Conduct dispute. DRN does not handle cases which are about conduct. For conduct complaints, speak to an administrator or, after carefully reading and following the instructions, file a complaint at ANI. This case can be refiled as a content case, but in that case only discuss the content issues in question, in detail, not about any other editor's motives, their biases, their conflicts of interest, their skills, their habits, their competence, their POV, their POV-pushing, or any other behavior or conduct; only talk about edits, not editors. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:45, 7 December 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.
single time to my discussion specifically about their edits, and their responses completely ignored the
problem I had with their edits. Those two users have ignored subsequent requests to comment on which they
think aren't reliable and why. User:Retimuko has reverted my edits multiple times, and yet hasn't said a
word about it on the discussion I created about this.
User:Ladislav_Mecir has been the only person willing to discuss, however he hasn't been very cooperative.
His opinion is that the source I chose are not reliable, but he hasn't given me good reasons he thinks that.
He chose to focus on the only one, of 8 sources I have to choose from, that is self-published, and only gave
reasons that contradicted wikipedia policy. At first, he claimed that self-published sources can't be used at
all. Then once I show him that wikipedia policy accepts self-published sources in certain cases, and that this
situation met all the criteria to be accepted, he claims that the source isn't giving information about
themselves, when it clearly is. When asked to comment on the other sources, which should all be less
contentious since they're not self-published, he completely ignored me. This isn't the behavior of someone
that wants to ensure sourced quality content on wikipedia.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I've started a thread to disucss this issue. I've invited the users involved to comment and discuss. I've discussed extensively with the one user willing to have a discussion. I've proposed alternate edits based on the discussion with better and more sources. I've tried (and failed) to gain an understanding of why these users think my edits aren't up to wikipedia standards.
How do you think we can help?
I'd like to get external opinions on whether my edits are up to wikipedia standards or not (and if not, why not), as well as get opinions on whether the conduct of these editors (that are consistently reverting the work of me and others) is appropriate behavior.
Summary of dispute by primefac
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Praxidicae
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Ladislav_Mecir
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Jtbobwaysf
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by C933103
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
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 at the article talk page. Not all of it has been civil. The filing editor has listed the other editors, but has not notified them. The other editors must be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 7 December 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.
Closed due to lack of response. There has been no response after waiting for more than two days. Editors should resume discussion at the article talk page. If there is a current consensus against the inclusion of the signature, then the signature should stay out until there is a Request for Comments. Since this is a yes-no question, a Request for Comments is the most reasonable next step. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 7 December 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.
There is a dispute on whether or not to keep the signature of Alfred Jodl in his Infobox. Following 6 years with no problems, it was removed because it had "no encyclopedic value". The counter argument was every other biography on Wiki has a signature, which was responded with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It was then argued that the signature should have some significance. It was pointed out that the reason Jodl was charged at the Nuremberg trials was because of his signature on certain orders, likewise was his signature on the instruments of unconditional surrender, making the signature historically important. The counter argument for this was that it was the "signing" not the "signature" that was important. There have been more than one instance where it has been asked what constitutes as significant signature, since being on the instruments of unconditional surrender for Germany in WWII, was said to not be sufficient, it has however not been addressed.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
There has been a thorough discussion on the talk page, it has however gone nowhere.
How do you think we can help?
Please go through the arguments, and see if you can end this back and fourth.
Summary of dispute by Beyond My Ken
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
There is a consensus on the talk page not to have the signature in the article, so there is no dispute to resolve. In any case, I would not be participating in a procedure in which the filer has not been able to point to anything other than WP:OTHERSTUFFHASIT -- i.e. a non-existent policy. That amounts to WP:IDONTLIEKYOURREMOVAL, which is not a basis for a legitimate DR case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Rja13ww33
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
To me, it is significant. We are talking about his signature on a document that (in part) ended the most destructive and significant conflict in human history (to date). I see no issue with it being on there (as it was for years).Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:04, 2 December 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 Drmies
Robert McClenon, I just wanted to say how much I appreciate you handling these disputes that to some seem mundane, but to others assume gargantuan proportions. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Alfred Jodl#Signature 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 and inconclusive discussion on the article talk page, and the filing editor has notified the other editors, so that moderated discussion can be conducted here when a volunteer agrees to moderate. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer Question and Comment - Is this content dispute of a yes-no nature? Are there only two possible answers, include the signature and do not include the signature? If this is a yes-no type of question, there is unlikely to be a compromise, and the purpose of moderated discussion here is to achieve compromise. If this is a yes-no type of question, a Request for Comments is more likely to resolve the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
First Statement by Moderator
I am willing to try to conduct moderated discussion to see whether a compromise can be worked out. If this is a yes-no question, then we will resolve the dispute by a Request for Comments. Please read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules and follow the rules. Be civil and concise. Will each editor please state, first, whether there are any issues besides whether to include the signature, and, second, in one paragraph, why should or should not the signature be included. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 4 December 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.
Closed due to inadequate discussion and inadequate notice. While there was discussion on the article talk page, it was not recent. The filing editor has now listed the other editors, but has not notified them, and notice is required. Discussion should resume at the article talk page. A new thread can be opened here if discussion at the talk page is lengthy and inconclusive. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 7 December 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.
This is regarding an airport called 'Tirupati airport' with IATA: TIR and ICAO: VOTP in India.
This airport was declared international by Government of India in June 2017. This airport has got all immigration and custom facilities established and post which this was added as 20th public international airport by current govenment of India.
An airport to become International as per Indian aviation rules, an airport is deemed international post customs and immigration facities.It has to first get environment clearnace followed by establishing customs and immigration facilities.
This Tirupati airport has got all the above mandatory facilities and thus declared international in june 2017 by Indian aviation ministry.
Below are the copy of official reference from government of india.
3. https://www.aai.aero/sites/default/files/national-register/Tirupati%20REPORT.pdf
Hence I have added international tag in article main paragraph.
There is a user called 'LeoFrank' was enaginging in frequest reversion of the above fact and deeming it as 'domestic airport' in article just because no international operator/flight yet from airport.
He says airport shall be first becomes customs airport and then converts to international which is not at all correct. In india if I consider few airports like Coimbatore, kochi, trichy and vijayawada these are converted from domestic to international or directly built international cum domestic. User fails to produce any reference to his statements and indulging to override government data which was passed by official GO. User is also attacking me personally.
He says am native of tirupati city and hence I am fighting but this is incorrect. I am just fighting aginst wrong content. He says 'IATA gives definition to airports' this says he is not aware about IATA well.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have rasied this matter on airport talk page and also on his and my talkpage. other users supported to retain the international tag in aiport page. If required I have even request this information again from governement of India under Right to information Act ,India.
I request you to go through the facts and provide your feedback and help to retain correct information in article.
How do you think we can help?
Please go through the various references from government of India G.O which I have mentioned in the above message and help to retain the correct information. I request valuable feedback from other users too. Thanks
Summary of dispute by LeoFrank
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Tirupati Airport 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. It appears that three editors have taken part in the discussion. Only one of them has been listed (although one of them is the filing editor). All editors should be listed. The editors must be notified of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 1 December 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.
Closed. We have not been able find a moderator to continue this discussion. It is not clear whether moderated discussion will be useful, because this appears to be a dispute between nationalistic camps that should be suppressed via discretionary sanctions. The editors may resume discussion on the article talk page. If a volunteer moderator shows up, they may volunteer at the article talk page. Report disruptive discussion or disruptive editing at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 10 December 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.
After many disputes spanning several months, a half dozen independent editors ("moderators") have expressed unanimous concern with regards to the structure of the article (in violation of NPOV, theories presented separately from the evidence, etc). While most editors expressed a desire to re-structure the article, the process has failed in practice. While some editors have taken the "moderators'" suggestions to heart, the others keep reverting and editing towards the old and failed structure. Most recently, an independent editor suggested that we should "present no evidence without explaining its relevance to an Origin of the Romanians theory". Most of the usual page editors voiced their agreement and yet some are forcefully resisting the transition to an article that uses that piece of advice as its overriding principle. We'd appreciated a fresh view on the process.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
We have opened a case on the NPOV noticeboard but that moderator's opinion (" So I say that this is a breach of WP:NPOV - that what the sources say is misrepresented (removed from the context, that is one of the three theories) ") was ignored by the "resisting" editors.
How do you think we can help?
I believe an opinion on the subject (re-structuring the article) would establish a firm guideline to be followed in the future and put an end to the countless debates.
Summary of dispute by Cealicuca
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The subject of the article is debated in academic circles - and the scholars have come up with answers. Those answers are represented by several theories - so our job as editors would be to present those theories in a non-biased way. Yet still present them clearly.
It is not our job to collect and categorize evidence, to weigh the validity of a mainstream theory or another, to say that the arguments used by one theory are right or wrong, to run around finding bits and pieces of whatever statement made by otherwise WP:RSs that are, in fact, taken from articles or books that don't actually deal with the subject in terms of the framework of any of the mainstream theories. As it stands the article "collects" various bits and pieces that, in the opinion of one editor or another are "related" to the Origin of Romanians.
In short, this should not be an (original) research article on the subject, but an article that reflects the academic research. The article should not circumvent the framework of the theories (which is a clever device used by some editors, in conjunction with WP:NPOV, to argue in favor of disconnecting the academic's opinions stated within a certain theoretical framework from the theory itself).
Our job is to summarize and clearly present the academic opinion on the matter, and we need to concern ourselves with determining if a source is indeed a WP:RS, with concepts like WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV etc.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Robert McClenon There hasn't been any progress on the Talk page. In fact, it's gotten worse, as one editor (Borsoka) has already made several edits without any consensus whatsoever, running roughshod over the article as well as the admins' directives. So, I was just wondering if this dispute resolution is still a go, or should I pursue other ways to resolve the issues (such as RfCs, etc)? Obviously, if it'll take a little longer we can all wait as long as we know that help is on the way, so to speak. I just don't know how exactly these things are being handled and I don't want you to think that the core issues have somehow vanished into thin air. Cheers.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Iovaniorgovan - Have you read my previous comments here? Dispute resolution at this noticeboard has never been a go. This case is not likely to be resolved within one to three weeks by a volunteer at this noticeboard. A request for a mediator who will attempt heavyweight mediation, or for two or three volunteer mediators to attempt tag-team mediation, has not been answered. The article page in question is already subject to special restrictions under ArbCom discretionary sanctions. If, as you say, an editor has ignored the directives of administrators, that is a conduct issue that should be reported at Arbitration Enforcement. My advice is that, if an editor has ignored instructions from administrators, the conduct issue should be reported at Arbitration Enforcement. I hope that clarifies things. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
This dispute has gone on and one for months in various places, at the article talk page, Talk:Origin of the Romanians, at the neutral point-of-view noticeboard (NPOVN), at the original research noticeboard, at WP:ANI, and at user talk pages. I have not reviewed the discussions at length; they are lengthy and appear to be inconclusive. There are mentions, both here and on the article talk page, of moderators. I do not know who are being characterized as moderators, and do not see any obvious evidence that anyone is acting as a moderator. Perhaps that is a reference to neutral editors at the neutral point of view noticeboard.
There are two procedural barriers to taking up discussion here at DRN. The first, which can be resolved, is that the filing party has not notified the other editors. They can resolve that with proper notice. The second is that dispute resolution is already in progress in two places, at the neutral point of view noticeboard, and at the article talk page in the form of a Request for Comments, and an RFC takes precedence over all other dispute resolution. The RFC is due tor robo-closure in a few days, and can then be formally closed by an uninvolved neutral editor. The discussion at NPOVN appears to be just going on and on, and I would suggest that it be closed as No Consensus.
Discussion here is voluntary. (An RFC is binding and is not voluntary. WP:ANI is binding and is not voluntary.)
This dispute is not the sort of dispute that is likely to be resolved here, because this noticeboard is for lightweight cases that can be resolved in one to two weeks, or at most about three weeks, and this controversy has already been going on for months. This would have been the sort of case that would be right for the Mediation Committee, a heavyweight process, but the community has, in my view foolishly, chosen to get rid of the Mediation Committee, and now we have a case that would have been appropriate. If the editors want this case resolved by a content dispute resolution process, and if they actually include all or at least most of the editors, it can be handled here by a process that is similar to what MedCom would have done, with an experienced mediator, and discussion going on for months rather than weeks. One difference is that MedCom proceedings are privileged, while DRN proceedings are not privileged. That may be an advantage of not using MedCom, because any difficult editors will have the sword of Damocles of Arbitration Enforcement (AE). (Participants should agree in advance, as a precondition, that they know that both WP:ANI and AE sanctions are available.
Has the filing party listed most of the editors, or only a subset of the editors? Dispute resolution here will only work if all or nearly all of the editors are identified and agree to participate, and if nearly all of the editors want to resolve this dispute by mediated settlement. If there are editors who are not interested in editing collaboratively or who edit disruptively, they will have to be sanctioned before dispute resolution can be worked.
Please notify the other editors. Please have the discussion at NPOVN closed as No Consensus. Do the editors want to try MedCom-style mediation at DRN?
Robert McClenon, regarding your mediation committee point -- there's got to be a place to do it, might as well be here. If you'd agree that it's best that multiple mediators here can help and contribute, instead of the usual one volunteer mediator, then the heavyweight dispute mediation could succeed. ProgrammingGeek talktome21:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
User:ProgrammingGeek - I personally am very skeptical of the ability to resolve a dispute with multiple mediators, who are likely to have different styles and may accidentally get in the way of each other. If two or more volunteers want to try that, it is fine with me. I won't be one of them. If multiple mediators can resolve the dispute, that will be good. If one experienced mediator can resolve the dispute, that will be good. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Further Discussion of Origin of the Romanians
The other two editors have been formally notified. This is my first time filing for such a motion, so any kind of guidance would be greatly appreciated. Such as, what is the best way to move forward with this dispute?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Before summarizing the dispute, I would like to know who are the parties involved. There are more than three editors discussing the issue on the Talk page. We should either involve all of them or limiting this discussion to two editors representing concurring views. I prefer the second option. The present status (two editors against one) could hardly be acceptable for me. Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, we should invite one other Hungarian editor, for balance. I would think KIENGIR, since he's been involved more often, the other ones just drop in once every blue moon (that is, they perform edits/reversals more than actually participating in discussions).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I can imagine a situation when two editors (each representing one view point) discuss the issue and also a situation when all editors are involved in the dispute, but I think all other approaches lack logic. Why should we ignore non-Hungarian editors? Borsoka (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The other editors were not deeply involved in all our past discussions so it wouldn't make sense to invite all of them. As far as I can tell we're not about to take a vote here. So if the four of us (two Romanians and two Hungarians) does not seem balanced enough for you then let's let the volunteers decide what's fair. p.s. I'm not aware of any non-Romanian or non-Hungarian editor having been involved in all our discussions. Iovaniorgovan (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I am ready to discuss the issue either with you alone (as you started the process), or with all other editors involved, but I will not let me draw down to the level of this Romanians vs Hungarians or Hungarians vs Romanians approach. If the volunteer forced me to accept your proposal I would insist on choosing a Romanian editor. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"I'm not aware of any non-Romanian or non-Hungarian editor having been involved in all our discussions.
You do now. And your repeating nationalist battleground mentality (Romanians editors vs. Hungarian editors) will never be appreciated. I'd say all editors should be involved. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I am very sceptical that we can solve anything here. First of all now we have got a "citation needed" tag at the end of the FIRST sentence. It's is disruptive editing again. If you know the topic you don't have to be genius to find out that the scholars fundamentally debate between two main theories. There are several also well known "hybrid" theories as well (e.g. admigration). I don't even understand why this issue emerged now here. When Iovaniorgovan started to edit the article it lost its neutrality immediately. However, he starts endless senseless misleading conversations everywhere on Wikipedia to justify his non-neutral intentions. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
He made exactly 3 brief comments on the current page (which runs for miles). I wouldn't exactly call that "active" participation. But again, irrelevant to me.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Back-and-forth discussion between would-be parties is not permitted while we are still trying to determine whether and how the case will be moderated. All editors are cautioned that incivility may result in sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
In the BLP article Tha Hla Shwe, it was created from redirect by an IP editor on 4 December. Two experienced editors restored redirect which I disagree. IMO, the BLP is notable because the subject of the article had held highest-level appointed administrative post at a major academic institution (University of Medicine 2, Yangon) and was appointed as President of country-level Red Cross Society.
My point is it is better to discuss in AFD discussion if this article is not notable. The article should not redirect to Myanmar Red Cross Society. But User:Polyamorph restored redirect and has no intention of starting an AfD discussion.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I stated my opinion in the talk page. I restored the article one time.
How do you think we can help?
Option A: Restore the article from redirect if the article is notable.
Option B: Restore and nominate for deletion if the article does not meet the relevant criteria for Wikipedia.
Summary of dispute by Polyamorph
As stated on the talk page, I do not believe notability has been demonstrated due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Redirection preserves the page history and allows expansion of the article should sources arise, so AfD is not appropriate. I do not feel there was any need to bring a case here. Note attacks made against good faith editors in edit summaries.Polyamorph (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Onel5969
Very poorly sourced article. While due to the incivility exhibited in the article edit summaries, I decided to simply ignore the page, I agree with Polymorph's assessment on the talk page. I think editors' time would be better served if they spent as much time providing better sourcing to the article than creating DR. If the article were better sourced, there would be no dispute. Onel5969TT me11:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer Note - The issue here appears to be whether the individual, Tha Hla Shwe, is sufficiently notable for a separate article, or whether the name should be a redirect to the national Red Cross society. That is a dispute that is best resolved by a formal Articles for Deletion discussion, with the choices being Keep or Redirect as an alternative to deletion. Two of the editors who favor redirection say that there is no need for an article and no need for a deletion discussion, but, if an editor thinks in good faith that an article is appropriate, a deletion discussion is a better way to resolve the dispute than redirect-warring, and the redirect-warring is about to go to 3RR, which should be avoided. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer Note - This does not appear to be the sort of case that can be addressed at this noticeboard, because this appears to be a deletion discussion. The editors are advised that they have three choices:
I do not see revert-warring. Multiple good faith users have restored the redirect, I restored it twice, but one of those restorations was in response to uncivil edit summaries which have no place on wikipedia, and no one is close to breaking WP:3RR. Polyamorph (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
As an administrator who happened to be watching this page, I concur with the above statement by User:Robert McClenon. WP:AFD is a logical choice, unless either User:Polyamorph or User:Phyo WP will commit here to making no further reverts. Anybody who reverts again to either restore the article or re-make the redirect is risking a block for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
As repeatedly stated, the BLP requires sources that demonstrate notability. AfD is not the appropriate forum because no one is advocating deletion and AfD is not for cleanup. But note I neither intend to edit this page again, open an AfD, or comment any further on this matter. Polyamorph (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Two editors favour redirection and two favour restoration. As I think the article is notable, how should I proceed? Can I resolve the dispute by opening a deletion discussion with keep vote? --Phyo WP(message)12:40, 6 December 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.
It isn't clear what the purpose of this filing is. If the filing party thinks that the article should be deleted, they can use Articles for Deletion to request that the article be deleted. However, it seems that the filing party simply wants a meta-discussion about the process of accepting the article. If so, that isn't a content dispute and can be done off-line. This doesn't seem to be a useful use of this forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 10 December 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.
The subject is Sara Ali Khan, an Indian actress from a prominent film family (and thus whose notability had earlier been debated on grounds of popularity) who just released her first film on 7 December, 3 days ago. Her second film is set to release on 28 December, just weeks away. In late November it was discussed/decided that her page should be kept a redirect (and thus the article in the draft stage) until further consensus, as at that time she had not released her first film. On December 7, I submitted the draft for a review to be moved into mainspace; an advanced user told me that she didn't qualify for notability, as the WP:NACTOR guidelines state that she needs to have multiple (i.e. more than 1 film) releases, and that I should wait until 28 December to resubmit. I accepted this.
Yet the same day, some users decided that she HAD achieved notability (as per WP:GNG, not per WP:NACTOR) and removed the page from its redirect state and began working on it. 2 users, specifically, agreed amongst themselves that she was notable, without waiting to discuss it or achieve consensus with other users before doing so. Later, a few more users came in and some passively agreed while others didn't have an opinion. So, consensus wasn't really achieved.
There are cases where other actors have tried to have pages created, but were rejected because they didn't have a second film out yet (needing "Multiple" films as per WP:NACTOR). For example, Janhvi Kapoor - her first film came out in July 2018, with a second to release in 2020 - yet she was denied her own page even with 1 film done. So the point is that consensus isn't clear as to what the policy is because it isn't applied fairly to actresses/actors across the board.
The users who started Sara Ali Khan's article stated that "her debut performance has garnered significant commentary and coverage, and her second release is right around the corner." But how do you define 'the corner?' And press coverage is only high now.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
We have talked about it at length on the talk page, over a period of 2 days. Certain users got tired of having to explain themselves, so we've had to resort to a dispute resolution.
How do you think we can help?
By clarifying the policy (or helping us to clarify) when exactly an actor like this is considered notable enough to have their own page - do we follow NACTOR or GNG? (She gets decent press coverage high now because of her first release), and has only had one film release. Even if she will have a second release in a few weeks - how far in the future should a second release be before she is considered notable now? Because we can get into WP:CRYSTALBALL territory pretty easily.
Summary of dispute by Krimuk2.0
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DBigXray
@Rush922: It appears to me that you are upset that your AFC was declined. Please note that AFC reviewers are also humans who have opinions. You always have an option to discuss the notability with the AFC reviewers to get a consensus with them and convince one way or the other. There are several instances that I know of where an AFC reviewer changed his decision after discussions. You don't even need to dig deeper to find those discussions. Just look at the AfD page, where you will find so many editors(and many of them very experienced) disagreeing with each other on the subject of notability. If one of those AfD contributors had reviewed that Article (which is currently at AfD) at AFC, it is quite likely that their review decision would be accept or decline (and similar to their !vote such as "keep" or "delete") depending on the individual contributors. It is not easy to judge borderline cases of notability and we have to give some room for the AFC reviewers.
Regarding this particular case, The article has survived (so far) because there is a rough "consensus" among the editors at the talk page that the article can be allowed. Had it been the reverse, where the consensus was she still doesn't deserve an individual article, I would have restored the redirect.
I don't believe this DRN was necessary as the talk page discussion was on-going. If you are expecting policy changes, as you have suggested above, DRN is not the right place. This DRN should be closed IMHO. --DBigXrayᗙ11:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the information, but I'm not upset that the AFC was declined- I'm not attached to the page in particular - I'm only irked that you and Krimuk2.0 apparently just went and created the Sara page at your own discretion, because you two agreed she was notable, along with RajFilmBuff. That's only 3 people. There was hardly a consensus to keep going, especially when Qualitist kept disagreeing with you.Rush922(talk)13:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Can I explain myself again! By the time I supported, the article was already created. If you were to count all people who support after the creation, that's more than three. RajFilmBuff (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Rush922: please accept my apology if any of my action irked you in any way. I was not aware of the incidents concerning you or this article elsewhere such as your AFC being denied etc. My action was based on my own personal judgement of the subjects notability. The talk page consensus was 2 weeks old and was stale in my opinion, Hence I started a fresh thread explaining why I did what I did, and other folks weighed in with their opinions. I think this is all I have to say to this thread and nothing more to add here. --DBigXrayᗙ13:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Well thanks but I wouldn't say there's a need to apologize to me personally; it's just that I don't think you went about it the right way. Two weeks isn't that long for a consensus to become stale, in any case. People have respected consensus on articles that have been held for months in advance. Qualitist at least had the wherewithal to respect this one before thinking of making serious changes. That's just my opinion, lets see if any others agree.Rush922(talk)13:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by RajFilmBuff
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
We do not require a dispute resolution when Rush922 is currently the only user who is on the other side of the dispute and leaning somewhat middway. It also screams of WP:LISTEN. Currently, out of the 13 users involved, no one has blanket opposed the article's creation, and a majority have supported creation. It indicates a consensus. Rush himself has not clarified their stance. The policy was already clarified by Robert above. That simply indicates there is no dispute. As for Janhvi Kapoor, that's WP:OSE and needs to be settled at that talk page. RajFilmBuff (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Qualitist
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by CyphoidBomb
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Onel5969
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Bradv
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by NJIndia
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by PRehse
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by GSS
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Winged_Blades_of_Godric
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Robert_McClenon
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Krimuk2.0 and DBigXray have stated their points, that they believe Sara Ali Khan is notable, and Krimuk got annoyed at having to explain himself so I'm not sure he will choose to participate. He said: "I think it's quite appropriate to have the article in the mainspace now as her debut performance has garnered significant commentary and coverage, and her second release is right around the corner." My point of contention is the fact that: A) 'Right around the corner' isn't specific and anyone else in the future can justify an actor having a release 2 or 3 months away, or more, as being "right around the corner." When does around the 'corner,' guarantee future notability now? B) DBigXray was using page views as a means to validate the subject; but that doesn't mean anything in and of itself and doesn't guarantee notability. A page created on Taimur Ali Khan would get a lot of views, but the kid isn't notable. C) Just because her debut performance garnered commentary, that only gives her hype now - it doesn't guarantee it at any time in the future. Plenty of other unheard of actors get press coverage when their film releases. And just because she is from a famous film family doesn't mean she is guaranteed to remain in the public eye as someone notable. Sooraj Pancholi, son of actor Aditya Pancholi, only had 1 film release, yet the media hasn't talked about him in a while and so he doesn't have his own page. So the scope of looking at media coverage is too thin. D) Were Krimuk2.0 and DBigXray following proper procedure when they just decided to remove the redirect and started editing the article, even when consensus wasn't achieved? Qualitist was discussing the issue with DBigXray from 10:00-11:22 on 8 December on the talk page, and all the while DBigXray and Krimuk2.0 were busy editing the page. RajFilmBuff even requested content to be moved from Sara's Draft page to the article - how is that allowed? We have to go through the article review process and get its approval in such an instance. Robert_McClenon advised me as such. Correct me if I'm mistaken.Rush922(talk)11:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
A) 16 days. B) Pageviews are not considered for notability. It was just a demonstration that the subject is talked about now. C) WP:OSE. D) If you put all that "they violated policy while first creating the article" aside, then please look at the current consensus, which leans in favour of an article. As WP:AFC says, "Only experienced editors should ever create an article from scratch. Others should first create a draft page and build the article there". The AFC isn't a compulsory thing. I think the so called 'dispute' is arising from misunderstandings of policies. Anyway, I have clarified myself. RajFilmBuff (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
16 days--for what? Is there some guideline that states 16 days in the future is an acceptable marker for current notability? If so please point me to it. Please stop referencing WP:OSE as that is an essay and isn't a guideline, and thus hasn't been thoroughly vetted, so there's no reason for me to follow it. As far as the current consensus thing is concerned, I don't believe there is because we've only really heard from a few people who agreed with it - yourself included- and haven't heard from other opinions. Qualitist pinged people who he said supported the status quo, yet they did not reply yet - so they should get a chance too before you say it's a 'consensus.'Rush922(talk)12:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
OSE is commonly accepted- What is considered satisfactory for one may not be accepted for another. I believe all those who were since pinged have edited on Wikipedia, and their refusal to reply usually signifies disinterest. What would you instead propose, ping them continuously until you annoy them to reply? RajFilmBuff (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh it's 'commonly accepted', is it? Who exactly are these common people who accept it, and what gives them any authority? Regardless of how widely it's accepted, if it's an essay there's no compulsion to follow it - it can reflect either a majority OR minority viewpoint. So please stop making these claims without being able to back them up. And I only just created this DNR a little while ago, people may want to collect their thoughts before replying; why are you so eager to prove that people are disinterested? Don't presume to speak on their behalf, or mine. I'm not set out to annoy anyone, just get a fair response. Rush922(talk)13:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
You certainly don't have a compulsion to follow it word-by-word, but what that essay speaks is common sense. x and y are actors. x is a debutant, they cannot have an article on Wikipedia, but that doesn't necessarily mean y cannot have an article. Frankly, I think this is just making a mountain out of a molehill. A dispute resolution is required only when there is a dispute regarding an article's content, not for disagreements regarding others' behavior or proposing new rules. The pings in question were those on Talk:Sara Ali Khan; Qualitist and DBigXray had together notified every user involved in the previous discussion, and two days have hence passed. All of them were since active on Wikipedia. There were no major voices of dissent in the discussion which invited comments from seven users, with you yourself not yet clarifying your stand. What is our dispute then? Heck, our dispute overview is itself misleading, and creates the wrong impression. Expect no more reply from me on this matter, I have made clear myself through and through. RajFilmBuff (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer Note - It is not entirely clear what the objective of this filing is, but the underlying issue seems to be that the filing party has concerns about the acceptance of a draft article via Articles for Creation. The filer may be saying that the article should not have been accepted and should not be in article space. In that case, they can file an Articles for Deletion discussion. If the filer just thinks that the discussion prior to acceptance of the article was sub-optimal, it isn't clear that meta-discussion is useful, and in any case this doesn't seem to be a right forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 10 December 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.
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. Discussion has now begun with an additional participant at the article talk page. If it becomes stalled after additional discussion, this case may be refiled. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:54, 13 December 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.
Repeated reversions here, here, and [1] without pointer to specific policy text.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Repeated requests in edit summary undos of reversions
How do you think we can help?
Indicate applicability or not of policy identified by reverter
Summary of dispute by Galassi
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Stephen F. Cohen#How is this OR?? discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - There have been brief comments on the article talk page, but they have not been adequate discussion. Continue discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon, I see you responded on Galassi's talk page on the section preceding the one of concern here — which is edits to Stephen F. Cohen. I have repeatedly asked Galassi via edit summary and on the talk page to provide pointers to specific policy text, but none has been provided. There is nothing more I can do from this end. Thx, Humanengr (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer Note - Edit summaries are not a discussion. The discussion on the talk page has been inadequate. If you are saying that one party is not engaging in discussion, then read this essay. In particular, in this case, if one party is reverting edits with unsupported claims that they are original research (and I am not saying that is the case), the options include continued discussion, a request to the original research noticeboard, or, after reading the bommerang essay, a report to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 12 December 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.
Closed as premature and incomplete. Most of the discussion at the article talk page was in 2017. There was one comment by the filing party and one comment by another editor recently, which does not constitute real discussion. The filing unregistered editor has only listed one editor and has not notified that editor. The editors should continue discussion at the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be made here. Disruptive editing can be reported at WP:ANI, but read the boomerang essay first. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 14 December 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.
Inforbox 'origin' section, Pakistan was removed from the infobox by an editor about a year ago. Since then despite discussion efforts, a couple editors believe they have the right to dictate what is right and wrong. Editing on this page is heavily based on bias and personal opinion, rather than following norms on pages of this nature. For example other tank pages developed by more than one country feature both countries in the infobox, however this page has been targeted specfically due to the personal feelings of some editors.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
My last discussion on talk page under 'Unmerge al-khalid and mbt-2000' has no response.
How do you think we can help?
Brining in editors familiar with pages similar to this topic, and to consider 2 things:
1) Add Pakistan back to the infobox in the 'origin' section
2) Consider unmerging MBT-2000 and the Al-Khalid.
One or the other must happen.
Summary of dispute by Loopy30
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Al-Khalid tank discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed. There doesn't seem to be much interest in discussion here, and participation is voluntary. Resume discussion at the article talk page. Be aware that disruptive editing is subject to general sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 16 December 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.
Note that I'm reposting this with a focus on the content, as suggested by User:TransporterMan.
A number of editors are consistently reverting additions to the page List of bitcoin forks even for additions that are well sourced. Multiple users have complained on the page that too much content has been removed. From what I can gather, these users seem to think the sources I used aren't reliable sources, that sufficient notability hasn't been shown, or both. I discussed this extensively with User:Ladislav_Mecir (since the other users doing these reversions haven't seemed willing to discuss), but we couldn't come to any understanding.
I've started a thread to discuss this issue. I've invited the users involved to comment and discuss. I've discussed extensively with the one user willing to have a discussion. I've proposed alternate edits based on the discussion with better and more sources. I've tried (and failed) to gain an understanding of why these users think my edits aren't up to wikipedia standards.
How do you think we can help?
I'd like to get external opinions on whether my edits are up to wikipedia standards or not (and if not, why not). I'm hoping for a review of the sources I presented in that thread and whether any or all of them are usable. While it seems obvious to me that no appropriate reasoning for rejecting these sources has been given, the discussion over a few weeks hasn't seemed to move anything forward, which is why I'm seeking an external opinion.
Summary of dispute by primefac
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Praxidicae
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have no vested interest in this and frankly I'm getting tired of the forum shopping. Wikipedia has standards, those standards are that we don't include everything and anything just because it exists. Praxidicae (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Ladislav_Mecir
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Jtbobwaysf
I think (sorry I have not been following this dispute very closely) this dispute relates to user Fresheneesz's desire to add some content about Bitcoin Diamond to the List of bitcoin forks article and a few others editors opposition to adding the content. The editors opposed to it have stated that Bitcoin Diamond lacks notability as the sources are all primary, or are industry rag sources (crypto-industry rag sources are really awful). My reading of the sources shows that Bitcoin Diamond clearly lacks notability to be a standalone article. That said, I am unclear if it lacks notability to be mentioned in the List of bitcoin forks article. I think I would lean towards including the content, as I think it is encyclopedic (and the article would be a better List if it had more items in the list). Iff we include it, we would have to be quite strict to eliminate anything promotional from the article as this could turn into the promotion of a non-notable subject (aka investment). But I could also go along with the argument to exclude the content as lacking notability. Thus I suppose my vote on this issue is one of ambivalence. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by C933103
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The title is the title of the thread on the talk page where the discussion was happening. Would you like me to rename this? Also, I assumed that this would notify users automatically (since it asked me for their usernames in a specific format). I'll notify them momentarily. Fresheneesz (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer Note - There doesn't seem to be much interest in discussion here, and participation is voluntary. I will leave this open for at least 24 more hours, but this will probably be closed due to lack of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 13 December 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.
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. Also note that DRN does not handle conduct complaints, only disputes over content. And, moreover, DRN does not "do something" other than provide guided discussion for editors whose own thorough discussions have come to a standstill. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:53, 17 December 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.
I was seeing some abnormal edits from the article Curucuru and Friends on which the last edits from December 1, 2018 down to September 30, 2018. The show is in limbo, and yet there are a couple of serious idiots who think This Source and This source is true and edit war themselves on falsefully adding it as a reliable source. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS STONE COMICS ENTERTAINMENT;;, nor I heard of this so called "Cinematic Universe". Its just created by an obsessed fanatic who hated Marvel for no reason. Please do something about this.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
, I already reverted it to my last revision and it will get added back.
How do you think we can help?
By blocking the users involved in the edit war, and also placing the article under severe edit protection: which bans edits from users and anons.
Summary of dispute by Jackfork
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 184.96.23.178
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by AlexTheWhovian
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Vogiahuy2001
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Alex Cohn
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 116.99.192.11
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 117.2.18.159
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Curucuru and Friends 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.
I'm going to close this one as not being appropriate for dispute resolution, in the best interest of the encyclopedia. There are simply too many sockpuppets, proxies, and IP editors involved to be able to tell who's who for certain. The IP editor who gave most of the notices has been blocked as a proxy and the IP editor who filed the case does not appear to have discussed the case on the talk page. In the past there have been threats of off-wiki canvassing. There's just too many moving parts here for us to be able to do anything with this for certain and anything we do here is likely to give aid and assistance to individuals who are editing in violation of policy or otherwise not in good faith and in the best interest of building an encyclopedia. If folks still want dispute resolution, feel free to refile this but do not do so or participate as an IP editor. If you want to participate, register an account and identify the IP addresses that you have used at the article talk page to discuss this matter and any IP addresses that you have used to edit the article. — TransporterMan (TALK) 04:15, 19 December 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.
DBigXray has been reverting edits to include 1984 Sikh genocide in lead of article: 1984 anti-Sikh riots, despite usage of the term in multiple reliable sources and within the article.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
1984 Sikh genocide had been added as a secondary title, but it has been recently reverted by DBigXray too.[2]
How do you think we can help?
Mention 1984 Sikh genocide in the lead.
Summary of dispute by User:DBigXray
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by User:PAKHIGHWAY
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by User:RegentsPark
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by User:Goosemuffin
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by User:Britmax
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by User:39.110.158.44
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
1984 Sikh massacre termed as genocide in lead
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 listed and notified the editors who took part in the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 19 December 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.
Conduct dispute. DRN does not handle conduct disputes (nor is it staffed with administrators). The filing editor is looking for ANI. When the filing editor goes there and is told that this is a content dispute and to refile here, the filing editor should be careful to list all participants in the discussion, not just a couple, and to entirely avoid discussing conduct: talk about content not editors. - TransporterMan (TALK) 16:56, 22 December 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.
Article subject- the current Miss USA Pageant winner Sarah Rose Summers, made a remark about the current Miss Universe Pageant winner's ability to speak English; and then apologized. User 王天翰 has decided on his own and proclaimed that this was a "Media crisis" and a display of the Western view of English dominance. He has thus decided to seek revenge upon Miss Summers and post the entire conversation on her Article page. This has been discussed on Miss Summers article page, and all the other editors disagree with 王天翰's opinion. No determination has been decided, yet 王天翰 continues to post the entire conversation on Miss Summers Page. This dispute needs the attention and resolution by an admin. Thank you. Glenn Francis (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussed on Article Talk Page.
How do you think we can help?
By making a decision on whether Miss Summers remarks should be posted on her page or not.
Summary of dispute by 王天翰
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Sarah Rose_Summers 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. There have been other editors involved besides the editor who has been listed. All editors should be listed and notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 20 December 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.
Closed. There are several problems with this filing. First, what the filing party is asking isn't what this noticeboard is for. The filing party has asked that someone remind another editor of applicable guidance and prevent them from making certain edits. The purpose of this noticeboard is to discuss article content, not to remind anyone of Wikipedia guidelines, and we don't have any authority to prevent anyone from doing anything. Second, the discussion hasn't been on an article talk page, and discussion on a user talk page, while useful, is not a substitute for discussion on an article talk page. Third, at least as stated, this isn't a dispute about article content, but has aspects of a conduct dispute. The parties should discuss any contentious edits on an article talk page. If discussion on an article talk page is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. Conduct issues can be reported at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 17 December 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.
User Charlesdrakew has disrupted the airport pages of Liverpool, Varna, Bordeaux, Sofia and Doncaster-Sheffield by deleting the publication of future announced routes and associated references. He believes it is promotional activity, however it is the standard practice for officially announced future destinations on Airport pages. Discussions have been ongoing between the user and a number of editors for the past few weeks but user Charlesdrakew ignores our advice and continues to delete posts and revert their subsequent reversions. I kindly ask for some intervention.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Multiple discussion on Talk Pages
How do you think we can help?
Remind User Charlesdrakew of the actual guidance for posting future airport destinations and their references and prevent him from negatively editing the aforementioned Airport pages.
Summary of dispute by Charlesdrakew
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Amelia121
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Lewysmith96
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:Charlesdrakew discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as very premature. There does not seem to have been any discussion on either the article talk page or the user talk page. It is not entirely clear where the filing party informed the other editor of an objection. The article talk page consists only of an admonition by a third editor to the two editors to stop edit-warring. Discussion at this noticeboard should be preceded by extensive discussion at an article talk page. The editors should begin (not even continue) discussion at an article talk page. Do not edit-war, because edit-warring may result in blocks. If there is extensive and inconclusive discussion at an article talk page, a new case request can be filed here, but first try discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 25 December 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.
"Greta Van Fleet's first album "Anthem of the Peaceful Army has achieved (inter alia) two number one spots on the US Billboard charts (as per my edit). Another editor keeps changing the columns to erase these number one positions, replacing them with two Belgian charts. How anyone can rationally argue that two obscure Belgian Charts are more important than the two number one positions on the US Billboard charts is not clear. Perhaps a personal resentment against the band's success?
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have informed the other editor of my objection against his edit and only got a snide remark.
How do you think we can help?
Adjudicate on whether the two US Billboard number one positions are more important than two Belgian charts. Bear in mind that there is suggestion of personal animosity against the band by the other user.
Summary of dispute by Jon Palacios
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
greta van fleet discography discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed for at least two reasons. First, the filing editor has not notified the other editor of this filing. Second, this is described as a conduct dispute, and this is not the place for conduct disputes. If the filing editor wishes to pursue this as a content dispute, they can resume discussion on the article talk page, and then file a new statement here describing an issue about article content. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 29 December 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.
I have added, "Gandhi remains to be figure of controversy domestically, for his remarks on hindu identity and hindu terrorism in india". This statement is backed by mutiple articles and there are many more if you search.
DBigXray editor reverted the change. I tried to revert it, He threatened to block me.
I have tried to contact him through talk page. You can see the discussion by yourself. He again threatened to block me on my user talk page. He is also giving non sensical opinions that these facts are not encyclopaedic. I am clearly citing my facts subject to WP:UNDUE 1st point. I have also given comparisons to other politician pages in wikipedia and how they list controversial opinions of them as seen by public.
Moderator is clearly doesn't want to discuss facts rather simply suppress the new editors.
Moderator is misusing his power to remove controversial comments made by politician. The moderator clearly biased towards political party and there is conflict of opinion. He is not open minded at all.
You can also see soo many people in talk page tried to raise voice against vandalism by editors who favour Mr.Rahul Gandhi.
They would remove any edit which is not favourable to Mr. Gandhi.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I tried to communicate extensively on talk page.
How do you think we can help?
Stop DBigXray reverting my change and stop vandalism against the edits which are unfavourable to Rahul Gandhi.
Summary of dispute by DBigXray
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
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 may be a content dispute, a conduct dispute, or both. However, it is being described by the filing editor as a conduct dispute. This noticeboard does not handle conduct disputes. If the issue is about article content and not about another editor, the filing editor should notify the other editor, and should describe how the dispute is about article content only. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 27 December 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.
Alien, Predator, Alien vs. Predator franchise dispute
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.
For several months, TurokSwe has been incorporating more and more content from the Predator and Alien vs. Predator franchise pages into the Alien franchise page. I sent warnings to them, asking that they heed that these are separate franchises, with one being a crossover of the characters that the current direction of the Alien franchise has negated as non-canon.
Today, I was notified about the content dispute escalating between TurokSwe and other editors, most notably *Treker and SNAAAAKE!!. TurokSwe has added the Alien, Predator and AvP navboxes to virtually every article of the franchises, despite there being no apparent correlation. *Treker and SNAAAAKE!! reverted the additions, which TurokSwe promptly reverted back. I, along with the other engaged editors, removed the navboxes again, but TurokSwe did the same thing over, claiming that the dispute is live and consensus has not been reached. I would argue that consensus does not entail unanimous approval from all editors - much less all but one - but I would like to have a civil discussion, since no attempts have heeded constructive results.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I contacted TurokSwe on October 15, 2018, stating that the content from the Alien and AvP pages should remain separated, as each one suffices in its own right. With the recent escalation of the dispute over the navboxes, there has been discourse on the Navigation template talk page, as well as our individual talk pages.
How do you think we can help?
I would like the dispute to be cordially resolved and for consensus to be affirmed and respected going forward.
Summary of dispute by TurokSwe
The 20th Century Fox brands Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator are undeniably officially connected to each other (not the least by name and contents and two official cinematic crossovers in 2004 and 2007 along with countless other connections, references, and expansions produced between 1990 and 2018, the period during which this shared fictional universe has technically been active) in essentially the same manner that Marvel's brands Iron Man, Captain America, and The Avengers are connected to each other. This talk about one or several works being supposedly "non-canonical" to one or several of the aforementioned franchises is sheer nonsense largely based upon the preferences of certain portions of the fanbase and have no factual basis. Noting further that the accusation that I've added the navboxes of each franchise to every other article concerned with the franchises is false (even though I would not be against such an action), as I've only added them to articles which I felt were appropriate. The contents included in each of the three franchise articles is exceedingly relevant and to my understanding indisputable. At this present moment, I do not see what the problem is supposed to actually be. - TurokSwe (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by *Treker
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Crossovers happen a lot. The fact that this is a very popular cross over that has spawned it's own franchise does not mean that the Predator and Alien franchises should be smashed together at every turn. I feel it is best to keep it as it is with three separate navboxes.★Trekker (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by SNAAAAKE!!
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Wikipedia talk:Navigation template#It came to my attention a fellow has spammed unrelated navboxes in dozens of articles, all of which needs to be reverted discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
★Trekker Indeed, crossovers do happen a lot, but some are better established than others, and that's certainly the case with the Alien/Predator/Alien vs. Predator mega-franchise, and I definitely hold that this ought to be acknowledged, especially wherever appropriate and wherever connections, references, and expansions are being made. I also don't have much of a problem with keeping the three separate navboxes (though even these are connected). - TurokSwe (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
In that case you should know that navboxes need to be bidirectional, so there is zero need to add all three to every article.★Trekker (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Please do elaborate on what you mean by that and how that specifically relates to the articles and navboxes in question. - TurokSwe (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry are you even aware of what you've done wrong? Do you not understand why people don't like you adding tons of navboxes to articles which are not linked on those navboxes? Do you know how navboxes are meant to be used?★Trekker (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I suppose that's in part what we're trying to find out. However to say I'm "adding tons" of navboxes to articles is to exaggerate. However it seems quite common to me that navboxes are added to articles without them containing a direct link to the articles and them merely being added simply due to association/inclusion to the topics/contents concerned in the navboxes. - TurokSwe (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the Navigation Template talk page. The discussion has taken place in only a few hours, which is not really long enough for the parties to pause and consider what the other parties are saying. It would be a good idea to continue or resume the discussion over a period of 24 hours. Please do not discuss the issue at this noticeboard unless and until a volunteer opens this case for moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer.
I am concerned here that things are going over this editors head. Back in October as seen here is when this edit pattern was brought up to them aND dissued .--Moxy (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
If using examples like that then we could say this discussion has been going on for many years. This particular discussion however only started in December. - TurokSwe (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as premature. The discussion at the article talk page is not extensive. No real effort has been made to discuss. Please resume discussion at the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2019 (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.
Removal of sourced claims, including past and future parades that have been/about to be performed at Magic Kingdom. I am bringing this here before this turns ugly so that the issue can be resolved.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
n/a
How do you think we can help?
Bring a consensus as to how this stuff should be handled.
Summary of dispute by The Banner
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Magic Kingdom Parade discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as abandoned. The filing party has failed to notify the other editors, as required by the instructions here and as noted by Robert McClenon, below, after having an ample opportunity to do so. As Robert has also noted, however, with this many editors the success of a successful resolution here is extremely low, so a RFC would likely be a better choice for dispute resolution. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:16, 18 January 2019 (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.
Evans has recently been involved in what the Washington Post and pretty much all the other local media outlets in D.C. are characterizing as a major scandal (see [3], [4], etc.), and some editors have been trying to add additional information about the scandal to his page. However, to do so would require overturning a consensus to only briefly mention the scandal, which was reached before as many elements of the scandal were known. Most of the editors participating in the discussion (including Evans himself, who is an editor) have been involved with the disputes on the page going way back, and they are (somewhat reasonably) asking others who want to jump in to go through all the history of the discussion, but since few are willing to do so, this has essentially had the effect of limiting the discussion to only a small circle. The people involved in the discussion seem to have reached an impasse, so I think a DRN may be appropriate.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
There has been ongoing discussion about the issue at the talk page, and I posted to the NPOV noticeboard a while back.
How do you think we can help?
By establishing a consensus about what information to include or not include about the reporting.
Summary of dispute by JohnInDC
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Nblund
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Bangabandhu
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Bonewah
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Evansjack1
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Swarm
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Snooganssnoogans
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Masem
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
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 editors. In view of the large number of editors listed, another Request for Comments (in addition to the current one about a different controversy involving the same politician) would probably be more effective than moderated discussion with a large number of participants. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2019 (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.
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. Except for the filing party most of the listed editors have only a single edit in this discussion. That's not "extensive" by any means. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. If the IP filing editor wishes to continue the discussion and return here if it proves fruitless, they are strongly advised to (a) create an account and only edit logged-in as editing as an IP often makes discussions here and elsewhere too hard to follow and too much work for the volunteers here and (b) in any event to always sign their posts with four tildes. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:28, 18 January 2019 (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.
Some Wikipedians (the one who began the edit war, Goethean, is already banned from editing Tea Party movement-articles due to his right-wing bias, that even let him feature a Breitbart news article about him on his user page), try to Stalinist-censorship the quote „And advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.“ out of PNAC's article, which stems from its original main source Rebuilding America's Defenses and is a clear breach of Article III of the Biological Weapons Convention, which states: "Not to transfer, or in any way assist, encourage or induce anyone else to acquire or retain biological weapons." This is a clear encouragement of the production of such weapons, as they are seen as potentially "politically useful tool". I'm even okay with not including the BWC breach, although scientific vigor would need to include it and just let the quote stand for itself, open to interpretation by anyone able to decode the scientific language, which reveals an important idea for biological weapons that could be used for open-air genocide without concentration camps, no matter if it was intended in this way by PNAC, or just an indirect analysis/proposal of/for their enemies to develop such weapons, it fits Edwin Black's book about America's War on the Weak about America's racist eugenics campaign, as it can be seen as an example of such a policy, even when PNAC won't admit it, or haven't intended to do this, as it's the first official and public documentation by politics to propose such a kind of weapon and not to warn of the possible horrors of such an invention, but just to mention it's potential political profit. It doesn't get any more cold-blooded and inhuman than this, even when PNAC wouldn't develop it, but just to view it only as a "politically useful tool" and not a catastrophic mass-murder device, reveals their stance on humanity, as does NPH quote
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Talk page, bring up enough scientific arguments, like BWC Art. III breach and Edwin Black's book as proven context for such a bold, cold-blooded, dangerous and inhuman statement which trivializes biological weapons that could be (ab)used for genocide without a need to "physically concentrate" people first in camps, but just to isolate unwanted genotypes and then deploy the weapons in a way, like the UN Sustainable Development's quote on Geo-Engineering suggests for spreading "designer aerosols".
How do you think we can help?
Generate global public discussion on all (social) media channels and among biological weapon experts, journalists and social scientists, if this quote should be included in the "history books" (of Wikipedia), or censored out of PNAC's main source R.A.D. in the public awareness' mediasphere, to hide it in an illogical illusion of its non-existence, like Stalin and other dictators did with unwanted documents and people, just because they seem dangerous to their own agenda and (political) worldview
Summary of dispute by Goethean
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Bkobres
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Fyddlestix
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ElHef
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
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.
There are two problems with this filing. First, the filing editor has not listed the other editor in the case header. They mention one other editor, but the filing editor should list the other editor(s) in the case header. Second, the request as stated is not within the scope of this noticeboard, to protect a section of the article or prevent it from being edited. Such a request can be made at Requests for Page Protection, but will only be accepted if there has been edit-warring, vandalism, or other misconduct, and there does not appear to have been edit-warring or other misconduct. This noticeboard is for moderated discussion leading to compromise. The filing party is advised to read the Dispute Resolution policy and request a form of content resolution. A new case can be filed here if the filing party requests moderated discussion, or any of various other types of requests can be filed in the appropriate places. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2019 (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.
A new section called 'amateur discoveries' was created on the page 'Exoplanet'.
Amateur discoveries fit better in the exoplanet main page, with the rest of the discoveries, rather than in the methodology page; it is not a method to detect exoplanets.
There is consesus on the talk page about leaving this section in the Exoplanet page. I am in favour and Primefac too (move it to History of detection as a new subsection..."How amateur astronomers find exoplanets" is valid to include, but that means putting it into the #Methodology section.
Primefac says to leave the amateur discoveries in the main page of exoplanet, and to move the 'How amateur astronomers find exoplanets' to the methodology page.
However, one user called Rowan Forest is against it.
Regards.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I tried to explain it to Rowan Forest, he just ignores what all of us have said in the talk page.
How do you think we can help?
I would ask to please protect the amateur discoveries section or to forbid Rowan Forest the possibility of editing the Exoplanet main page.
Talk:Exoplanet discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
This is hardly an accurate description of this "dispute" by Planethunter91, they have failed to mention that their article contribution has been also reverted by Drbogdan and David J Johnson, as well as the named editor in their complaint. It is definitely not a observation against a single editor. David J Johnson (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The dispute relates to whether the name in the infobox should read "Los Angeles, California" or just "Los Angeles".
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
We've discussed it exhaustively, no-one can quite agree on much. I did a request for closure, possibly too early.
How do you think we can help?
Make a final take on the discussion and find the correct solution.
Summary of dispute by Subtropical-man
As User:Binksternet mentioned on the Talk:Los Angeles page, "Los Angeles alone. The guideline at WP:USPLACE lists a dozen cities including Los Angeles as AP Style exemptions to the usual "city, state" construction. And WP:INFOBOXGEO confirms the displayed title. I don't see any point to the recent edit warring. The matter is settled".
Now facts: in talk page - vote result is 50:50. There is no any consensus for long name of "Los Angeles, California" in infobox. According to the another consensus, "Los Angeles" is name of article, not "Los Angeles, California". Also, according to the WP:INFOBOXGEO and even Wikipedia:Common sense, name in infobox should be the same than name of article. Even the guideline at WP:USPLACE lists a dozen cities including Los Angeles as AP Style exemptions to the usual "city, state" construction - so, the lack of any reliable argument for different names in infobox and article name.
Of course, users Castncoot and ImprovedWikiImprovment (IWI) have their own opinion (I respect this), however, I and other users may have a different one. In this case, I prefer based on rules and guelines of Wikipedia, and also based on consensus for short name of "Los Angeles", not on private opinion by 2-3 users. For me, the situation is obvious. Castncoot and ImprovedWikiImprovment (IWI) presented their opinions, other users also, I also, however, whatever they would say - must to be clear consensus, any consensus does not exist.... and for Castncoot and ImprovedWikiImprovment (IWI) does not like this situation - so - they trying to push own version using tricks like this. Subtropical-man(talk / en-2)17:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Castncoot
As User:Alanscottwalker mentioned on the Talk:Los Angeles page, Los Angeles is inextricably linked to California; as for example, Chicago is linked to Illinois, or Atlanta is to Georgia. "City, State" is the Wikipedia standard for U.S. cities (the only exception being "New York", which can stand for either the city or the U.S. state). The leaning consensus has shifted toward Los Angeles, California as User:Trovatore, who started out advocating for "Los Angeles", was swayed enough by the arguments in favor of "Los Angeles, California" to move to the "fence". Finally, there is no downside to "Los Angeles, California"; whereas there is no reason to justify Los Angeles to be isolated uniquely without the state name. Castncoot (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I also don't see Los Angeles mentioned at all on WP:USPLACE, as incorrectly claimed above by Subtropical-Man. Also, the standard is "City, State" for the infobox, even if the city article title carries no state disambiguation. Castncoot (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Los Angeles#Los Angeles name in infobox discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer comment - On the one hand, the preconditions have been met for moderated discussion at this noticeboard. On the other hand, this does not appear to be the sort of dispute where a compromise can be reached by discussion. This seems to be the sort of dispute that can be better settled by a Request for Comments. I am leaving this open, but am advising the parties to use a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2019 (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.
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. So far, virtually all of the discussion here on the part of DuncanHill has been about conduct, not content, and this noticeboard requires extensive discussion about content. DuncanHill is advised that if he has suspicions about sockpuppetry or disruptive editing, he should make a report at SPI or ANI. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:02, 25 January 2019 (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.
User:DuncanHill and I are in dispute over this category. User:Brough87 and myself have at different times edited it and related ones such as American People of Celtic Descent. My reasons for removing them were they were factually incorrect and over-categorisation. All the edits were revered by DuncanHill. On 7 May 2018, Brough87 stated to DuncanHill removed them "because the concept of "Celtic" in the modern era is an arbitrary categorisation that is not supported by the required sources, and is causing endless controversy on talk pages. What Encyclopedic benefit does it offer to categorise such groups on a such a spurious basis?" DuncanHill replied that "Then you should nominate the categories for deletion, not empty them. You should also use edit summaries. When editors see someone emptying a mass of categories with no attempt at explanation, they are likely to assume vandalism. You should re-populate the categoris, and undo your blanking of the category pages, and then nominate them for deletion if you believe they should be deleted." DuncanHill, who created the category, used the much the same line with me, along with "You are emptying categories with no consensus to do so" (my reply was "Well, you created these categories without consensus ... its up to you to allow corrections to your own mistake or at least propose it for deletion yourself."). While I prefer to see the category properly used - hence my adding of people who do fit, such as Diviciacus (Aedui), Rutilius Claudius Namatianus, et al - reverting to these incorrect modern applications and over-categorisations must led to its deletion. Sadly I agree with Brough87 that they are "arbitrary" and do cause "endless controversy", without "Encyclopedic benefit". None of the nations concerned were Celts, despite the modern stereotypes. So, help! P.S: DuncanHill implies myself and Brough87 are the same, but that is not the case. Cheers.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Communicated to DuncanHill at his and my talk page today, where we discussed the matter and he made me aware of reverting similar edits last year by Brough87. As a result of his similar comments on both our talk pages, it need third-party resolution.
How do you think we can help?
Either restrict the category to actual folk of Celtic descent in Roman Gaul, Roman Italia, Roman Hispania, or delete the category entirely. It and several other "Celtic" categories likewise need such serious applications because the over-categorisations are ridiculous. I will make a proposal for Categories such as Category:Celtic families, Category:Celtic American,Category:Celtic diaspora, et al. Unless categories can be used factually, there is no point in using them at all.
Category:People of_Celtic_descent 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.
I believe that there are NPOV issues with Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry. In particular, I think that the article heavily favours Lewis Hamilton. I nominated the article for deletion, but the decision was "keep" and since then, editors involved in the discussion have taken that to mean that there are no issues with the article at all. During the AfD discussion, they insisted that there was no need to address NPOV issues and that a talk page discussion was necessary; now that the AfD is closed and a talk page discussion is open, they insist that there is no need to address the NPOV issues.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
The article has been the subject of an AfD, talk page discussion and discussion at the F1 WikiProject.
How do you think we can help?
By reading and evaluating the article in terms of its balance to highlight where NPOV issues exist and how they can be fixed.
Summary of dispute by Prisonermonkeys
I believe that the issues has serious NPOV issues. The article heavily favours Hamilton—any time there is mention of a dispute or controversy between Hamilton and Rosberg, the article provides a defence of Hamilton, but nothing regarding Rosberg. Compare this passage on the 2014 Hungarian Grand Prix: However, Niki Lauda, non-executive chairman of Mercedes, spoke in support of Hamilton after the race, saying "From my point of view Lewis was right" with this passage on the 2014 Monaco Grand Prix: Some pundits made suggestions of foul play, [this is unsourced] to which Hamilton, when asked if he thought Rosberg had crashed on purpose, replied "Potentially. I should have known that was going to happen". However, the stewards cleared Rosberg of any wrongdoing and team boss Toto Wolff refuted the conspiracy theory as "bull". Despite this, Hamilton made clear that he felt Rosberg had ruined his lap on purpose and, after starting and finishing the race second, announced that he and Rosberg were no longer friends. Hamilton's complaint about Rosberg's alleged actions in Monaco is given oxygen, but there is no discussion of Rosberg's view on Hamilton's actions in Hungary. There is a defence of Hamilton in Hungary, but no defence of Rosberg in Monaco. And it's like this throughout the article. There is an entire paragraph in the lead on the upbringing of Hamilton and Rosberg that has no immediate relationship to the subject, but portrays Rosberg as a child of privilege whereas Hamilton is the plucky underdog from humble beginnings. With no relation to the subject, I feel that this paragraph is biased and designed to get the reader to favour Hamilton. The entire article is little more than an extension of Hamilton's article, since very little else links to it. I also feel it is completely inappropriate for editors to be removing the NPOV banner from the top of the page when there is an active NPOV discussion on the talk page and to ignore requests for additional sources. 1.144.105.29 (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Formulaonewiki
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Firstly, IP editor above is laughably incoherent with their arguments. I'll start by addressing the wrongful accusation that 'editors involved in the discussion have taken that to mean that there are no issues with the article at all'. The AfD discussion has not been taken to mean there are no NPOV; it is the lack of evidence you have given in the relevant NPOV discussion that has been taken to mean that. This is yet another example of how the editor above seems more set on spamming their upset about the article anywhere they can instead of doing anything meaningful or productive to resolve or amend any issues which they believe exist.
Secondly, the part you highlighted - 'Some pundits made suggestions of foul play' - is quite clearly sourced here, but the editor assumedly wished to neglect that in order to try and strengthen their argument.
Thirdly, addressing the inclusion of the paragraph which the IP editor has a particularly apparent dislike for: It literally states how 'journalists have contrasted the drivers' upbringings', thus explaining it's relevance, and it is something regularly referenced and discussed in coverage of the rivalry in a number of the articles cited in the AfD discussion that proved the notability of the article. Clearly it is relevant to the rivalry.
Finally, nobody in the NPOV discussion (which they have pointlessly copied and pasted parts of here) felt that the IP editor had provided any evidence of NPOV in the article. It has been quiet for three weeks with nobody in agreement IP editor or with any concerns relating to NPOV. All the IP editor highlighted here is that they believe there should be more detail in parts of the article. That is not a NPOV issue, and is something they could easily edit themselves if they believe the extra detail is required. The editor is running wild with their imagination about what certain sentences are 'designed to get the reader' to feel. Instead of fixing any supposed issues they have found, they have merely set upon edit-warring and voicing their dislike anywhere they can. The fact they have been unable to engage in meaningful discussion on the relevant pages and now voiced their upset here is further evidence of this.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
As I see it, the dispute is about whether content should be deleted from the article without first obtaining a consensus to delete it. The content in question is the reliably sourced and correctly attributed views of notable commentators. The editor who wants the content deleted is saying it contravenes WP:NPOV, but is comparing it with their own personal views rather than with the reliably sourced alternative opinions of other notable commentators. If alternative views are out there, then they should be brought to table and, taking account of their weight, balanced with those views already in the article. So I think the onus is on the complainant to provide reliable sources showing those alternative views that they assert exist, then the appropriate discussion can take place. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Tvx1
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I joined the talkpage discussion later and wasn't aware that at that point a DRN case had been filed. I'm surprised as I didn't feel it was warranted yet. We did seem to make some progress on the talk page. All in all, I feel the NPOV concerns are justified. The issue appears to be two ways. Firstly there is a concern that there is an non-neutral selection of sources that have been used, secondly there is a concern that some paragraph are not appropriate in the article and even in the lead. I hope this DRN provides some moderated discussion that finally results in massive improvement of the article. Unfortunately the talk page discussion has so far seen both sides taking this far too personal. Formulaonewiki for instance seems to see the discussions attacks on an article they created. The article's history also shows some clear edit-warring by both parties which should be avoided at all costs. One of the biggest current issues with the article, though, is that it does not mention even one letter about the first six seasons both drivers were simultaneously active in the sport and thus presents incorrect numbers as their complete results.Tvx1 01:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: "All the IP editor highlighted here is that they believe there should be more detail in parts of the article." And as I repeatedly pointed out, that lack of detail is creating an NPOV issue. When Hamilton defied team orders in Hungary, there should be details of the criticism levelled against him and details of the defence of him. The article only provides the defence. This creates an NPOV issue because when Rosberg does something controversial—as in Monaco—the article only provides criticism of him and no defence. Everything might be referenced with reliable and verifiable sources, but it is clearly cherry-picking what details it provides to present Rosberg as a villain and Hamilton as sympathetic. You say I have been "laughably incoherent with their arguments", but I have not. I have consistently, thoghtfully and critically deconstructed entire passages of the article to try to demonstrate the issue and when you dismissed it, I tried again and again with subsequent paragraphs. The fact that your first comment in this discussion was to attack me rather than address the argument I made speaks volumes. You say that I have "spent more time posting their upset everywhere instead of just making some simple edits to the article where they see fit", but that is not true. When I went looking for more sources to support the article's claims and could not find them, I added a citation template which you immediately deleted, claiming it was sufficiently cited despite the language of the article suggesting it was far more prevalent than two sources. This entire article is little more than fancruft designed to promote Hamilton as the Greatest Of All Time. If it were up to me, I'd salt the article as I think it has no redeemimg value. It is impossible to write an objective article given the partisan nature of the British media used as sources. 1.129.111.27 (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Note to participants: Please ensure to keep discussion to a minimum, as the thread has not yet been opened by a volunteer. New threads until opened can be discussed on the talk page of this article, however, please in the future do not discuss here until the article has been opened. Thank you! Best regards, RedactyllLetsataco'bou it, son!02:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC) 02:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Volunteer note: Hello. I am volunteering as a DRN volunteer moderator. I am currently reviewing the case filing and related discussion. For clarification, am I right in assuming that User:Prisonermonkeys is the one who filed this case? I ask because the filer appears as an IP address. Coastside (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Note to participants: It would be best to log in when entering comments here, since the DRN is a moderated discussion among specific users. Coastside (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Prisonermonkeys cannot log in because they have forgotten their password. Despite kind suggestions, they have repeatedly declined to register a new account.Tvx1 01:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Volunteer note: I read the article with consideration around NPOV. I can understand how a Rosberg fan might bristle at the wording of the second paragraph, and I think there might be ways to address that with some editing. Rivalries typically involve competitors of similar abilities (see Rivalries#sports). If the abilities are lopsided it usually wouldn't be considered a rivalry. A good example of a page about a rivalry is the Yankees–Red Sox rivalry, in which the rivals come across as relative equals. What struck me in first reading the second paragraph of the H-R rivalry was that H came across as the dominant racer. Results are factual, of course, but to me it seems reasonable to argue that there is at least the appearance of possible bias. My suggestion would be to reword the second paragraph with language consistent with a more neutral point of view. For example, "Hamilton also had the upper hand" and "five more than Roseberg" have the appearance of judging Hamilton the better racer. If the article were to say "H had 32 victories and 55 podium finishes, and R had 22 victories and 50 podium finishes", that would be worded factually and neutrally. By comparison, saying "H also had the upper hand over this period in race results, with 32 victories to R's 22 as well as securing 55 podium finishes, five more than Rosberg" appears to be focusing on the dominance of one competitor over the other. "Five more than" emphasizes the difference whereas "55 vs. 50" sounds (to the casual reader like me) as results for competitors who had fairly similar abilities. Another example is the phrase "Hamilton finished ahead of his teammate on 42 occasions". This may be factually correct, but lacks a neutral tone, particularly because it isn't clear to the casual reader whether that is a lot, i.e., 42 out of how many times? If it were 42 out of 100 then R would have finished ahead even more times. If it is 42 out of 84 then they would be equal. The point is that it is more neutral to state the results and let the reader make their own assessment rather than introduce language that compares the two directly. If an independent source compares the results, that would be different. In this case, the editors are setting up a comparison, and it creates an appearance of potential bias. This is not to say one side of this debate is "right" and the other "wrong". I am saying that more neutral language might be helpful in the second paragraph to avoid unintended NPOV issues, epecially as perceived by fans of R. Coastside (talk)
Comment: for the record, I am not a Rosberg fan. I am neither British nor German, but Australian, and as an international viewer I often feel frustrated by the British coverage of the sport. I think that the NPOV issues are systemic to the article; in the paragraph on the 2014 Hungarian Grand Prix, a significant amount of time is spent defending Hamilton's actions when he did something controversial—but in the paragraph on the 2014 Monaco Grand Prix, there is no defence of Rosberg when he did something controversial. I feel that there is a sustained attempt to not only portray Hamilton as the dominant driver (which he was), but as the "hero of the story" (which is purely subjective). 1.129.106.191 (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Volunteer note: If independent sources discuss British coverage of the sport as it pertains to the H-R rivalry, including for example bias against R in British media coverage, that would be a reasonable topic to add to this article. Regardless, this article should have a NPOV, and if it doesn't, then there is an opportunity to improve it. There was apparently already a discussion about deleting the article, and the decision was to keep it. So at this point, the focus should be on improving it. I mentioned my personal thoughts on how the second paragraph might be improved by using more neutral language stating factual results rather than using comparative language. If there are other parts of the article that have the appearance of bias, how can they be improved? Are there specific recommendations for changing the article that are being debated? If so, let's see if we can come to agreement on NPOV language and providing appropriate balance here. If not, then the normal approach is to go ahead and edit the article, making improvements and discussing disagreement on those specific changes in the Talk page. Coastside (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Volunteer note: Are the participants still interested in continuing the discussion here? If this isn't proving helpful, another alternative is to request comment on the NPOV noticeboard. If there no active interest here, I will consider closing the DRN discussion. Coastside (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment:, I for one would still like to see this progress. There is still discussion on the article's talk page and resolution is clearly still needed. The article's creator is still flatly denying any NPOV issues, despite even your comments here, and still appears to see the NPOV claims as attacks on "their" article. I would still like to engage in moderated discussion focussing on the content.Tvx1 17:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I would also like to see progress, just I've had a busy week. I do not consider valid criticism or discussion over an article personal, nor do I feel any ownership of said article. I'm all for discussion focusing on content, although it has been difficult so far with inconsistent and muddled arguments being presented, and at times it feels like the intention is not productive or seeking to improve or edit the article, and instead only to have portions deleted and declare disagreement with editor's own personal POV. I have acknowledged some highlighted examples of POV and addressed them as I saw appropriate, although that apparently wasn't good enough. Quite why the editor in question doesn't just address the problems themselves I don't know. Formulaonewiki (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Volunteer note: Thank you both for the quick response. I am hearing everyone wants the article to be as good as it can be, including having a neutral POV. Rather than boil the ocean, let's focus on specific issues in the article and see if we can reach a compromise. I thought we'd start with the second paragraph, but instead maybe we should start with the various controversies are presented? Coastside (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Well, the dispute arose over two things. One was that there is a non-neutral selection of sources being used, the second is that there is paragraph in the lead on the rivals' upbringings and that its inclusion in the lead is undue and that the relevancy tho the drivers' rivalry is questionable altogether. Maybe we could have an uninvolved person's view on this at last.Tvx1 18:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Volunteer note: Ok, I'll focus on those two topics and see if we can build consensus how to improve the article. There's a clear effort here by the participants to work toward compromise through the dispute process, and that is something to celebrate. It may help to remember, as per this this humourous essay, that "the straightest of straight poles should ensue, so long as there's an equally energetic group of warriors pushing the pole in the other direction." Coastside (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Volunteer note: On the issues of the paragraph on the rivals' upbringings and relative abilities (currently first paragraph under History) I would point out that this is understandably sensitive with regards to NPOV. Comparing their upbringing is sensitive and comparing their abilities is sensitive. Furthermore, the implication that their relative abilities can be attributed to their upbringing by putting the second sentence immediately following the first raises concern. It doesn't appear the sources are specifically making the argument that they have abilities that can be traced to their upbringings, so this is likely WP:SYNTH. The second sentence itself is not balanced in terms of construction, because Hamilton is attributed with two strengths (faster driver, natural ability) while Rosberg is attributed with a weakness and a strength (not as quick, more intelligent). Also, referring to Buxton (maybe he should have a redlink since he's notable) as a pundit and commentator does suggest undue consideration to his opinion on the matter, specially given the sensitivity of comparing the two in this context. I suggest using a simple descriptor. Improving this sentence for NPOV might be something like:
"Commentator Will Buxton compared the character and driving styles of the pair, describing Hamilton as the faster driver with more natural ability and Rosberg as the more intelligent driver."
Beyond that, I suggest more structural changes here. The history section should talk about the history of the rivarly, meaning their relationship, so starting with their upbringing is reasonable, though not as a way to argue their relative strengths, rather to introduce their early relationship as one of friendship. They started out as friends who karted together, and then they developed a rivalry. It makes sense for the history section to describe how their relationship evolved. It seems that story is taking a back seat to discussion about which is the better driver, or at least to comparison of their relative ability. Coastside (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Volunteer note: I joined the fray in the article, so see additional comments there. My main point is that the participants need to stop debating bias in general, and start proposing specific improvements to the article. The idea is not to "win" the argument -- it's to push toward more NPOV content and wording. Less heat, more cooking. Coastside (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Israel Defense Forces
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
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.
A few editors, including myself, have an ongoing discussion about the following sentence from Israel Defense Forces "The IDF's stated mission is to 'defend the existence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the state of Israel. To protect the inhabitants of Israel and to combat all forms of terrorism which threaten the daily life.'" We are undecided if that sentence should include the word stated. I believe it should, having been sourced directly from an IDF website, but others disagree. Minor discussion also took place at User talk:Sir Joseph#Reverted edits on Israel Defense Forces about whether or not to include the phrase "top-of-the-line" in an encyclopedic article. Until now, we have simply been reverting each other's edits, so I feel it is appropriate to bring this to the noticeboard.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have introduced and encouraged discussion on multiple talk pages.
How do you think we can help?
Simply getting other opinions on what should prove to be a simple discussion will help to break the chain of reversions and allow us to reach a potential compromise.
Summary of dispute by Bus stop
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
You can't chop up a sentence to make it say its opposite or close to its opposite. The Israeli Defense Forces is no different from the defense forces of any other country and we are implying otherwise by using the wording supported by Puzzledvegetable and Nableezy, which reads The IDF's stated mission is to "defend the existence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the state of Israel. To protect the inhabitants of Israel and to combat all forms of terrorism which threaten the daily life." I have bolded the word "stated" although it is of course not bolded in the article. The word "stated" implies the existence of an "unstated" mission. Sources have been presented by Nableezy on the article Talk page which may support that there is an "unstated mission" but I feel such sources are irrelevant to the specific question of whether our sentence should include the term "stated" or not. The purpose of sources is to support assertions made in articles. The sources that Nableezy is bringing to this specific discussion could possibly support other assertions in our article assuming such assertions do not run afoul of due weight. In the present dispute it would not matter one iota that from some quarters there is carping about insidious purposes served by the Israeli Defense Forces. A sentence need not say all things at once. Separate sentences serve that purpose admirably. As concerns any "unstated mission" of the Israeli Defense Forces, this could deprecatingly be said about any armed forces about which there was any controversy—and which country's actions are not controversial to some degree and in some way? Let Nableezy and Puzzledvegetable insert material, assuming it does not run afoul of "due weight", into the article in accordance with sources attributing a negative mission to the Israeli Defense Forces. It is no secret that Israel has its detractors. But you can't take a sentence asserting one thing and cause it to imply something quite to the contrary as doing so is destructive to an article. Another option is to paraphrase rather than quote. The term "stated" relates to the quote in the sentence. But I think we are capable of recasting the entire sentence—without the term "stated" and without the quote. Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Sir Joseph
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Just one example, this is from the lead of the US Army, " As a branch of the armed forces, the mission of the U.S. Army is "to fight and win our Nation's wars, by providing prompt, sustained, land dominance, across the full range of military operations and the spectrum of conflict, in support of combatant commanders".[14] " So why do we single out the Israeli army? It is cited to the IDF, so it is not a problem, that people do have a problem with it reeks of hypocrisy at best.Sir Joseph(talk)14:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
It says "stated mission" because it is according to Israel. Whether or not that statement accurately reflects their mission is a subject of debate. So, to avoid needing to have a longer and somewhat unnecessary discussion on what others say the IDF's mission is, we just say stated to make it clear who it is according to. I really dont see what the issue is here. This nonsense about singling Israel out is just that nonsense. If there are sources that dispute the US Army's stated mission then that article too should make it clear that it is the stated mission of the US Army to do XYZ. Here, there are sources that actually do say that the IDF's mission goes either beyond or is in direct conflict to their stated mission. nableezy - 18:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Are there reliable sources that dispute the stated mission of the US Army? If not then it need not be called the stated mission. Here there are. The idea that all articles on armies should be the same is one of the more foolish Ive seen. nableezy - 14:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Israel Defense Forces discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
*Comment I am going to summarize what I believe Sir Joseph and Bus stop's argument is. If I am incorrect, please let me know. You are of the opinion that although the source does in fact come from the IDF, the quotation marks are enough to show that, and adding the word stated presents itself as being biased against the article's subject. Assuming that is your argument, may I suggest a potential compromise? Would everyone agree to having the sentence worded as "According to the IDF, their purpose is to 'defend the existence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the state of Israel. To protect the inhabitants of Israel and to combat all forms of terrorism which threaten the daily life.'"? This accomplishes the same purpose as the word stated but may not convey bias since the reader is likely to understand that the phrase according to the IDF is there to let them know what entity us being quoted in that sentence. I would appreciate feedback and I am open to other suggestions as well. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment My above comment proposes a solution that upon further reflection, seems to be worse. I therefore propose the following solution instead. Perhaps, a paragraph describing the IDF's mission (including that quote among other things) with various sources would be better. This is similar to what is used on NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps. Obviously, that article has an easier job doing that since it is not part of a military and doesn't have a controversy associated with it, but it serves as a good example of what I mean. Please provide some feedback. I, meanwhile, will see if I can write a draft for that paragraph that I will present to the relevant users. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
It's irrelevant. The mission of the IDF is as it says. What Nableezy wants is just to introduce anti-Israel bias into the article and you are falling for it. It's already quoted so we don't need to say "stated" it's already stated by being in quotes and referenced. Sir Joseph(talk)21:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
We can not know for certain what the exact mission of the IDF is. However, I agree that Nableezy may have certain anti-Israel biases, but I am by no means "falling for it." I was the one that introduced this edit in the first place, before I was even aware who that user is. Now, I have taken the liberty of starting a not yet completed draft of what I think an appropriate mission section would like like. You can see it at User:Puzzledvegetable/Mission section draft. I would appreciate feedback either here or on its talk page. Something tells me that Nableezy will not like it regardless of what I write, and that is not lost on me. You will notice that the tone of that paragraph has not changed from the original sentence. I simply added more sources and detail so as to make it more encyclopedic. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Volunteer note:@Puzzledvegetable: I'd encourage you to assume good faith and not accuse other editor's of having bias one way or the other. As far as wording of the draft, I say we go with precedent and leave out the word statement. Take a look at this quote: "As a branch of the armed forces, the mission of the U.S. Army is "to fight and win our Nation's wars, by providing prompt, sustained, land dominance, across the full range of military operations and the spectrum of conflict, in support of combatant commanders" This is taken directly from United States Army, and I think this is how we should format this section. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Is the draft good enough to go in the article? If so, I would suggest making it an independent mission section, with doctrine being another independent section. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
How any other army is treated on Wikipedia is quite simply not relevant to how the IDF is. See WP:OSE. What matters is how reliable sources discuss it. And they discuss an army with a mission more complicated than "protect Israel", ranging from "establish colonies", "maintain the occupation", "suppress Palestinian nationalism". The idea that [t]he mission of the IDF is as it says makes a mockery of very basic policies here. Using United States Army as a template makes no sense, because these are not articles based on some template, they are based on what reliable sources say. Sir Joseph, kindly keep your views about me to yourself. I dont say you wish to make articles into propaganda pieces on behalf of Israel now do I? nableezy - 14:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Nableezy, the IDF has its detractors. We get it. Therefore write a separate sentence to express that. Don't tamper with the sentence expressing the IDF's ostensible purpose. Bus stop (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Im sorry, but what does "tamper with the sentence mean"? I really dont understand the hysteria here. We attribute things all the time when there is a dispute about its factual accuracy. There is a dispute about a statements factual accuracy when reliable sources dispute it. That is the case with the claim that the mission of the IDF is to defend the existence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the state of Israel. To protect the inhabitants of Israel and to combat all forms of terrorism which threaten the daily life, with reliable sources arguing given the IDFs mission in the West Bank in establishing and protecting settlements and policing an occupied people that their mission goes well beyond defending the sovereignty of Israel (these things happening outside of Israel's sovereign territory) and in to something else. So we attribute it. According to the IDF, or stated, or whatever way you want to attribute that, we attribute it. Forget for a second that this article involves the greatest state in the world whose army has done no wrong anywhere at any time. Lets just say we have a subject called X. And X says its purpose is Y. However A, a reliable source, says that X has another purpose, and that is Z. So we would say According to X its mission is Y. Or X's stated mission is Y. Forget the subjects involved here. There is a challenged statement. We cant have a challenged statement presented as though it were unchallenged. nableezy - 16:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I am saying that it is not necessary that we make one sentence do double-duty. Your argument is that there is an alternative understanding of the ways in which the IDF functions. Then why not write a sentence outlining this alternative understanding? By the way, such an alternative understanding would not, strictly speaking, be the "mission" of the IDF. It would be an alternative understanding of the ways in which the IDF functions. Bus stop (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Potentially, Philipnelson99. The devil is in the details. Just because we have a two-sentence or a multiple-sentence formulation does not ensure that we have WP:NPOV. I have reservations about suggesting the multiple-sentence formulation. But I am willing to try to move forward with a sentence or two based on sources such as Nableezy presented on the article Talk page. (That would be this source and this source.) I would have to see what sort of an assertion is derived from those or other sources. Bus stop (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Dividing in to two sentences so that the challenged sentence is presented as though it were not challenged? Why are you opposed to attributing? That is literally the thing we do all over Wikipedia any time there is a challenged statement. What makes the IDF special that their challenged statement must remain unattributed and presented as unchallenged fact? nableezy - 16:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
You are arguing for one sentence that implies that the IDF is not telling the truth when it articulates its mission. You perceive an alternative purpose for the IDF. Therefore articulate that alternative purpose in a sentence supported by sources. Bus stop (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Although I have been monitoring this discussion until now, I haven't been responding because I don't really care anymore. I started this to get a volunteer's opinion and I did. However, I find the need to point out that at no point was I insinuating that the IDF has a mission besides for the one articulated. I can not speak for Nableezy, but I personally only wanted the word stated added because the source is from the IDF itself. It was a purely technical edit done with no intent of changing the meaning of the sentence. However, after observing other articles, I agree with the volunteer's decision that the quotation marks are enough. That is all. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC) + minor edit
Volunteer Question: Since the main issue that was brought to DRN concerned the use of the word stated do we have consensus on that? ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The entire purpose of this discussion was for me to get an outside opinion, which I have gotten. I am willing to concede that the word stated should be omitted, and no one has challenged the work I have done since this discussion has began. At this point, since it has been reduced to a meaningless proxy of an Arab v. Israel dispute, I see no reason for this discussion to remain open. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as abandoned. The filing party has not notified the other editors three days after filing this case and two days after a comment about notifying the other editors. A new case can be filed here, listing the editors, and the editors should be notified at the time of filing. Continue discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2019 (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.
An editor and I have been discussing whether or not it is important enough that the subject of the article has received criticism for coming across as "disingenuous" so much that it merits inclusion in the lead of the article, as well as other facts that appear superfluous.
I separated a decent amount of the information in the "Career" section into separate sections such as "Artistry" and "Reception" because much of it was about her musical style and the reception of her music, but those edits were reverted. NPOV issues seem to exist.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Explained my reasoning, discussion on talk page.
How do you think we can help?
Getting an outsider's opinion in order to curtail any further edit warring.
Summary of dispute by ilovetopaint
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Clairo 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 talk page discussion. The filing editor has not listed one of the editors who has taken part in talk page discussion, and has not notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Would I be able to manually edit this page in order to include the other editor in the list of editors involved? Benmite (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I went to his talk page , asking which policy. (i know other policy, such as keeping consistent date format if relevant, keeping English variety if relevant, but which policy?) I also point out that Wikipedia:Citing sources, despite i did not quote putting ref into |refs= is changing citation style that requires consensus as stated in Wikipedia:Citing sources, as well as it would rule out user that only use visual editor to edit the ref
But he then put a wall of text of irrelevant to the matter to my talk page (had move to his talk page for consistent manner)
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
NA
How do you think we can help?
We need third party, uninvolved user on the citation style, especially put only one ref in |refs=, instead of all ref did not use |refs=, or all ref use |refs=.
However, Matthew's claim that they tried discussing our disagreement? Sorry I don't see any sign that he made any attempt to actually read the explanation I left on User talk:Matthew hk. They cut the note I left on their talk page, to my talk page one minute after I left it.
Matthew seems to be irritated that I left a note on his talk page, after he left a note on my talk page. Woah! I started my note on their talk page about one minute after I edited Marriot International. I had no idea they had left a note on my talk page until I finished. It is a mistake to treat my comment as a calculated provocation.
I believe their confusion is due to a failure to understand WP:Citing sources#Citation style's warning to not recklessly mix citation styles.
It refers to the incompatible citation styles it lists a few sentences later, quoting: "A number of citation styles exist including those described in the Wikipedia articles for Citation, APA style, ASA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, Author-date referencing, the Vancouver system and Bluebook." The {{cite}} style is so overwhelmingly popular many wikipedia contributor failed to learn that there are other styles. Wikidocuments warn against mixing styles, because, without a lot of experienced care, these styles are incompatible. Mixing them breaks previously working articles. Last time I checked only 11,000 or so articles used the Harvard style -- a fraction of one percent.
There is nothing broken about adding a brand new {{cite}} reference in the reference section, even if other {{cite}}s are inline. Policy allows it. Policy warns against rewriting references for esthetic reasons.
I am going to repeat that I think the underlying issue here is that, due to inexperience, Matthew is conflating different ways of using {{cite}} templates with trying to recklessly mix the very common {{cite}} style of reference with the very rare and incompatible earlier styles. Geo Swan (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Marriott International 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.
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.
User/sockpuppet 王天翰, 223.197.187.215 has returned to continue his personal agenda of smearing the subject of the article; Sarah Rose Summers, by constantly posting an irrelevant remark she once stated.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
discussed on talk page and requested re-instatement of expired page protection.
How do you think we can help?
Block user: 王天翰, 223.197.187.215 from editing this page.
Summary of dispute by 王天翰
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 223.197.187.215
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Sarah Rose_Summers discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as apparently abandoned. There has been no response more than 48 hours after the request to participants to summarize whether there still is a dispute. If there still is a dispute, a Request for Comments can be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2019 (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.
A table on the global catastrophic risk page has been removed four times by two separate editors. My reinstatement of this table has led to me being accused of edit warring and being threatened with a block on the ability to edit the page.
I have asked that a consensus or discussion be attempted on the talk page, but as it stands at the moment, the 'consensus' is based on two editors who I believe to be mistaken about the quality of the content they wish to remove.
To be fair, I have stated outright that I intend to reinstate the table each time unless a reasonable explanation is given. I do not believe I have yet received one.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have given reasons for each reversion, and have asked editors to use the talk page before making deletions.
How do you think we can help?
I think an outsider opinion would be useful on this subject. If I'm wrong, then so be it, but at the moment it's like being tag-teamed.
Summary of dispute by prokaryotes
Some background, the article needs actually a lot of updates, since it is partly defined based on a narrow presentation by cites per Nick Bostrom, this survey is also from him. A MIT article pointed out the weakness in using surveys for specific conclusions (though in regards to another Bostrom survey). The survey is from 2008, and does not reflect the latest risk assessment from experts, for instance see WEF (2019, or other years), or from the Global Challenge Foundation reports in past years. NewsAndEventsGuy pointed out weakness of that poll here. The poll is outdated, and there appears to be no indication that it is worth mentioning at all, per WP:WEIGHT. Additional the content is already part of the article (above the table showing the selective survey results from 2008). Also a third editor, agreed in the talk page discussion to replace the poll, so it is puzzling why exactly AbrahamCat is so persistent in his move for inclusion. prokaryotes (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ya'll could best help by getting AbrahamCat to respond directly to criticisms. There was this 2008 conference, fine we can neutrally mention it. After the conference, Nick Bostrom wrote a paper which he self-published through his own academic institute, apparently without peer review. The first page bears a disavowal by the institute of the paper's contents. This was Nick describing his view of events, and it wasn't peer reviewed.
See neutrality essay WP:Scientific point of view. The institute's "technical reports" don't even have an impact factor that I can find. They aren't "scientific journals". It's just Nick's quick view of what happened. It should possibly be given inline attribution to Bostrom but not the institute's letterhead he used when he printed the paper.
"Survey" is a technical term and I won't bother citing gazillions of references for what determines a good survey from a kook survey or how vital the methodology and questions are. Assuming we all accept this premise, WP:UNDUE and WP:Neutrality prohibit us from giving our text gravitas of "survey" without neutrally including the disclaimers and qualifiers. OOPS!! His paper simply omits methodology altogether. This is a PRIMARY and SELFPUB source with no way to tell what they did. Any detail we include automatically violates UNDUE and NEUTRAL because it implies rigor when that is unknown.
The paper includes explicit qualifiers.
A. Per WP:WEIGHT etc we can't imply a massive sweeping survey but one of a "small but (according to Bostrom) illustrious group of experts"
B. Per the same rules we can't imply rigor when it says "informal"
C. Per the same rules we can't include the table without making equally big and eye catching the things they note they did not include
But now lets turn to genuine scientific work in the peer reviewed press. In 2017, writing in Futures (journal) the survey was described as "meaningless". "Uncertainty in GCRs is so high, that predictions with high precision are likely to be meaningless. For example, surveys could produce such meaningless overprecision. A survey on human extinction probability gave an estimate of 19 percent in the 21st century..." (doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2018.01.003 at pg30)
I'm tempted to read the pile of other paywalled material and really delve into this, but I'm going to withdraw. I'll just say we should describe the conference and the followup work that's been done to quantify risk, without trying to hype a set of dubious self published numbers based on a so called survey of unknown methodology, and whose results were not subected to peer review before publication. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Global catastrophic_risk discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note: This case has not been opened yet because the involved users have not been notified. You can use {{subst:drn-notice|name of DRN case}} on the involved user's talk pages to inform them. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
:All three of us are present and accounted for, so full steam ahead. See above section NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Except for the statement I made above I have withdrawn from the debate altogether and will stop watching the article.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Volunteer Question - Is this an article content dispute of the sort where compromise is possible? If the dispute is of a yes-no nature about whether to include the table, compromise may not be possible, and the purpose of this noticeboard is moderated discussion leading to compromise. If discussion here is not likely to result in compromise, a Request for Comments may work better. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
::Good question, thanks Robert I think working here will help tease out, organize, and condense the opinions of the parties. If the only result is to agree on how to frame an RFC that would be excellent progress. I'm about to go through all the paywalled citations and may have RS based info to share but that will take a little time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC) see other comments NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
First preliminary statement by moderator
I will try to see whether there is an issue that can be addressed by moderated discussion, or whether a Request for Comments is in order, or nothing or none of the above. Please read the rules, and obey them. You are expected to reply to my questions within 48 hours. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Will each party (noting that one party has withdrawn) please state what they think are the issues, briefly, so that I know what the next steps are?
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
First preliminary 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.
Conduct dispute. DRN does not handle conduct disputes. For help on conduct disputes, file at ANI after carefully reading and following the instructions, or speak to an administrator. The volunteers here are not administrators. If you get told at ANI that you have a content issue, not a conduct issue, you can refile here, but only after discussing the content matter extensively on a talk page and entirely avoiding discussion of conduct when you refile here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:56, 6 February 2019 (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.
User Softlavender has continually reverted edits of mine. When I requested him to desist, User Gareth Griffith-Jones added a contribution in the following terms:
(talk page stalker) @ TonyPS214. You are writing almost unbelievable horse shit here. Your opinions are crass; if you question such an esteemed contributor as User:Softlavender on grammar and punctuation in such a rude way, it is you that will be reported for disruptive editing. Back off now before it is too late! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Because of Gareth Griffith-Jones' offensive language, I have made no attempt to contact him.
How do you think we can help?
If possible, user Gareth Griffith-Jones should be contacted by Wikipedia and admonished for his use of profanity. My hope is that his account could be suspended for a time; I will not ask that he be permanently barred from Wikipedia.
Summary of dispute by Softlavender
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:Softlavender#Parentheticals 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.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– Discussion in progress.
Note to participants: Please ensure to keep discussion to a minimum, as the thread has not yet been opened by a volunteer. New threads until opened can be discussed on the talk page of this article, however, please in the future do not discuss here until the article has been opened. Thank you! Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 02:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC) 02:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Prisonermonkeys cannot log in because they have forgotten their password. Despite kind suggestions, they have repeatedly declined to register a new account.Tvx1 01:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.