The question is only whether I should close it by saying that there is a 3-to-1 rough consensus, or whether I should submit a Request for Comments. If any one editor wants there to be an RFC, there will be an RFC. Otherwise there will be a rough consensus based on 3-1. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

I suppose you should submit a request for comments, but I don't see why there is no deliberation about the contents of the article. I think you are arguing that just because one side outnumbers the otherside, therefore they are correct. But that raises the possibility that there could be groupthink happening, and wikipedia would simply reinforce that. No one at all has refuted my argument or remarked on my compromise. Jazzbox (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Jazzbox previously favored "unexpectedly" -- half of the definition of "suddenly" ("quickly and unexpectedly"). Now they seem to accept the assumed "quickly", but want to add "of an unknown cause", which is unsourced ("unannounced" (sourced) may or may not be "unknown"). We can drag this out with an Rfc which may or may not be resolved before a cause is announced, then (presumably) "suddenly of an unknown cause" will just be "suddenly" anyway. I do not see group think here. I see a consensus that matches the sources. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Exercise

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by HCA on 17:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

User:Zefr has deleted a large section of fully referenced text on the effects of exercise on various non-human animals. The user justifies this by inappropriately applying the standards of a different scientific field, failing to consider WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, dismissing the importance of valid field of scientific inquiry, and dismissing valid, peer-reviewed scientific journals on the basis of apparent lack of prominence in their eyes. While I admit that I was rather confrontational on the talk page (I am sick of biomedical folks with unfounded superiority complexes), the user has not given a single good reason for the removal of referenced content which is abundantly used in other pages, aside from their own personal biases over what "passes muster". The section which has deleted was fully referenced with peer-reviewed sources, as secondary sources are not available, yet User:Zefr dismisses these references without cause.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempting to reason and cite legitimate WP policies, to no avail

How do you think we can help?

Restoration of the deleted content and clarification for User:Zefr that they cannot simply delete content on a whim.

Summary of dispute by Zefr

The dispute began only today, with my challenges and guideline support stated here. HCA has made no attempt to resolve the differences through recruiting consent with other editors. I suggest he do so, and wait a week or so until more than two other editors agree. Further, HCA seems to be defending the section based on his field of academic sudy, User:HCA, rather than providing encyclopedic content sourced by established content and strong reviews. The section in question is fringe to the subject of exercise, WP:UNDUE. Having basic research papers published in journals does not always qualify for an encyclopedia, WP:NOTJOURNAL. --Zefr (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It says, "Summary of dispute by Zefr". It doesn't say to continue argument here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do you even read the WP policies you link to? Or just blindly grab anything which you think might support your case without reading it? WP:UNDUE does NOT apply here, as that is exclusively for WP:NPOV issues (the title of page it's on may have clued you in), nor does WP:NOTJOURNAL (which concerns making the article accessible to most readers), nor does WP:FRINGE (which describes theories running contrary to accepted evidence of most workers, not fields which simply have lower rates of publication). Your prior citation of WP:MEDANIMAL is wrong because the statements in question concern the animals themselves, not inferring human data from them, and your citation of WP:PRIMARY is flatly contradicted by the very text of the policy, which states that primary sources are OK if used to "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" (quote from the policy you are mis-using), as well as WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. You have not presented a single justification for this change which has held water, not cited a single policy on which you are not flatly wrong, yet have steadfastly refused to listen to any attempt to explain (which means any attempt by other editors would be just as futile). HCA (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Exercise discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. However, continuing the discussion for more than 24 hours, and being civil and concise in the discussion, might be useful. I will be allowing another 24 to 48 hours for discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • At this point, it is clear that no consensus will be reached. We either need additional intervention to clarify the state of several WP policies, or to have this forwarded straight to WP:ANI for persistent deletion of cited content. HCA (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hong Kong people

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 203.160.71.190 on 13:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC).
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The user discriminate the people who speak Putonghua (official language of Hong Kong), and reverting the edits continuously

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have stated the fact (兩文三語), but the user involved neglects the fact, and just asked me to cite the source

How do you think we can help?

Restore the edit that states Hong Kong people speak Putonghua

Summary of dispute by Citobun

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

Hong Kong people 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_163&oldid=973529289"