Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 180 - Wikipedia

This discussion is bound to the Origination or On the 'Origins of Pallava Dynasty'. Very lengthy discussion happened on the Talk page.The discussion was initiated for the addition of Mythological origin. In the course of discussion, the core content of the initial discussion was sidelined and finally ended up pushing a new POV content into the article's Origins section under the term 'Kanchi Theory'.The content is purely based on WP:OR. I have verified both the edited versions as well as original sources and found the content is against my CONSENSUS.The actuality of 'Kanchi Theory' as an 'origination' is not supported by the sources. I believe the 'Possibility of a dynasty which was already existing/originated and later raising to the power in a particular region, post capturing it from other dynasty' cannot be assigned as an origination theory. During the discussion,A new etymology section was also created in the article which is again a POV content relying on poor sources. The discussion moderated was closed off without the acceptance of all participants. I trust DRN team would thoroughly review the sources and its corresponding content and that is why I am raising a dispute over here.I will bind by the final result.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have fully supported voluntary moderation by user Kautilya3 but no CONSENSUS arrived at.

How do you think we can help?

I request DRN team to review the sources and its corresponding content to decide on the actuality of the content written under 'kanchi theory'.

Summary of dispute by Destroyer27

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

Summary of dispute by Nittawinoda

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

As Kautilya3 has mentioned below, the other editor LovSLif had a dispute with Destroyer27 regarding the origin section of Pallava dynasty. At this point I did my own research and requested that a few more theories regarding the origin of Pallavas be added. Kautilya3 volunteered to moderate the discussion and I must say that he/she did a pretty good job; was very patient and thorough when it came to hearing both sides and clarifying the references. During the discussion it became apparent that LovSLif wanted to keep only theories that were favorable to him/her, that is in this case the Andhra origin theories and the user rejected other theories proposed by other notable historians like for example:

1. As per historians Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, the original nucleus and domain of the Pallavas was Tondaimandalam, which served as the base for their power. [1] ^[1]

2. Prof. R. Sathianathaier also maintains that the Pallavas originated from Tondaimandalam [2] ^[2]

I am satisfied and broadly agree with the draft proposed by Kautilya3. As for LovSLif, the editor does not seem to understand primary sources, original research and npov. He/she insisted on interpreting inscriptions and grants on his own and wants to include or reject theories based upon his own interpretation and is adamant that other theories by notable historians must not be included. Nittawinoda (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

References

^ Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund. A History of India. Psychology Press, 2004. p. 120.
^ H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy. History and Culture of South India, to 1336 A.D. Vivek Prakashan, 1975. p. 188.

Summary of dispute by Kautilya3

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

I got involved with this page when Abecedare asked me to help to resolve the dispute concerning the origins of the Pallava dynasty. The dispute at that time was between Destroyer27 and LovSLif. Later it became one between Nittawinoda and LovSLif. I asked both the editors to recommend high-level WP:HISTRS that are at the level of "History of India". When the sources they presented were not of this kind, I did my own search and found two multi-volume Histories of India^[1] which have chapters devoted to the Pallava dynasty contributed by top Indian historians of the 1960s. The two sets of scholars took opposite points of view. So I said that both the viewpoints were notable and proposed content summarising thei respective viewpoints with WP:In-text attribution. Nittawinoda was satisfied with my summaries but LovSLif was apparently not satisfied. The nature of his objections has not been clear from what he writes. Thus we ended up here.

The content that I proposed is now on the main page: Pallava dynasty#Origins. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I did not get involved with the Pallava dynasty#Etymoogy section. Any disputes concerning it are not yet ripe for DRN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

References

^
The two are:
- The History and Culture of the Indian People and
- A Comprehensive History of India sponsored by the Indian History Congress.

Summary of dispute by Abecedare

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

My role in this dispute has been to (1) as an admin, warn/guide the participants to try to keep the discussion on-track, and (2) request Kautilya3, as an knowledgeable editor in the area uninvolved in the original dispute between LovSLif and Destroyer27, to take a look at the content issues (aside: and I appreciate the time they have devoted to the issue in response!).

I don't have any pre-set views on the central content issue(s) per se, and the DRN should be able to proceed without my participation. Abecedare (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Pallava dynasty discussion

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

Volunteer comment just chiming in to point out that one of the parties to this dispute, Destroyer27 is currently indef-blocked for socking and looking at their talk page I would not expect them to come back any time soon. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Volunteer Note - The preconditions for moderated discussion have been met, in that there has been lengthy discussion on the article talk page, and the other parties have been notified. There has been an effort at moderated discussion already, which did not result in resolution. A volunteer is requested to try to conduct a second round of moderated discussion. I am not optimistic that a second round of moderated discussion will work better than the first, but we will try. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible zeroth statement by moderator

I will ask a few questions to see whether moderated discussion is feasible. It appears that one of the participants in the previous mediation was User:Kautilya3, who was attempting to mediate, and another was User:Abecedare, who is an administrator who sometimes facilitates mediation, so that they were not principals. One of the principals was User:LovSLif. Was the dispute between LovSLif and User:Nittawinoda, or with User:Destroyer27, who is a blocked sockpuppet? If it was between LovSLif and Nittawinoda, will each of them please state, in one or two paragraphs, what they think was the dispute, and how the article needs to be improved? Also, if LovSLif is not satisfied with the mediation, will they please state, in one paragraph, how they disagree with the mediation? Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. Please reply within 36 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Zeroth answers by editors

Nittawinoda's comments

As I mentioned above, I agree with Kautilya3's draft of the origin section in the article Pallava dynasty. Currently I do not have a problem as this is what is in the article page Pallava_dynasty#Origins. In addition, I want the following theories added if not already,

1. As per historians Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, the original nucleus and domain of the Pallavas was Tondaimandalam, which served as the base for their power. [3] ^[1]

2. Prof. R. Sathianathaier also maintains that the Pallavas originated from Tondaimandalam [4] ^[2]

3. The ancestor of the Pallavas was born out of a union of Aswattama and naga princess (already in article and source provided by Kautilya3)

4. "The immediate conquerors of the Andhras were the Pallavas who seemed to have risen to power suddenly in the south. Starting from Kanchi, their capital, they extended their empire northwards, till it included Vengi Nadu."^[3]

5. As per historian C.Rasanayagam, "The Pallavas are considered to be the descendants of Tondaiman Ilam Tiraiyan the offspring of Chola King Killivalavan and naga princess Pilivalai, the latter being the daughter of king Valaivanan of ManiPallavam. The dynasty took its name (Pallava) after the name of the mother's kingdom manipallavam."^[4]^[5]

As per my understanding, LovSlif wants the Kanchi theory scrapped from the article. If he wants the whole section removed then I object but if it is just the nomenclature, for example, I do not mind renaming the "Kanchi theory" to something like "Tondaimandalam origin theory" etc. Points 1, 2 and 3 above are somewhat there in the current version. I would like to add points 4 and 5 if possible. Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

References

^ Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund. A History of India. Psychology Press, 2004. p. 120.
^ H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy. History and Culture of South India, to 1336 A.D. Vivek Prakashan, 1975. p. 188.
^ Chenchiah, Bhujanga. A History of Telugu Literature. Asian Educational Services, 1988. p. 21.
^ Vidya Dhar Mahajan. Ancient India. S. Chand, 1962. p. 532,533.
^ Rama Shankar Tripathi. History of Ancient India. Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1967. p. 442.

LovSLif's comments

I want to clarify that I do not want complete Kanchi theory paragraph struck.I want the term ~~Kanchi Theory~~ to be excluded as this is not the region of origin.It was the the region occupied at later point to strengthen their position.I also disagree adding D.C Sircar as 'proponent of Kanchi theory'.I have provided my explanation on the same at [5].

I believe below is what should be added to make the article balanced. Here is what should be added.

1. It is agreed that the maternal side of the Pallavas is the Nagas. Well the Nagas were likely Telugu speakers. As per the work of D. Ananda Naidu,Gangisetti Lakshminarayana, and V. Gopalakrsna, who were published by Dravidian University (partly funded by Tamil Nadu's government): "The language of the Nagas appears to be Telugu, which the earliest reference to which is found to be in the earliest Tamil-grammar, the Tolkappiyam (5th Century AD)". ^[1] B. Ramaraju similarly says that the Nagas were closely connected with Andhra. To quote him, "This is a prehistoric celebration of Naga or serpent-worship observed throughout Andhra. Buddhistic and other records mention that once Naga tribes inhabited this part of the country called 'Nagabhumi' (land of the serpent god). Every village in Andhra has some or other Naga idol carved in stone or wood.” ^[2] Hence, this should be added in.

2. I want the Etymology section clarified. The word Pallava is clearly of Sanskrit origin and this should be clearly mentioned. I also want to mention that according to the Velurpalaiyam Copperplates, the first Pallava ruler's father was named Chutu Pallava. This also puts into question their so-called Chola heritage, which they never acknowledged.

3. I want it to be clearly mentioned that no Tamil inscriptions were issued by the Pallavas, that are found to date, until the late 6th century or early 7th century, which is well after they were established. ^[3]

4. I want to include K.R Subramanian as another historian that supports the Andhra origin theory.

In regards to Nittawinoda's recommendations: - Firstly, Chenchiah Bhujanga is a Telugu language scholar. A prior scholar of the side that I am advocating for was sidelined because he was not a historian but a literary figure. Chenchiah Bhujanga fits in to the same category more or less. His claim to fame is a book about a history of Telugu Literature and he is not a trained a historian, but a scholar on the Telugu language. I will not agree to include him in this article.

- Secondly, Aswattama liason is a legend and not History.Also, the claim about the Pallavas being the child of the Cholas in untenable at best. TV. Mahanlingam, note a Tamilian, writes "The explanation of Naccinarkkiniyar that Ilantiraiyan was an illegitimate son of a Cola king and a Naga princess is "patently absurd". ^[4] In fact, given the context of the conflicts between the Pallavas and the Cholas, no wonder the Tamil commentators made the Pallavas out to be illegitimate sons.

References

^ D. Ananda Naidu, Gaṅgiśeṭṭi Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa, Vi Gōpālakr̥ṣṇa. Perspectives of South Indian History and Culture. Dravidian University., 2006. p. 257.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ B.Ramaraju. Folklore of Andhra Pradesh. National Book Trust., 1978. p. 60.
^ T.V Mahalingam. Kāñcīpuram in early South Indian history. Asia Pub. House., 1969. p. 22.
^ T.V Mahalingam. Kāñcīpuram in early South Indian history. Asia Pub. House., 1969. p. 16.

By LovSLif (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

Okay. We will try moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and follow it. Do not edit the article. Be civil and concise. Remember that civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements have only one value, to make the person posting them feel better, but they do not clarify the issue. Comment on content, not on contributors. (We seem to be focusing on content at this time, which is good.)

The statements made by the editors are long and need to be trimmed. Will each editor please identify one change that they want made at this time having to do with the Origin section? Also, I understand that there are also issues about the Etymology. Will each editor please identify one change that they want made to the Etymology?

First statements by editors should be addressed to me. Do not reply to each other. I am also providing a section for back-and-forth discussion which you may use for that purpose.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

First statements by editors

Statement by Nittawinoda

@Robert McClenon:

I would like the following theory to be added to the origin section:

"Some historians like C Rasanayagam, M.Srinivasa Iyengar have stated that the Pallavas were descendants of Tondaiman Ilam Tiraiyan who was the son of Chola king Killivalavan and Naga princess Pilivalai, daughter of Valaivanan of Manipallavam in Sri Lanka. The dynasty thus came to be called after the mother's native place.^[1]^[2]^[3]. According to the Ulas(historical poems in honor of Chola kings) written by poet Ottakoothar, Killivalavan is said to have married a Naga princess by entering the bilvadara(cave) and also it is known that Tiraiyan was the son of a Chola prince who married the Naga princess, Pilivalai by entering the bilvadara in Nagapattinam. So that Tiraiyan was the son of Killivalavan is not without force".^[4]

I would like the following change to Etymology section:

"As per historians Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, the name Pallava which means leaves or foliage is the Sanskrit equivalent of the the Tamil word tondai which designates their original domain, namely Tondaimandalam."^[5]

References

^ Raju Kalidos. History and Culture of the Tamils: From Prehistoric Times to the President's Rule. Vijay Publications, 1976. p. 80.
^ Rama Shankar Tripathi (1967). History of Ancient India. Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1967. p. 442. ISBN 9788120800182.
^ N. Subrahmanian. Social and cultural history of Tamilnad, Volume 1. Ennes, 1993. p. 71.
^ C. Krishna Murthy. Saiva art and architecture in South India. Sundeep Prakashan, 1985. p. 8.
^ Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund (2004). A History of India. Psychology Press, 2004. p. 120. ISBN 9780415329194.

Nittawinoda (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by LovSLif

@Robert McClenon:

Among other changes, the first and foremost change I want to the Origins sections is the identification of the Nagas as Telugus. Here is the phrasing: "As per the work of various scholars, such as D. Ananda Naidu,Gangisetti Lakshminarayana, and V. Gopalakrsna, the language spoken by the Nagas, who were the maternal line of the Pallavas, was likely Telugu. B. Ramaraju notes that what is now Andhra was called "Nagabhumi", which means land of the Nagas."

In the etymology section, I want the following. The word Pallava is a Sanskrit word that means "leaves or foliage. Tondai is the Tamil equivalent of the word. As per the Velurpalaiyam Copperplates, the first Pallava ruler's father was named Chutu Pallava.

By LovSLif (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion

Dispute LovSLif's statement (Rebuttal by Nittawinoda)

@Robert McClenon: I dispute the following claims by LovSLif.

1. Identification of the Nagas as Telugus - This appears to be original research. I quote from the source provided by LovSLif above " D. Ananda Naidu, Gaṅgiśeṭṭi Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa, Vi Gōpālakr̥ṣṇa. Perspectives of South Indian History and Culture. Dravidian University., 2006. p. 257.":

"In Andhradesa, the Rakshasas, mentioned in the Ramayana, at a later date, appear to have acquired the name of Nagas. The language of the Nagas appears to be Telugu, which the earliest reference to which is to be found in the earliest Tamil- grammar, the Tolkappiyam (5th century A.D.)."

What do the Nagas of Ramayana have to do with the Pallavas? This is completely out of context and has nothing to do with the Pallavas or the origin of the Pallavas for that matter. The Pallavas never mentioned that they married a Naga lady of Telugu origin. In fact, some scholars consider Tondaiman Ilandiraiyan to be the progenitor of the Pallavas and he is said to be the son born out of the union of Chola king Killi and Naga princess Pilivalai of Manipallavam in Sri Lanka. This refers to the Naga people of Sri Lanka and they definitely did not speak Telugu. I request the moderator to review the source more closely before making a decision.

2. As per the Velurpalaiyam Copperplates, the first Pallava ruler's father was named Chutu Pallava - Once again this original research. This is based upon the user's interpretation that Virakurcha, whose father is mentioned as Chutu Pallava, was the first Pallava ruler. As per "History of the Pallavas of Kanchi by R. Gopalan, edited by Sakkottai Krishnaswami Aiyangar, page 51, [6]", I quote, "Again in the Velurpalaiyam plates, it is not stated that Virakurcha who married the naga princess was the first member of the family of the Pallavas..". Moreover some historians like Vijaya Ramasamy, R.Gopalan and many more(mentioned above in my first statement) consider that Tondaiman Ilam tiraiyan was the progenitor of the Pallava dynasty.^[1]^[2]^[3] This being the case, we should not add Chutu Pallava as the father of the first Pallava ruler.

References

^ Vijaya Ramaswamy, Jawaharlal Nehru University (2017-08-25). Historical Dictionary of the Tamils. Rowman & Littlefield, 2017. p. 154. ISBN 9781538106860.
^ Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland (1985). Indian Antiquary, Volume 40. p. 134.
^ Tamil Nadu, a real history. Ratna Publications, 2005. 2005. p. 89.

Nittawinoda (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

I think that it will be necessary to place this discussion on hold so that we can find another moderator. I have not yet placed it on hold, pending verification of the need for another moderator. However, it appears that the editors expect me, the moderator, to "review the source more closely before making a decision". As a moderator, I do not review the sources because I expect the parties to be able to explain to me what the sources say. Some moderators will review the sources; some expect the editors to present the information to each other and to the moderator. My concept of the role of the moderator is to facilitate discussion between the editors, not to make any decisions. If the editors expect that the moderator will decide on the content, a different moderator is needed.

Each editor should state briefly whether they are satisfied with my concept of the role of the moderator. If either editor is not satisfied, I will have to try to find another moderator, but I am not optimistic about finding another moderator.

I will remind the editors that ArbCom discretionary sanctions apply to disputes about India.

Each editor may also describe one more point that they would like changed in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

Statement by Nittawinoda

@Robert McClenon: Yes, you are right. I would like a moderator, preferably someone familiar with India/Indian history, who can review the sources and come to a conclusion, similar to how @Kautilya3: did on the article talk page before the other editor came here. This is because, I believe the other editor, LovSLif, is claiming things that are not stated in the sources and presenting his original research. Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

This dispute is placed on hold while we try to find a moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a textbook example of how broken our processes of DR are. And, please don't touch this by a barge-pole or so, unless you have expertise in these domains. ∯WBG^converse 13:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed for various reasons. First, this is not the forum to discuss AFC declines. Do that with the declining reviewer. Second, the author has not stated whether they have a conflict of interest, which they almost certainly do. The draft is blatantly promotional. If I had been the reviewer, I would have tagged it for G11. The use of the (R) and (TM) symbols is promotional and unencyclopedic. Discuss with the declining reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 21 August 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. Location of dispute User:KylaHeaton/sandbox (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved KylaHeaton (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Hi, This is the first page that I have ever tried to contribute to wikipedia. It is for Jim Masterson, who is an equine massage therapist and has developed his own method of equine bodywork. My page was declined because, as I understand it, the editor claimed that the references did not show significant coverage of Jim Masterson. I wanted to dispute this because I believe this is wrong. All of my references link to published articles about Jim Masterson and The Masterson Method. I wanted to get a second opinion on this and, if there is issue with the links, get a clearer understanding of what I need to change to get my page through. Thank you Have you tried to resolve this previously? This is my first attempt How do you think we can help? If there are no problems with my links, I would like the submission decline to be lifted and I would like to have my article published. If there are problems with my links, I would like to understand what that problem is specifically so I know what I need to do differently. User:KylaHeaton/sandbox discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. This is not really the proper place to do this, but OK. First of all, those sources are all published on Masterson's own website and are links to copyrighted material. We cannot have that. Second, the article in Dressage Today is written by himself; that's not very helpful, and it is in fact a manual on how to massage a horse, not an article on the value of Masterson's work (it is not a secondary source). The interview in Intelligent Horsemanship does help, a bit, but that magazine/newsletter/website is a commercial outfit and the interview is mostly a piece of salesmanship. The same goes for the Barefoot Horse thing. So I would decline this as well. Please see WP:SECONDARY and WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 20 August 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 discussion

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

User:KylaHeaton/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

KylaHeaton (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hi,

This is the first page that I have ever tried to contribute to wikipedia. It is for Jim Masterson, who is an equine massage therapist and has developed his own method of equine bodywork. My page was declined because, as I understand it, the editor claimed that the references did not show significant coverage of Jim Masterson. I wanted to dispute this because I believe this is wrong. All of my references link to published articles about Jim Masterson and The Masterson Method. I wanted to get a second opinion on this and, if there is issue with the links, get a clearer understanding of what I need to change to get my page through.

Thank you

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This is my first attempt

How do you think we can help?

If there are no problems with my links, I would like the submission decline to be lifted and I would like to have my article published. If there are problems with my links, I would like to understand what that problem is specifically so I know what I need to do differently.

User:KylaHeaton/sandbox discussion

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

This is not really the proper place to do this, but OK. First of all, those sources are all published on Masterson's own website and are links to copyrighted material. We cannot have that. Second, the article in Dressage Today is written by himself; that's not very helpful, and it is in fact a manual on how to massage a horse, not an article on the value of Masterson's work (it is not a secondary source). The interview in Intelligent Horsemanship does help, a bit, but that magazine/newsletter/website is a commercial outfit and the interview is mostly a piece of salesmanship. The same goes for the Barefoot Horse thing. So I would decline this as well. Please see WP:SECONDARY and WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 20 August 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.

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:Elbeavo (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Nishidani (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Nishidani has argued against the below sentence (A) below being inserted by Elbeavo into the last line of the Elhaik page, on the grounds of a false argument, forwarded by Nishidani in paragraph (B) below. This has led to an edit war in which currently the sentence (A) has been removed by Doug Weller in favour of Nishidani. Nishidani closed the Talk session on this. ElBeavo refutes the Nishidani paragraph (B) below on each part as follows: (a) no, this sentence does not make logical sense (b) Wrong. This is not an opinion and no truth is asserted, it is simply a valid scientific argument, given to the reader transparently in the Figure 2 by Flegontov et al 2016 in the Figure 2 as specified in (b) above. (c)Wrong again, because this again is not an opinion it is the valid scientific argument which the criticized authors do not address in the cited response. (A) (inserted by Elbeavo as the last sentence in the Elhaik page) The paper by Das et al employs his so called 'Geographic Population Structure' (GPS) algorithm which, like much of the quantitative methodology used by Elhaik, has now been statistically refuted and transparently shown to be completely flawed by Flegontov et al 2016- see Figure 2 in their section 'GPS is not Suitable for Inferring Ancestry'.^[1]. (B) Your edits at Eran Elhaik, are (a) a WP:OR violation, since it is original search to write up what you regard as co nclusive in a secondary source. Such a comment can only be used if it comes from independent sources. (b) It violates WP:NPOV, since you are asserting as a 'truth' one opinion in a scientific debate, (c) an opinion by Flegontov et al to which the criticized authors have responded. For these reasons, you abuse of wiki procedures on a WP:BLP article will be automatically reverted at sight, and if you persist you will be reported.Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussed with experts in the field How do you think we can help? Re- insert and keep the deleted sentence (A) Summary of dispute by Nishidani Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User talk:Elbeavo discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.* Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

Nishidani (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Nishidani has argued against the below sentence (A) below being inserted by Elbeavo into the last line of the Elhaik page, on the grounds of a false argument, forwarded by Nishidani in paragraph (B) below. This has led to an edit war in which currently the sentence (A) has been removed by Doug Weller in favour of Nishidani. Nishidani closed the Talk session on this.

ElBeavo refutes the Nishidani paragraph (B) below on each part as follows: (a) no, this sentence does not make logical sense (b) Wrong. This is not an opinion and no truth is asserted, it is simply a valid scientific argument, given to the reader transparently in the Figure 2 by Flegontov et al 2016 in the Figure 2 as specified in (b) above. (c)Wrong again, because this again is not an opinion it is the valid scientific argument which the criticized authors do not address in the cited response.

(A) (inserted by Elbeavo as the last sentence in the Elhaik page) The paper by Das et al employs his so called 'Geographic Population Structure' (GPS) algorithm which, like much of the quantitative methodology used by Elhaik, has now been statistically refuted and transparently shown to be completely flawed by Flegontov et al 2016- see Figure 2 in their section 'GPS is not Suitable for Inferring Ancestry'.^[1].

(B) Your edits at Eran Elhaik, are (a) a WP:OR violation, since it is original search to write up what you regard as co nclusive in a secondary source. Such a comment can only be used if it comes from independent sources. (b) It violates WP:NPOV, since you are asserting as a 'truth' one opinion in a scientific debate, (c) an opinion by Flegontov et al to which the criticized authors have responded. For these reasons, you abuse of wiki procedures on a WP:BLP article will be automatically reverted at sight, and if you persist you will be reported.Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed with experts in the field

How do you think we can help?

Re- insert and keep the deleted sentence (A)

Summary of dispute by Nishidani

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

User talk:Elbeavo discussion

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

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed. User:Britishfinance is on an extended wikibreak and has not edited since this case was filed. The filing editor may resume editing the page in question while discussing it on the article talk page with any other editors. If there are any more content disputes, they may be brought here after discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 2 September 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. Location of dispute Talk:Institute of International and European Affairs (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Britishfinance (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Hi, I and Britishfinance have a dispute about the neutrality of the IIEA page. I initially made changes to the page directly. This included use of a primary source for much of the history section. Britishfinance reverted my changes and accused me of COI. I subsequently set out a list of issues with the page for discussion and have provided additional sources to improve it. Following a lack of engagement from Britishfinance I flagged that the page was under dispute. Britishfinance returned, removed my neutrality dispute flag and made further allegations of COI but has not satisfactorily engaged with my points. I feel a little intimidated by Britishfinance's approach (I have only recently started as an editor and I find their approach quite aggressive) but am convinced that my points are legitimate. For context, I have also encountered Britishfinance on several other pages related to Ireland below. The issues are somewhat similar but would like to direct this request only to the IIEA page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Central_Bank_of_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leprechaun_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Modified_gross_national_income Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to be polite, make suggestions in good faith and add sources. I have tried to be evidence-based. How do you think we can help? Ultimately I think Britisfinance has an agenda against some aspects of Irish public policy and some Irish institutions and wishes to use Wikipedia to undermine these institutions. I do not think they are interested in facts that do not fit their preferred narrative. This is a new experience to me. However, I imagine such encounters are extremely common on Wikipedia. I would like advice on what I can do next, and perhaps a third voice on the talk page to speak some sense. Summary of dispute by Britishfinance Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Institute of_International_and_European_Affairs discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - Is this a content dispute, or this about conflict of interest? Claims of conflict of interest should be taken to the conflict of interest noticeboard. We do not discuss conflict of interest here. If this is a content dispute, the other editor should be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC) Hi Robert, many thanks for your response. I think it's a content dispute. I don't think either of us has a COI, just different views. I proposed taking the discussion here to the other editor but I'll also contact them directly saying that I have done so. Ballystrahan (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC) Update: I have just notified them directly. Ballystrahan (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC) First statement by moderator I will try to moderate this dispute. User:Ballystrahan, User:Britishfinance - Do you both want moderated discussion? Please read WP:DRN Rule A and follow the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion unless I say that it is permitted. Otherwise address your comments to me and to the community. Now: Will each of you please state, in one paragraph, what you think is the issue, and how the article can be improved (or left as is)? Also, is this a matter that can be resolved by compromise, or is it a yes-no issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2019 (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 discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:Institute of International and European Affairs (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Britishfinance (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hi, I and Britishfinance have a dispute about the neutrality of the IIEA page. I initially made changes to the page directly. This included use of a primary source for much of the history section. Britishfinance reverted my changes and accused me of COI. I subsequently set out a list of issues with the page for discussion and have provided additional sources to improve it. Following a lack of engagement from Britishfinance I flagged that the page was under dispute. Britishfinance returned, removed my neutrality dispute flag and made further allegations of COI but has not satisfactorily engaged with my points. I feel a little intimidated by Britishfinance's approach (I have only recently started as an editor and I find their approach quite aggressive) but am convinced that my points are legitimate. For context, I have also encountered Britishfinance on several other pages related to Ireland below. The issues are somewhat similar but would like to direct this request only to the IIEA page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Central_Bank_of_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leprechaun_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Modified_gross_national_income

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to be polite, make suggestions in good faith and add sources. I have tried to be evidence-based.

How do you think we can help?

Ultimately I think Britisfinance has an agenda against some aspects of Irish public policy and some Irish institutions and wishes to use Wikipedia to undermine these institutions. I do not think they are interested in facts that do not fit their preferred narrative.

This is a new experience to me. However, I imagine such encounters are extremely common on Wikipedia. I would like advice on what I can do next, and perhaps a third voice on the talk page to speak some sense.

Summary of dispute by Britishfinance

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

Talk:Institute of_International_and_European_Affairs discussion

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

Volunteer Note - Is this a content dispute, or this about conflict of interest? Claims of conflict of interest should be taken to the conflict of interest noticeboard. We do not discuss conflict of interest here. If this is a content dispute, the other editor should be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Robert, many thanks for your response. I think it's a content dispute. I don't think either of us has a COI, just different views. I proposed taking the discussion here to the other editor but I'll also contact them directly saying that I have done so. Ballystrahan (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Update: I have just notified them directly. Ballystrahan (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

I will try to moderate this dispute. User:Ballystrahan, User:Britishfinance - Do you both want moderated discussion? Please read WP:DRN Rule A and follow the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion unless I say that it is permitted. Otherwise address your comments to me and to the community. Now: Will each of you please state, in one paragraph, what you think is the issue, and how the article can be improved (or left as is)?

Also, is this a matter that can be resolved by compromise, or is it a yes-no issue?

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

First statements by editors

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed. The discussion at the article talk page has been perfunctory, not extensive. Resume discussion at the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed. Also, the filing editor has not notified the other editor. Also, the request by the filing editor is lengthy and not concise, and seems to be both about content and conduct. If this request is refiled,provide a shorter statement that focuses on a content issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 23 August 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. Location of dispute John Mew (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Acirsa (talk · contribs) Thjarkur (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I am new to wikipedia, so I want to start by explaining the background. I thoroughly enjoy wikipedia. I have given donations in the past, but am currently a full time mother and not in a position to do so. As a result, I thought I would become a volunteer. I had been meaning to for some time, but when I went to look up some information and found there were no pages on those topics, I decided to join up. I have no link to the page that is the focus of the dispute. I read about how to do all the short cuts to create bold text etc (everything was new to me) and compiled a page on an elderly orthodontist called John Mew. I was creating a draft, submitted it for feedback, received some feedback and was working on it when the text appeared to go missing, so I pasted it back in again to start making the changes recommended. However, somehow I managed to create a duplicate page. Still not sure how, but I followed the instructions on requesting that the two pages be merged. I then proceeded to make the amendments recommended and was please to see some other amendments added, like italic text which I didn't know how to do. However, very quickly, I found someone was deleting my work as I did it. They cannot have had time to read the new footnotes and other amendments. They added pejorative opinions about the subject and accused me of having a conflict of interest. Their own negative opinions about the subject were not well referenced and certainly not neutral. It seems to me that they have some sort of conflict of interest. I was aware that the subject had had a disagreement with the General Dental Council during his career (it is in a newspaper article that I included in the page) but I thought that as he is a retired man of 90/91 that there would not be an active attempt to discredit him by removing references to accolades he received or research published in respected journals. I am upset that my efforts, made in good faith, have resulted in this onslaught. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Explaining that I don't have a conflict of interest and would welcome others adding references or giving suggestions, rather than deleting the work I have done in good faith. How do you think we can help? I don't know. I have read what you can and cannot do, but I am very concerned that this editor lacks neutrality, is too quick to delete others contributions rather than suggesting that an extra footnote is needed or doing a quick online search to find a suitable footnote. I would like to be able to continue to work on this page and to let others work on it, as long as they want to improve it, not sabotage it. It seems to me that Thjarkur wishes to sabotage it. Summary of dispute by Thjarkur Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. John Mew discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.* Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

John Mew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Acirsa (talk · contribs)
Thjarkur (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am new to wikipedia, so I want to start by explaining the background. I thoroughly enjoy wikipedia. I have given donations in the past, but am currently a full time mother and not in a position to do so. As a result, I thought I would become a volunteer. I had been meaning to for some time, but when I went to look up some information and found there were no pages on those topics, I decided to join up. I have no link to the page that is the focus of the dispute. I read about how to do all the short cuts to create bold text etc (everything was new to me) and compiled a page on an elderly orthodontist called John Mew. I was creating a draft, submitted it for feedback, received some feedback and was working on it when the text appeared to go missing, so I pasted it back in again to start making the changes recommended. However, somehow I managed to create a duplicate page. Still not sure how, but I followed the instructions on requesting that the two pages be merged. I then proceeded to make the amendments recommended and was please to see some other amendments added, like italic text which I didn't know how to do. However, very quickly, I found someone was deleting my work as I did it. They cannot have had time to read the new footnotes and other amendments. They added pejorative opinions about the subject and accused me of having a conflict of interest. Their own negative opinions about the subject were not well referenced and certainly not neutral. It seems to me that they have some sort of conflict of interest. I was aware that the subject had had a disagreement with the General Dental Council during his career (it is in a newspaper article that I included in the page) but I thought that as he is a retired man of 90/91 that there would not be an active attempt to discredit him by removing references to accolades he received or research published in respected journals. I am upset that my efforts, made in good faith, have resulted in this onslaught.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Explaining that I don't have a conflict of interest and would welcome others adding references or giving suggestions, rather than deleting the work I have done in good faith.

How do you think we can help?

I don't know. I have read what you can and cannot do, but I am very concerned that this editor lacks neutrality, is too quick to delete others contributions rather than suggesting that an extra footnote is needed or doing a quick online search to find a suitable footnote. I would like to be able to continue to work on this page and to let others work on it, as long as they want to improve it, not sabotage it. It seems to me that Thjarkur wishes to sabotage it.

Summary of dispute by Thjarkur

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

John Mew discussion

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

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Ashleigh Barty (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Sharyn4939 (talk · contribs) WWGB (talk · contribs) Fyunck (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The word "Indigenous" keeps getting removed when describing her ethnicity. This is significant because Ashleigh identifies as an Aboriginal person and is recognised as such by the Aboriginal community. She is not described as an Indigenous Australian on the page - her father is - but mention is only made to her background. This is not accurate and it is completely inappropriate that non Indigenous people keep redefining it. The Aboriginal community has perceived this ongoing edit war as a racist attack to attempt to obscure her Aboriginal identity. It is an example of non Indigenous people sanitising content to suit their own comfort level of race. Wikipedia should not be a platform governed by White Privilege, there is no room for racism here. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Explained the situation and outlined the cultural considerations in Talk. Attempted to edit. How do you think we can help? Non Indigenous people have no place sanitising ethnic descriptors of identity for Indigenous people. Ashleigh Barty is an Indigenous Australian and this needs to be included in the content. This is racism. Racism needs to be addressed by Wikipedia - this is not just a platform for white people. Summary of dispute by WWGB Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Fyunck Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Ashleigh Barty discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Speedy close. You didn't provide a source for your edit, and accusing others of racism is a borderline attack. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 02:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Besides that, you only made one edit to the talk page, and didn't reply to WWGB. I don't see why you need to bring this up to the noticeboard for something you didn't discuss on the talk page. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 02:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Closed. There was insufficient discussion on the talk page, and the filer didn't really discuss there. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 02:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC) @Nigos: I did provide a source and you are looking at the Talk on the simplified page. I have opened up a new dispute and included you. (Sharyn4939 (talk) 07:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)) I said it when you filed the original dispute. Then, you only made one edit. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 08:10, 6 September 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 discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Ashleigh Barty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

The word "Indigenous" keeps getting removed when describing her ethnicity. This is significant because Ashleigh identifies as an Aboriginal person and is recognised as such by the Aboriginal community. She is not described as an Indigenous Australian on the page - her father is - but mention is only made to her background. This is not accurate and it is completely inappropriate that non Indigenous people keep redefining it. The Aboriginal community has perceived this ongoing edit war as a racist attack to attempt to obscure her Aboriginal identity. It is an example of non Indigenous people sanitising content to suit their own comfort level of race. Wikipedia should not be a platform governed by White Privilege, there is no room for racism here.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Explained the situation and outlined the cultural considerations in Talk. Attempted to edit.

How do you think we can help?

Non Indigenous people have no place sanitising ethnic descriptors of identity for Indigenous people. Ashleigh Barty is an Indigenous Australian and this needs to be included in the content. This is racism. Racism needs to be addressed by Wikipedia - this is not just a platform for white people.

Summary of dispute by WWGB

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

Summary of dispute by Fyunck

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

Summary of dispute by

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

Ashleigh Barty discussion

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

Speedy close. You didn't provide a source for your edit, and accusing others of racism is a borderline attack. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 02:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Besides that, you only made one edit to the talk page, and didn't reply to WWGB. I don't see why you need to bring this up to the noticeboard for something you didn't discuss on the talk page. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 02:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  - Closed. There was insufficient discussion on the talk page, and the filer didn't really discuss there. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 02:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nigos: I did provide a source and you are looking at the Talk on the simplified page. I have opened up a new dispute and included you. (Sharyn4939 (talk) 07:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC))

I said it when you filed the original dispute. Then, you only made one edit. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 08:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

The filing editor has not discussed the content dispute extensively on the article talk page, and has not listed any other editors. Discuss on the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, another request can be filed here. Also, the article has not been locked down. It has been semi-protected due to vandalism and sockpuppetry, and the filing editor is not yet autoconfirmed, but will be after making one more edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 26 August 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. Location of dispute Talk:List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019 (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Katfactz (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The article in question is the "List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019". The article is taking a fringe definition of an event and using it as fact without an attempt to display other more commonly used definitions. The article does not match any other wikipedia articles with the same term, which all use different, or at least multiple, definitions (see; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#2000s , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting) Further, the claim that there is no agreed-upon definition is untrue. Congress, the FBI, and other government agencies have all defined the term. Common sense, and the media (who commonly publicize mass shootings) says that a mass shooting is a shooting where the gunman intended to kill as many (usually) random people as possible. Virginia Tech. Gilroy Garlic Festival. El Paso. Not the most recent example on the 2019 list of "A 17 year old boy was killed in a Chicago drive by". Nor, "0 deaths, 4 injured, during an argument in a hotel room". These incidents are being used to inflate the number, and this number is being turned into propaganda/memes on social media websites. This number, and these ridiculous examples, do not at all match the other definitions even used here on Wikipedia. The "List of mass shootings in the united states" article is a great example of what actual mass shootings are, and what the public generally knows to be a mass shooting: random, terrible acts of violence intent on murdering as many people as possible. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've tried requesting edits, posting on the talk channel. This article has been locked down by the main editor. How do you think we can help? Compare this fringe article with the others on wikipedia. Once it's determined it doesn't match any other list, other than fringe special interest group lists, this article should either be completely taken down (because it re-works an existing page) or corrected to include mass shootings as defined by common sense. Talk:List of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2019 discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer comment: This seems to be an editor taking issue with the scope of an article, not a dispute between editors. There has been very little attempt to discuss it on the talk page. It also seems the filing editor might be arguing a point about the definition of "mass shooting" used by the sources the articles cite. If this is true but the sources are reliable, the proper way to dispute that definition is with the sources themselves, not on Wikipedia at all. KSFT ^(t\|c) 16:18, 26 August 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 discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Katfactz (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article in question is the "List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019".

The article is taking a fringe definition of an event and using it as fact without an attempt to display other more commonly used definitions.

The article does not match any other wikipedia articles with the same term, which all use different, or at least multiple, definitions (see; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#2000s , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting)

Further, the claim that there is no agreed-upon definition is untrue. Congress, the FBI, and other government agencies have all defined the term. Common sense, and the media (who commonly publicize mass shootings) says that a mass shooting is a shooting where the gunman intended to kill as many (usually) random people as possible. Virginia Tech. Gilroy Garlic Festival. El Paso.

Not the most recent example on the 2019 list of "A 17 year old boy was killed in a Chicago drive by". Nor, "0 deaths, 4 injured, during an argument in a hotel room".

These incidents are being used to inflate the number, and this number is being turned into propaganda/memes on social media websites.

This number, and these ridiculous examples, do not at all match the other definitions even used here on Wikipedia. The "List of mass shootings in the united states" article is a great example of what actual mass shootings are, and what the public generally knows to be a mass shooting: random, terrible acts of violence intent on murdering as many people as possible.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried requesting edits, posting on the talk channel. This article has been locked down by the main editor.

How do you think we can help?

Compare this fringe article with the others on wikipedia. Once it's determined it doesn't match any other list, other than fringe special interest group lists, this article should either be completely taken down (because it re-works an existing page) or corrected to include mass shootings as defined by common sense.

Talk:List of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2019 discussion

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

Volunteer comment: This seems to be an editor taking issue with the scope of an article, not a dispute between editors. There has been very little attempt to discuss it on the talk page. It also seems the filing editor might be arguing a point about the definition of "mass shooting" used by the sources the articles cite. If this is true but the sources are reliable, the proper way to dispute that definition is with the sources themselves, not on Wikipedia at all. KSFT ^(t|c) 16:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:Israeli settlement#Irish bill (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

An editor removed material. I reverted. We then had discussions on the article talk page (and on my user talk page subsequently copied over to the talk page). The editor removed the material again. I reverted again and explained I would take it to dispute resolution.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None.

How do you think we can help?

There may in the end be several issues but at present the dispute appears to revolve around who ONUS applies to. Should the onus be on me, the editor who originally added the material, to justify keeping it in (and it stays out meanwhile) or should the onus be on the editor deleting the material to justify taking the material out (and it stays in meanwhile).

Summary of dispute by Icewhiz

Selfstudier should adhere to WP:ONUS and WP:BRD - he added material, and got reverted. As for the material - it is poorly sourced (Middle East Monitor - very not mainstream) and of little lasting significance. This is a draft bill, in a small country (Ireland) that is far from the the area or the conflict. Furthermore the bill hasn't passed - from the homepage of the bill's sponsor (a source we must resort to due to lack of coverage) - we learn it is stuck in committee. In short - this draft bill received a little bit of coverage back in Jan, and very little since, and would have a rather minute effect even if passed. QED WP:UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

moved - wrong place.Icewhiz (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Israeli settlement#Irish_bill discussion

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

Statements by uninvolved editors

Statements by Banana Republic

Seems that since the material was added on June 28 and not challenged until August 28, WP:STATUSQUO is for the material to be included until a consensus can be shown to remove it.
If the issue is quality of the reference, and better references are available, why not replace the reference?
As for whether or not the paragraph should be included, it seems to currently be in the wrong section. It seems that the more appropriate home for this paragraph would be under the Economy section, and under the Export to EU subsection under that.

First, Icewhiz claims WP:UNDUE.
- Since there is a subsection in the article titled "Export to EU", it seems to me that any legislation reported in WP:RS impacting Export to EU would be DUE. Of course, the Wikipedia coverage should be much less in-depth than if the legislation were to become law. But that does not mean there should be zero mention unless the bill were to become law.
Icewhiz then claims WP:CRYSTAL
- Mentioning legislation does not in and of itself predict passage into law.

Banana Republic (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Statements by Tradedia

I have to agree with the commenter above that since the material was added in June and not challenged until August, the material should stay until there is a new consensus to remove it.
Also, I would like to comment on the content. If the bill is passed into official law, then the added material would not be undue. The material is not excessively lengthy as compared to the size of the article. An official law for the first time in an EU country would be significant. Also, once the bill is passed into official law, there would presumably be more sources in terms of quantity and quality.
I would favor keeping the added material in the article until the bill is passed into official law. If the bill fails to pass and is abandoned, then the material could be removed. Tradedia^talk 10:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Statements by ZScarpia

See also Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions# Ireland, Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018 for a talkpage discussion about whether the Irish bill should be mentioned in relation to BDS. The thread cites sources which may be seen as more "mainstream". Describing the bill as not having passed is a bit misleading. It was actually passed by both houses of the Irish parliament. However, the Irish prime minister was attempting to avoid signing the bill into law by invoking a "money message" provision. The bill was passed despite opposition by the Irish government. There is a certain irony in Icewhiz's small country and mainstream source references. ← ZScarpia 13:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer

I'm willing to try to conduct moderated discussion. User:Selfstudier, User:Icewhiz - Are you ready for moderated discussion? Please read WP:DRN Rule A and follow the rules. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion unless I provide a space for the purpose. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors.

Will each editor please reply, within 36 hours, and make a one-paragraph statement as to what they think the issue is about the content of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

First statements by editors

Yes. Note @Shrike: also became involved in the article. The problem in my mind is WP:UNDUE - draft legislation is dime a dozen, the article's topic has extensive coverage, and the draft bill got some coverage when it passed a vote - and then disappeared (to the point we need to go to the homepage of the promoter to see its status). It may be due on Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (where I did not challenge it) as one of a few 2019 events of note for BDS - but not on this article.Icewhiz (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I had already edited the article on 3 September in line with statement by Banana Republic, that is, I moved the content to the suggested section and added additional references. One issue was whether the material should remain in while any discussion takes place as to whether the material should be included at all. That the bill is not yet final in law (it is passed in both houses of the Irish parliament, formal stages only remain) does not make the information any less notable nor can I see what else precisely would make it UNDUE. If it is not UNDUE in the BDS article, then it is certainly not UNDUE here as exports from Israeli settlements are the specific target of the legislation.Selfstudier (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

BDS DUENESS is much-much easier - as BDS is only about boycotts (of settlements or Israel in general) - the settlement article is much wider in scope. At the moment we have essentialy a single newscycle of this back in Feb 2019. This might become DUE with sustained coverage. If we were to WP:CRYSTALBALL this having more coverage (and this is a highly notable topic) - we might end up with this draft bill remaining on the page after dying a silent death in committee (or remaining on ice in committee indefinitly)).Icewhiz (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

There is clear issue of WP:ONUS "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." There is clearly no consensus among involved editors that its WP:DUE to include.If the law passes then we may reiterate this issue. --Shrike (talk) 09:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

I think that some of this discussion is more about timing of edits and less about the final result than is necessary. The objective of this discussion is how to improve the article (or to leave it in its current state, if it is thought that it is in better shape than the proposed changes). I am not really interested in who edited what in the recent past, as much as in what we want the article to say. For the time being, the article will remain as is, stuck in the "wrong version", because the rules that I have chosen to use say not to edit the article while discussion is in progress. We do not need to discuss any temporary changes, because we are looking to a final version of the article.

Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. I will ask the questions. If you want to engage in back-and-forth discussion, please request that I provide a space for it, separate from the spaces for your statements.

Is the real question whether to refer to a bill that is being discussed in the parliament of the Republic of Ireland in the article? If so, who thinks that the bill should be mentioned, and why? Who thinks that the bill should not be mentioned, and why not? Each editor, whether an original party or another editor, should state in one paragraph what their objective is about the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

The statement currently in the article should remain, it is directly relevant to the subject matter of the article. The main argument presented for non-inclusion is that it has not yet completed all of the stages for it to become law but of itself that seems an insufficient reason for non-inclusion when one considers that the included material is notable, is limited in size and scope and clearly states that stages remain for it to become law.Selfstudier (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I (and I think @Shrike: on the talk/article) object to inclusion. The bill hasn't passed and even if it were to pass - would have a marginal effect (Ireland at 333 billion GDP is 1.7% of the EU's 18.8 trillion GDP. Israeli exports to Ireland overall are very small - e.g. per Irish Times - only 60 million euro total of which (settlements are 2% of the economy) - 1.2 million euro are from settlements (around 0.5% of settlement exports to the EU - which are at 230 million dollars). The current items in Israeli settlement#Export to EU (which is a tad too long as-is) have tangible effects - they are actually in force and are either EU wide or on a significant economy (e.g. UK - 2622 billion GDP - or 13.8% of the (still in) EU)). More importantly than the actual effect of this bill if it is actually passed - what we are missing is coverage to make this WP:DUE for a topic with so much coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

As I wrote above, if the bill is passed into official law, then the added material would not be undue. The material is not excessively lengthy as compared to the size of the article. An official law in an EU country would be significant. Also, once the bill is passed into official law, there would presumably be more sources in terms of quantity and quality. I would favor keeping the added material in the article until the bill is passed into official law. If the bill fails to pass and is abandoned, then the material could be removed. Tradedia^talk 09:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with everything Tradedia wrote except the last sentence. I think the material would be notable even if the bill fails to become law. Credible efforts to boycott exports from the settlements are notable. This is basically saying that notability is not temporary. Banana Republic (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

There are four possible ways to resolve this. We can all agree to include the material. We can all agree to exclude the material. Someone can propose a compromise wording. Or there can be a Request for Comments. So, does anyone have a proposed compromise? Will the editors who want to include the material agree to its exclusion in the interest of harmony? Will the editors who want to exclude the material agree to its inclusion in the interest of harmony? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

On the article talk page I had already suggested that the editor who originally removed the material conduct an RFC if removal was desired. The editor insisted that I remove the material and that it was my responsibility to do that, which I dispute, and now we are here, in effect conducting what amounts to an RFC. As it stands there is a consensus for leaving the material in, if we can get more inputs to that de facto RFC to confirm that consensus, then that would be a good thing, would it not? Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus to include this - but how about this - I don't think wasting community time of assessing WP:UNDUE here via a RfC is worth the time at present - particularly given the WP:ILIKEIT and WP:CRYSTALBALL arguments here (which are not soundly grounded in policy) that the bill was pass into law. So - how about we leave this in the article for now, and reassess in 3-6 months based on actual coverage in reliable sources of this. I would suggest that the current 3 sentence blurb be shortened to "The Irish Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) draft bill would prohibit in Ireland the purchase of goods and services from the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem or West Bank settlements; as of February 2019 the bill has not been enacted". Icewhiz (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not understand how one would apply a time limit to article content, I assume that as time passes, something or nothing will happen and editors will react accordingly. The purpose of the material is to convey an appropriate amount of information to the reader, I do not see how cutting the material as suggested is very helpful, it seems to me that the purpose in doing so is to make it appear as if the material is not notable. I had in any case intended to make amendments to clarify that the bill has passed both upper and lower houses and to indicate the stages remaining so I propose, suitably referenced (I removed the proposed penalties):

Having been agreed in full by the Upper house on 5 December 2018, and by the Dail (Ireland's lower house) on 24 January 2019, the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) bill [7] prohibits the purchasing of any good and/or service from the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem or West Bank settlements. As of July 2019 the bill is in committee stage.Remaining Stages Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not suggesting a time-limit - merely that we reassess in 3-6 months. Arguments here so far have been based on "it's due" (without showing RS coverage) or "it's going to pass into law" (WP:CRYSTALBALL). I don't see any great harm in the article containing an WP:UNDUE short blurb for another 3-6 months - per Wikipedia:There is no deadline. If indeed this passes into law and if it has sufficient RS coverage in 3-6 months to meet WP:DUE in 3-6 months - that will be easier to assess. Icewhiz (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

You have not said whether you agree with my proposed wording. If you do, I will do the necessary and we can close this.Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The voting record in various Irish legislative bodies is irrelevant (being an internal Irish affair, of no consequence outside of Ireland) - so no - I do not agree. In addition - the source for "as of July 2019 the bill is in committee stage" is unclear - is this according to the bill's sponsor? That would not be a RS. Icewhiz (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2019

Then I withdraw my proposal and revert to my original position (if you click the link (remaining stages) provided above you will see that the source for the "committee stage" is the Irish government website bill tracker which shows stages completed to date and remaining stages).Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

your source is dated 24 January (not June). It shows the next stage (8) is a committee - followed by stages 9,10, and 11 - of which 9&10 seem to be two additional votes in the Dáil . Icewhiz (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

As of 22 March 2019, the bill had been passed by both houses in the Irish parliament, but the government, which opposed the bill, was dragging its feet about signing it into law: "Both the Seanad and the Dáil have passed the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018. Despite this, the Government has yet to enact the legislation, wanting instead to put the Bill through a type of economic “stress test” (detailed scrutiny) before proceeding." ← ZScarpia 20:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

We have each refused the alternative wording of the other, the only option remaining should you still wish to have the material removed is an RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Fourth Statement by Moderator

Will each editor who favors a statement about the Irish bill provide a one-paragraph draft of what should be said, and state exactly where in the article it will be mentioned? The purpose is to determine the wording of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Fourth Statements by Editors

Export to EU

In Ireland, the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill cleared the Upper house on 5 December 2018 and has progressed to Third Stage Committee in the Lower house following a Second Stage vote of 78 to 45 on 24 January 2019.Ref Ref. Although debate has focused on the Palestinian territories the bill prohibits the purchase of goods and services from any occupied territory.Ref

(References are shown as links, the suggested section is where the current version of this material is presently located).Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The above assumes that the RFC will consider removal of the existing material, albeit that changes as above are contemplated. If that is not the case, then I do not wish to propose the altered material above and I would prefer simply to retain the material that was improperly removed in the first instance, so that in the event of no consensus, the material remains in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Removal as UNDUE was fit and proper. In the event of no consensus to include in a RfC - per WP:ONUS it is removed. If we do run a full RfC - the other option will be to remove. If you want to compromise on my suggestion above in round 3 (forestalling removal until we see it truly died in committee - or - passed - and RS coverage either way) - that's still ok with me.Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Your original removal of material in August of material in the article since June was disputed and the option was available to you to commence an RFC for removal, the usual procedure for a contested removal; instead you chose to engage in improper reverting in an attempt to enforce your POV, as has been pointed out by me and 2 other editors here. I merely wish to ensure that your behavior is not rewarded in any way. It is not an RFC for addition of material (if no consensus, material is not added) it is an RFC for maintaining the material that was originally in the article prior to your contested removal (if no consensus, material stays in). Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The RfC question should be neutrally posed - e.g. "Should the article include the following passage: .....".Icewhiz (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Per Consensus "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." I expect we will follow this.Selfstudier (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by SuperWikiLover223 on 00:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Machiavellianism (politics) (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved SuperWikiLover223 (talk · contribs) Johnbod (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Essentially the editor in question is quelling all forms of dissent on an article, and synthesizing materials to give his POV fork an air of credibility, as he bullies other editors of of said page. Article in question is a content fork, and while I initially supported keeping the article after a split discussion, it has turned into a rather sorry attempt to push an interpretation forth, as it does not include other scholars on the matter. My attempt to make the article neutral was met with animosity, which made me lash out in return with insensitivity (which will likely be used against me, just like my earlier support of the article before it was rewritten). The editor is also using the "in use" tag to prevent others from editing. He will also cite the failed AfD, which I closed because of cabalish behavior, though ironically, also accused me of canvassing by notifying the article creator (Twinkle automatically does that when you request a del discussion) and speaking to another editor who was recently in the discussion. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have brought this issue up in every noticeboard relevant to this situation, but to no avail. I should also note that I was unfairly accused of forum shopping by another individual. It seems like everyone is afraid to address Johnbod's behavior, yet they are bold with me. How do you think we can help? If someone could take the time and analyze the issues I brought up, and merely hear my arguments out, that would mitigate the situation. That probably will not happen, though. Summary of dispute by Johnbod Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Machiavellianism (politics) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer comment – Two problems here: one, this is a behavioral dispute, not a content dispute and should not be addressed here. Also, when opening a discussion that was started somewhere else, it's good form to provide a link to it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:56, 15 September 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 discussion

Filed by SuperWikiLover223 on 00:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:Machiavellianism (politics) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

SuperWikiLover223 (talk · contribs)
Johnbod (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Essentially the editor in question is quelling all forms of dissent on an article, and synthesizing materials to give his POV fork an air of credibility, as he bullies other editors of of said page. Article in question is a content fork, and while I initially supported keeping the article after a split discussion, it has turned into a rather sorry attempt to push an interpretation forth, as it does not include other scholars on the matter. My attempt to make the article neutral was met with animosity, which made me lash out in return with insensitivity (which will likely be used against me, just like my earlier support of the article before it was rewritten). The editor is also using the "in use" tag to prevent others from editing. He will also cite the failed AfD, which I closed because of cabalish behavior, though ironically, also accused me of canvassing by notifying the article creator (Twinkle automatically does that when you request a del discussion) and speaking to another editor who was recently in the discussion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have brought this issue up in every noticeboard relevant to this situation, but to no avail. I should also note that I was unfairly accused of forum shopping by another individual. It seems like everyone is afraid to address Johnbod's behavior, yet they are bold with me.

How do you think we can help?

If someone could take the time and analyze the issues I brought up, and merely hear my arguments out, that would mitigate the situation. That probably will not happen, though.

Summary of dispute by Johnbod

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

Talk:Machiavellianism (politics) discussion

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

Volunteer comment – Two problems here: one, this is a behavioral dispute, not a content dispute and should not be addressed here. Also, when opening a discussion that was started somewhere else, it's good form to provide a link to it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

I'm going to close this dispute because there is another forum for this content dispute, and DRN doesn't handle disputes for which there is another forum. The filing editor wants to reuse an existing shortcut, and the other editor points out that the shortcut is in common use, especially in deletion discussions. A shortcut is a redirect. The forum that the filing editor can use, if they want to hijack a commonly used redirect, is Redirects for Discussion. The filing editor has a right to file an RFD. Other editors then will have the right to object, because that redirect is in relatively common use in deletion discussions. I would advise the filing editor to use proper judgment before filing an RFD, and to consider that some other editors who are using that redirect will be annoyed by the RFD. The RFD will almost certainly be closed as a Keep. I know of at least two editors who will !vote Keep, User:RoySmith and myself. (But you have the right to file the RFD.) If the filing editor wants to propose changes to Roy Smith's essay, they can discuss with Roy Smith. If they want to copy Roy Smith's essay, with proper attribution, and then edit it, that is permitted. If the filing editor wants to create a similar essay with a similar but different shortcut, that would avoid conflict. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 2 September 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. Location of dispute User talk:RoySmith#Closing of Milk N Cooks AfD (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Banana Republic (talk · contribs) RoySmith (talk · contribs) Dispute overview RoySmith has written an interesting essay which he would like to keep in his user namespace. He has created the shortcut WP:THREE to his essay. Since RoySmith does not want to move his essay to the Wikipedia namespace, I wrote an essay in the Wikipedia namespace based on the content of his essay, and remapped the shortcut. RoySmith objected to my remapping of the shortcut, claiming that since the shortcut has existed for over a year and is in use in hundreds of discussions, the shortcut should remain the way it is, essentially claiming ownership over the shortcut. I think shortcuts in the Wikipedia namespace should redirect to essays within the Wikipedia namespace. Have you tried to resolve this previously? User talk discussion only How do you think we can help? Provide a consensus on whether existing usage of a shortcut overrides the natural clarity that redirects should remain within their respective namespace. Summary of dispute by RoySmith Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. As Banana Republic said, the shortcut has existed for over a year and has almost 500 incoming links. Redirecting it to a different essay would be disruptive. He's welcome to write his own essay, link to it, publicize it, create his own shortcut, etc. But not hijack an existing shortcut. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC) User talk:RoySmith#Closing of Milk N Cooks AfD discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.* Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

User talk:RoySmith#Closing of Milk N Cooks AfD (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Banana Republic (talk · contribs)
RoySmith (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

RoySmith has written an interesting essay which he would like to keep in his user namespace. He has created the shortcut WP:THREE to his essay. Since RoySmith does not want to move his essay to the Wikipedia namespace, I wrote an essay in the Wikipedia namespace based on the content of his essay, and remapped the shortcut. RoySmith objected to my remapping of the shortcut, claiming that since the shortcut has existed for over a year and is in use in hundreds of discussions, the shortcut should remain the way it is, essentially claiming ownership over the shortcut.

I think shortcuts in the Wikipedia namespace should redirect to essays within the Wikipedia namespace.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

User talk discussion only

How do you think we can help?

Provide a consensus on whether existing usage of a shortcut overrides the natural clarity that redirects should remain within their respective namespace.

Summary of dispute by RoySmith

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

As Banana Republic said, the shortcut has existed for over a year and has almost 500 incoming links. Redirecting it to a different essay would be disruptive. He's welcome to write his own essay, link to it, publicize it, create his own shortcut, etc. But not hijack an existing shortcut. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

User talk:RoySmith#Closing of Milk N Cooks AfD discussion

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

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed due to lack of participation from parties involved in the dispute, and due to discussion on the talk page having resumed. If necessary, a new DRN case can be filed at a later date. Alternatively, this issue may be better resolved through an RfC soliciting outside opinions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:34, 18 September 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. Filed by Dharmabumstead on 00:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Super Audio CD (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Dharmabumstead (talk · contribs) Binksternet (talk · contribs) Ianmacm (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The lead of the Super Audio CD page has a reference to a study (discussed at length elsewhere in the article) that I believe should not be in the lead. Aside from the fact that the sentence referencing the study is placed in a way that seems to imply that it caused the format to fail in the marketplace, the study itself (a comparison of the quality of CD audio versus high-resolution audio from DVD-A and SACD sources) was quite controversial and flawed (by admission of the study's authors). Placing it in the lead makes the article seem biased, and makes the study seem more conclusive than it actually was (see WP:UNDUE). I tried simply removing the reference from the lead, but one editor in particular seems quite intent on leaving the reference in because he insists it's "CRITICALLY IMPORTANT" to the history of SACD, without citing evidence that it is. Thanks. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Yes. There's been extensive discussion in the talk page. How do you think we can help? Have a neutral third part take a look at it. Summary of dispute by Binksternet Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This guy doesn't like a study published in the journal of the Audio Engineering Society, which is where the top audio studies are found. The study says people cannot generally hear the difference between a high resolution SACD recording and the same recording downsampled to just CD quality. Secondary sources have described the study as important to the topic, but this guy – who has a professional connection to audiophiles – hates the test so much that he thinks it should not be mentioned in the lead section. I think this is a question of behavior, not a matter for dispute resolution. His behavior. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Ianmacm Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. As I've said at Talk:Super Audio CD, I don't believe that the 2007 AES study had much to do with the failure of SACD to become a successful format. The players and discs were too expensive for most people, and by 2007-9 the market had moved away from physical disc formats in the direction of Internet audio with downloads and streaming media. In this edit I was worried about WP:LABEL as there needs to be a clearer explanation of why some people disagreed with the 2007 AES study.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC) Talk:Super Audio_CD discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. A few items here, in response to Binksternet's summary: Whether or not I like the report isn't really material here. It's widely acknowledged by many people - including the authors of the study - that the report is controversial, flawed, and not scientifically sound. It should also be noted that the study was NOT specifically about the SACD format, but rather whether CD's lower-resoluton audio was "good enough" that people couldn't distinguish it from high resolution audio sources (they used both SACD and DVD-Audio in the study). I have absolutely zero "professional connections" to "audiophiles", and unlike Binksternet, who actually belongs to the AES (the group that published the study in question), I belong to no professional audio industry groups. I have no idea what the basis for that assertion is, but it's false. Not that that should matter, anyway. As I've made very clear in the article's talk section, I don't think the reference belongs there not only because the study is controversial and flawed, but because it's bad writing (as it stands, it makes it seem as though the study was responsible for the failure of SACD in the marketplace), and because there's no purpose to having it there, as it seems to violate WP:NPOV. Leaving it there - as one of the first things a reader sees when they get to the article - gives the false impression that the study was undisputed and definitive, and gives it a weight and importance to the history of SACD that it simply doesn't have (see WP:UNDUE). No other Wiki article on audio formats (including CD and DVD-A, the other formats that were used in the study) have a mention of the study "above the fold" in the lead section. Speaking of behavior: Binksternet appears to be acting like a bully who's taken umbrage that some upstart Wiki newb is challenging his "authority". His reasoning for leaving the reference to the study in the lead seems to boil down to "because I said so". He was disdainful and dismissive of the large numbers of people who disputed the study, with asinine and unsubstantiated statements like "it wasn't controversial unless your business model depended on SACD sales". He demanded that I go find secondary sources to back up my assertion that the report was "controversial" and "disputed" and not definitive. When I provided those references - not just from the very same professional journal as the original study, but also from the actual authors of the study - in the talk section of the article, he proceeded to ignore those and simply revert my changes back without comment as soon as the page was unlocked. I also - seemingly out of nowhere - had a semi-retired Wiki admin leave a threatening warning about "blatantly and purposefully" harassing Binksternet on my user talk page, without the slightest justification or explanation (Binksternet has denied having anything to do with this). We appear to be at an impasse, which is why I opened a dispute. Dharmabumstead (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC) First statement by volunteer Participation at DRN is entirely voluntary, and it is a bit unclear as to whether Binksternet is interested in participating in this process. That having been said, I think that participation in this process could help focus the discussion on content and allow us to reach an amicable solution without escalating to ANI. There appears to be some disagreement on source reliability that I think, if clarified through moderated discussion, could resolve the issue. Binksternet, if you are not willing to participate in DRN for this issue, please clarify this. Otherwise, all editors involved should read WP:DRN Rule A and follow the rules. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion unless I provide a space for the purpose. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Will each editor please write a one-paragraph statement in the next 36 hours summarizing their desired changes to the the lead of Super Audio CD? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC) First statements by editors I want the reference to the Meyers and Moran study removed from the lead of the article, per my original edit. Aside from the fact that the reference looks clunky and out-of-place from an editorial standpoint, leaving it there seems to violate WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, especially given the widely-reported controversial and inconclusive nature of the study (which I backed up with secondary sources in the discussion at Talk:Super Audio CD). Even the authors of the study have acknowledged that it was "scattershot" and not scientifically rigorous, and one of the editors on the other side of this dispute has acknowledged this as well. Dharmabumstead (talk) 21:08, 15 September 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 discussion

Filed by Dharmabumstead on 00:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:Super Audio CD (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

The lead of the Super Audio CD page has a reference to a study (discussed at length elsewhere in the article) that I believe should not be in the lead. Aside from the fact that the sentence referencing the study is placed in a way that seems to imply that it caused the format to fail in the marketplace, the study itself (a comparison of the quality of CD audio versus high-resolution audio from DVD-A and SACD sources) was quite controversial and flawed (by admission of the study's authors). Placing it in the lead makes the article seem biased, and makes the study seem more conclusive than it actually was (see WP:UNDUE). I tried simply removing the reference from the lead, but one editor in particular seems quite intent on leaving the reference in because he insists it's "CRITICALLY IMPORTANT" to the history of SACD, without citing evidence that it is.

Thanks.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Yes. There's been extensive discussion in the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Have a neutral third part take a look at it.

Summary of dispute by Binksternet

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

This guy doesn't like a study published in the journal of the Audio Engineering Society, which is where the top audio studies are found. The study says people cannot generally hear the difference between a high resolution SACD recording and the same recording downsampled to just CD quality. Secondary sources have described the study as important to the topic, but this guy – who has a professional connection to audiophiles – hates the test so much that he thinks it should not be mentioned in the lead section.

I think this is a question of behavior, not a matter for dispute resolution. His behavior. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ianmacm

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

As I've said at Talk:Super Audio CD, I don't believe that the 2007 AES study had much to do with the failure of SACD to become a successful format. The players and discs were too expensive for most people, and by 2007-9 the market had moved away from physical disc formats in the direction of Internet audio with downloads and streaming media. In this edit I was worried about WP:LABEL as there needs to be a clearer explanation of why some people disagreed with the 2007 AES study.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Super Audio_CD discussion

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

A few items here, in response to Binksternet's summary:

Whether or not I like the report isn't really material here. It's widely acknowledged by many people - including the authors of the study - that the report is controversial, flawed, and not scientifically sound. It should also be noted that the study was NOT specifically about the SACD format, but rather whether CD's lower-resoluton audio was "good enough" that people couldn't distinguish it from high resolution audio sources (they used both SACD *and* DVD-Audio in the study).
I have absolutely zero "professional connections" to "audiophiles", and unlike Binksternet, who actually belongs to the AES (the group that published the study in question), I belong to no professional audio industry groups. I have no idea what the basis for that assertion is, but it's false. Not that that should matter, anyway.
As I've made very clear in the article's talk section, I don't think the reference belongs there not only because the study is controversial and flawed, but because it's *bad writing* (as it stands, it makes it seem as though the study was responsible for the failure of SACD in the marketplace), and because there's no purpose to having it there, as it seems to violate WP:NPOV. Leaving it there - as one of the first things a reader sees when they get to the article - gives the false impression that the study was undisputed and definitive, and gives it a weight and importance to the history of SACD that it simply doesn't have (see WP:UNDUE). No other Wiki article on audio formats (including CD and DVD-A, the other formats that were used in the study) have a mention of the study "above the fold" in the lead section.
Speaking of behavior: Binksternet appears to be acting like a bully who's taken umbrage that some upstart Wiki newb is challenging his "authority". His reasoning for leaving the reference to the study in the lead seems to boil down to "because I said so". He was disdainful and dismissive of the large numbers of people who disputed the study, with asinine and unsubstantiated statements like "it wasn't controversial unless your business model depended on SACD sales". He demanded that I go find secondary sources to back up my assertion that the report was "controversial" and "disputed" and not definitive. When I provided those references - not just from the very same professional journal as the original study, but also from the actual authors of the study - in the talk section of the article, he proceeded to ignore those and simply revert my changes back without comment as soon as the page was unlocked. I also - seemingly out of nowhere - had a semi-retired Wiki admin leave a threatening warning about "blatantly and purposefully" harassing Binksternet on my user talk page, without the slightest justification or explanation (Binksternet has denied having anything to do with this).

We appear to be at an impasse, which is why I opened a dispute. Dharmabumstead (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer

Participation at DRN is entirely voluntary, and it is a bit unclear as to whether Binksternet is interested in participating in this process. That having been said, I think that participation in this process could help focus the discussion on content and allow us to reach an amicable solution without escalating to ANI. There appears to be some disagreement on source reliability that I think, if clarified through moderated discussion, could resolve the issue. Binksternet, if you are not willing to participate in DRN for this issue, please clarify this. Otherwise, all editors involved should read WP:DRN Rule A and follow the rules. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion unless I provide a space for the purpose. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors.

Will each editor please write a one-paragraph statement in the next 36 hours summarizing their desired changes to the the lead of Super Audio CD? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

First statements by editors

I want the reference to the Meyers and Moran study removed from the lead of the article, per my original edit. Aside from the fact that the reference looks clunky and out-of-place from an editorial standpoint, leaving it there seems to violate WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, especially given the widely-reported controversial and inconclusive nature of the study (which I backed up with secondary sources in the discussion at Talk:Super Audio CD). Even the authors of the study have acknowledged that it was "scattershot" and not scientifically rigorous, and one of the editors on the other side of this dispute has acknowledged this as well. Dharmabumstead (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Template talk:Romanian language (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Borsoka (talk · contribs) Rgvis (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Content of the Template:Romanian language. Have you tried to resolve this previously? No, because the debate is too complex to seek 3rd opinion or to request comments. Now (four days after placing this request) I requested 3rd opinion, because I want to avoid both edit warring and the presentation of results of original research. Borsoka (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC) How do you think we can help? Through mediation to help us to understand the other party's concerns. Summary of dispute by Rgvis My editings were well referenced from the beginning. However, User:Borsoka, probably in the desire to impose his/her personal point of view, has continued to make changes in a manner that is as disruptive as possible (no matter of other additional explanations provided). (Rgvis (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)) Summary of dispute by Borsoka The presentation of Re-latinization of Romanian as a period of the development of the Romanian language on a navigation box. The presentation of the Transylvanian School as a period of the development of the Romanian language (instead of mentioning it either within the scope of re-latinization, or in an other line of the same navigation box). Borsoka (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC) Template talk:Romanian_language discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - User:Borsoka, User:Rgvis - Is this issue about how to periodize the history of the Romanian language? Is there some other issue also? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC) Nearly. I would rather say that the terminology is the core of the debate. Borsoka (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC) Or we can rather say, the presentation of the historical evolution is the core of the debate. I think we agree that there are three stages of the development of the language (Proto-Romanian, Old Romanian and Modern Romanian) and we also agree that its substrate language and Vulgar Latin should also be mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC) Yes, the periodization is disputed, especially the modern Romanian period, which is also divided into three well-defined stages (pre-modern, modern, and contemporary, each stage being characterized by certain directions). (Rgvis (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)) First statement by moderator Please read the ground rules for moderated discussion. Be civil and concise. (Fortunately, that seems to be already the case here.) Comment on content, not contributors. I am not an expert on templates and know very little about Romanian, but I am familiar with the concept of periodization. Will each editor state briefly what they think should be the periods and any sub-periods, with a brief description of each? I would like to see if we can get a structure that everyone accepts. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC) User:Borsoka, User:Rgvis - Please provide brief statements on what the periodization should be. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC) First statements by Borsoka Thank you for your mediation. I think a third opinion had meanwhile solved the problem. Borsoka (talk) 10:05, 14 September 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 discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Template talk:Romanian language (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Borsoka (talk · contribs)
Rgvis (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Content of the Template:Romanian language.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

No, because the debate is too complex to seek 3rd opinion or to request comments. Now (four days after placing this request) I requested 3rd opinion, because I want to avoid both edit warring and the presentation of results of original research. Borsoka (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

Through mediation to help us to understand the other party's concerns.

Summary of dispute by Rgvis

My editings were well referenced from the beginning. However, User:Borsoka, probably in the desire to impose his/her personal point of view, has continued to make changes in a manner that is as disruptive as possible (no matter of other additional explanations provided). (Rgvis (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC))

Summary of dispute by Borsoka

The presentation of Re-latinization of Romanian as a period of the development of the Romanian language on a navigation box.

The presentation of the Transylvanian School as a period of the development of the Romanian language (instead of mentioning it either within the scope of re-latinization, or in an other line of the same navigation box). Borsoka (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Romanian_language discussion

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

Volunteer Note - User:Borsoka, User:Rgvis - Is this issue about how to periodize the history of the Romanian language? Is there some other issue also? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Nearly. I would rather say that the terminology is the core of the debate. Borsoka (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Or we can rather say, the presentation of the historical evolution is the core of the debate. I think we agree that there are three stages of the development of the language (Proto-Romanian, Old Romanian and Modern Romanian) and we also agree that its substrate language and Vulgar Latin should also be mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the periodization is disputed, especially the modern Romanian period, which is also divided into three well-defined stages (pre-modern, modern, and contemporary, each stage being characterized by certain directions). (Rgvis (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

First statement by moderator

Please read the ground rules for moderated discussion. Be civil and concise. (Fortunately, that seems to be already the case here.) Comment on content, not contributors. I am not an expert on templates and know very little about Romanian, but I am familiar with the concept of periodization. Will each editor state briefly what they think should be the periods and any sub-periods, with a brief description of each? I would like to see if we can get a structure that everyone accepts. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC) User:Borsoka, User:Rgvis - Please provide brief statements on what the periodization should be. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

First statements by Borsoka

Thank you for your mediation. I think a third opinion had meanwhile solved the problem. Borsoka (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed. There are several problems with this case. First, it appears to have been filed manually, rather than the automated filing template, and so is incompletely formed. Second, the discussion at the article talk page is not extensive. Third, the filing party has also filed a Request for Comments, although the RFC is not stated as a question and will not resolve any issues. The RFC should either be allowed to run for 30 days, after which it will be closed with no result, or the RFC should be withdrawn or deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 19 September 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. Location of dispute Talk:Freedom and Direct Democracy (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Ec1801011 (talk · contribs) ThecentreCZ (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Ongoing edit war regarding which logo to use for the party's Wikipedia page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Not myself as I am not aware of Wikipedia rules regarding political party logos and what is and is not approporate to use. How do you think we can help? If knowledge of what is acceptable to use and/or there is a Wikipeida rule which would decide who is right in this dispute (if anyone). Or simply a third opinion or someone who thinks they may be able to help resolve the dispute. Helper201 (talk) 06:26, 19 September 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 discussion

Location of dispute

Talk:Freedom and Direct Democracy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Ec1801011 (talk · contribs)
ThecentreCZ (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Ongoing edit war regarding which logo to use for the party's Wikipedia page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Not myself as I am not aware of Wikipedia rules regarding political party logos and what is and is not approporate to use.

How do you think we can help?

If knowledge of what is acceptable to use and/or there is a Wikipeida rule which would decide who is right in this dispute (if anyone). Or simply a third opinion or someone who thinks they may be able to help resolve the dispute. Helper201 (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed as premature. There has not been adequate discussion on the article talk page, and the filing unregistered editor has not notified the other editors. Stop edit-warring, and discuss on the article talk page. If discussion at the article talk page is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. Report edit-warring at the edit-warring noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 5 September 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. Location of dispute Functional medicine (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Alexbrn (talk · contribs) McSly (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Article is extremely biased, citing only one doctor who uses outdated language such as "quackery" to describe clinics at well-established institutions such as the Cleveland Clinic and George Washington University Clinic. Users have repeatedly tried to fix these claims but changes are always reverted back to the original article. I tried adding information from the National Institute of Health's branch, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Medicine, and was told that my information was "too biased." They use the pejorative phrased "so-called" to describe Chronic Lyme's Disease-- while there have not been traditional scientific studies that prove this, it is unnecessary (and NOT objective) language. Have you tried to resolve this previously? tried contacting above users How do you think we can help? I would really appreciate a third party explaining objectivity and the value of using updated language and content. Summary of dispute by Alexbrn Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by McSly Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Functional medicine discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.* Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Functional medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Alexbrn (talk · contribs)
McSly (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Article is extremely biased, citing only one doctor who uses outdated language such as "quackery" to describe clinics at well-established institutions such as the Cleveland Clinic and George Washington University Clinic. Users have repeatedly tried to fix these claims but changes are always reverted back to the original article. I tried adding information from the National Institute of Health's branch, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Medicine, and was told that my information was "too biased." They use the pejorative phrased "so-called" to describe Chronic Lyme's Disease-- while there have not been traditional scientific studies that prove this, it is unnecessary (and NOT objective) language.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

tried contacting above users

How do you think we can help?

I would really appreciate a third party explaining objectivity and the value of using updated language and content.

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn

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

Summary of dispute by McSly

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

Functional medicine discussion

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

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed due to inadequate discussion. There has not been extensive discussion on either the article talk page or the user talk page. Continue discussion on the article talk page. If discussion on the article talk page is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. (The filing editor did not notify the other editor, and should do so in any refiling.) Robert McClenon (talk) 13:00, 8 September 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. Location of dispute Mar Thoma Syrian Church (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) User talk:Chandy of Pakalomattom (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Chandy of Pakalomattom (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There a user (and its anonymous users, who could be the same person) who keep repeat undoing the previous edits as the Mar Thoma Syrian Church from me and now couple users for the last months, just over the classification of the Church; like the user is proclaiming its still Eastern Christian due of being Syrian Christian denomination, despite adopting a semi-Western Protestant-like identity by both clearly provided the Church's website and its Wikipedia page's history section. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I send out the edit warning tag today at its talk page, and I got a nearly and unironically nonsensical respond that ACCUSING me and another user of both us got "wrong" information, despite once I told it to get a primary or secondary source to back its claim, it sends a third-party website Weebly with an incomplete and unofficial "version" of the Church's website as "proof", thus not definition of a primary/secondary source the site needs. How do you think we can help? By sending provide pretty clear evidence on its face that seemly favors to me, or all you what could a better solution than my proposal? Summary of dispute by Chandy of Pakalomattom Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Mar Thoma Syrian Church, User talk:Chandy of Pakalomattom discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.* Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Mar Thoma Syrian Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Chandy of Pakalomattom (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Chandy of Pakalomattom (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There a user (and its anonymous users, who could be the same person) who keep repeat undoing the previous edits as the Mar Thoma Syrian Church from me and now couple users for the last months, just over the classification of the Church; like the user is proclaiming its still Eastern Christian due of being Syrian Christian denomination, despite adopting a semi-Western Protestant-like identity by both clearly provided the Church's website and its Wikipedia page's history section.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I send out the edit warning tag today at its talk page, and I got a nearly and unironically nonsensical respond that ACCUSING me and another user of both us got "wrong" information, despite once I told it to get a primary or secondary source to back its claim, it sends a third-party website Weebly with an incomplete and unofficial "version" of the Church's website as "proof", thus not definition of a primary/secondary source the site needs.

How do you think we can help?

By sending provide pretty clear evidence on its face that seemly favors to me, or all you what could a better solution than my proposal?

Summary of dispute by Chandy of Pakalomattom

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

Mar Thoma Syrian Church, User talk:Chandy of Pakalomattom discussion

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

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed. There are at least two problems with this case. First, User:Freeknowledgecreator says that they were not planning to take part in dispute resolution, which is voluntary. Second, there has been sockpuppetry in this case, in particular of a "volunteer" comment by a new editor who was not a DRN volunteer but has been blocked, which is a conduct issue. Discussion may resume at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 10 September 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. Location of dispute Talk:Camille Paglia#BLP violation (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk · contribs) Freeknowledgecreator (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I found that the views of Camille Paglia on the controversial topic of Child Sexuality had not been sufficiently documented on Wikipedia and I therefore added a subsection about it in the "Views" section of her page. I am faced with a user who, instead of improving the text as is recommended in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution, constantly deletes the entire section. I have made numerous changes to the paragraph as they were providing their critiques, but it has become clear that this user simply opposes to the introduction of the material as a whole. The subject of the relevance of this section should be determined based on Wikipedia:Notability_(people) rather than the subjective determination by this editor that these views are not "major ones" of the living person. In this case, these views held by Paglia were covered in The Time, The Telegraph, Salon, The Guide, as well as numerous primary works of the author published in the form of her own books. Furthermore, User:Freeknowledgecreator argues that these views might not still be held by the person since they were expressed in the 1990s, but for that he has no citations and asks us to believe that he may have heard somewhere that her views on the subject had changed since then. This argument should be rejected until he can provide a relevant quote. In any case, the documentation of these views expressed publicly by Paglia warrant encyclopedic documentation. Finally, the critique by User:Freeknowledgecreator is contradictory in that he complains the paragraph is too long, and instead of showing us a way he could shorten it, he deletes it. On the other hand, he previously argues I was not offering proper context to the quotes, to which I replied by adding the full quotes, which increased the length of the text. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have opened a discussion on the talk page so that any opposition to the paragraph could be expressed. I have then modified the new subsection according to the feedback provided by User:Freeknowledgecreator in three rounds of correction, but he continues deleting the entire section. How do you think we can help? What would help resolve this dispute is to have a third party declare that the new subsection is warranted and that sufficient space must be allowed to cover the context of the quotes on this controversial subject. An appeal to User:Freeknowledgecreator to engage constructively on the writing of this subsection rather than deleting salvageable text would also be welcomed. Summary of dispute by Freeknowledgecreator Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I intended at first to simply ignore Jean-Francois Gariepy's comments here, since participation at the "Dispute resolution noticeboard" is not compulsory. However, I note that shortly after Jean-Francois Gariepy said that "a third party" should "declare that the new subsection is warranted", a brand new account, Erdmännle, made this comment, supporting Jean-Francois Gariepy, as its very first edit. How very convenient. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC) Talk:Camille Paglia#BLP_violation discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note Jean-Francois added views by Paglia on child sexuality and backed them up with third party sources as well as comments by Paglia in her books Vamps and Tramps and Sexual Personae. Though controversial, there is no need to have deleted the whole paragraph. Wikipedia should not shun away from controversy. But as Freeknowledgecreator rightly mentioned, this should be done in a respectful manner. We should definitively keep out the North American Man/Boy Love Association´s statement as this might lead to even more infighting in the article. Erdmännle (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC) The "Volunteer Note" above was made by a brand new user who has made no edits to Wikipedia except to make that comment. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC) So does this invalidate my proposition? By this measure, any edit by a new user should be discarded. Btw, I´m not a single issue account. I´ve made edits on the German WIkipedia before. Do talk to the facts, please. Erdmännle (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC) Freeknowledgecreator—you are citing WP:PROPORTION but you are removing the entire paragraph, actually 3 paragraphs. Bus stop (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC) Erdmännle—are you a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Jean-Francois Gariepy? Bus stop (talk) 13:10, 10 September 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 discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:Camille Paglia#BLP violation (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk · contribs)
Freeknowledgecreator (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I found that the views of Camille Paglia on the controversial topic of Child Sexuality had not been sufficiently documented on Wikipedia and I therefore added a subsection about it in the "Views" section of her page. I am faced with a user who, instead of improving the text as is recommended in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution, constantly deletes the entire section. I have made numerous changes to the paragraph as they were providing their critiques, but it has become clear that this user simply opposes to the introduction of the material as a whole. The subject of the relevance of this section should be determined based on Wikipedia:Notability_(people) rather than the subjective determination by this editor that these views are not "major ones" of the living person. In this case, these views held by Paglia were covered in The Time, The Telegraph, Salon, The Guide, as well as numerous primary works of the author published in the form of her own books.

Furthermore, User:Freeknowledgecreator argues that these views might not still be held by the person since they were expressed in the 1990s, but for that he has no citations and asks us to believe that he may have heard somewhere that her views on the subject had changed since then. This argument should be rejected until he can provide a relevant quote. In any case, the documentation of these views expressed publicly by Paglia warrant encyclopedic documentation.

Finally, the critique by User:Freeknowledgecreator is contradictory in that he complains the paragraph is too long, and instead of showing us a way he could shorten it, he deletes it. On the other hand, he previously argues I was not offering proper context to the quotes, to which I replied by adding the full quotes, which increased the length of the text.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have opened a discussion on the talk page so that any opposition to the paragraph could be expressed. I have then modified the new subsection according to the feedback provided by User:Freeknowledgecreator in three rounds of correction, but he continues deleting the entire section.

How do you think we can help?

What would help resolve this dispute is to have a third party declare that the new subsection is warranted and that sufficient space must be allowed to cover the context of the quotes on this controversial subject. An appeal to User:Freeknowledgecreator to engage constructively on the writing of this subsection rather than deleting salvageable text would also be welcomed.

Summary of dispute by Freeknowledgecreator

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

I intended at first to simply ignore Jean-Francois Gariepy's comments here, since participation at the "Dispute resolution noticeboard" is not compulsory. However, I note that shortly after Jean-Francois Gariepy said that "a third party" should "declare that the new subsection is warranted", a brand new account, Erdmännle, made this comment, supporting Jean-Francois Gariepy, as its very first edit. How very convenient. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Camille Paglia#BLP_violation discussion

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

Volunteer Note Jean-Francois added views by Paglia on child sexuality and backed them up with third party sources as well as comments by Paglia in her books Vamps and Tramps and Sexual Personae. Though controversial, there is no need to have deleted the whole paragraph. Wikipedia should not shun away from controversy. But as Freeknowledgecreator rightly mentioned, this should be done in a respectful manner. We should definitively keep out the North American Man/Boy Love Association´s statement as this might lead to even more infighting in the article. Erdmännle (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The "Volunteer Note" above was made by a brand new user who has made no edits to Wikipedia except to make that comment. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

So does this invalidate my proposition? By this measure, any edit by a new user should be discarded. Btw, I´m not a single issue account. I´ve made edits on the German WIkipedia before. Do talk to the facts, please. Erdmännle (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Freeknowledgecreator—you are citing WP:PROPORTION but you are removing the entire paragraph, actually 3 paragraphs. Bus stop (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Erdmännle—are you a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Jean-Francois Gariepy? Bus stop (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Failed. This dispute, which is only about alphabetizing of surnames, is now at WP:ANI. This noticeboard does not handle issues that are pending anywhere else including at WP:ANI. Resolution of the content dispute, about the alphabetization of certain surnames, can resume after the conduct dispute is resolved. In the meantime, either address your concerns at WP:ANI or wait for that matter to be resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Closed discussion

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

Location of dispute

Talk:The Real Housewives of New York City (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

'The Real Housewives of New York City' cast member Luann de Lesseps was alphabetized in the article as de Lesseps, Luann, which adheres to the American naming system, up until it was changed a few months back. Now it is Lesseps, Luann de, which adheres to French conventions. As an American woman with a surname of French origin, it has been debated which manner of alphabetizing is more suitable.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have requested a third opinion and opened a request for comment, both of which did not help establish a consensus.

How do you think we can help?

By giving a categorical decision on whether it is more appropriate for Luann de Lesseps to be alphabetized as Lesseps, Luann de or de Lesseps, Luann.

Summary of dispute by AnAudLife

"Lesseps, Ferdinand de and La Tour, Georges de." Those two names are French, yet we alphabetize them as stated in English reference (one of those names is identical to the name here in our dispute). In other words, here in Wikipedia and in an actual brick and mortar library here in the United States of America, those names are listed as:

Lesseps, Ferdinand de
La Tour, Georges de

Luann de Lesseps is indeed American, she married a French man with a French surname, she shouldn't be alphabetized differently than her husband simply because she isn't French. Also, on the RHONY talk page I've provided numerous other references, one even being Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writers and Editors that supports my claim. Lesseps is the family surname or the "root", de is the preposition or the "particle", what should be alphabetized is the actual surname, not the preposition. AnAudLife (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:The Real Housewives of New York City discussion

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

Volunteer Note - The RFC was closed by the originator without allowing it to run to completion, and so of course it did not establish a consensus. Is this a question about the RHNY article, or a question that is really about the Manual of Style? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
After two weeks of being active, the RfC generated only two additional users with differing views, one stating that the sorting should follow American conventions and the other questioning why nationality plays a factor, which left AnAudLife and myself to regurgitate the same points over and over. The question is in regards to the RHONY article specifically because while the MOS does not provide a guideline on how to sort Americans with names of French origin, WP:MCSTJR outlines how to sort names with particles in situations with inconsistencies such as the one at hand. KyleJoan^talk 20:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Correction, TWO users supported my theory while only ONE supported KyleJoan's opinion. She closed the RFC because she didn't like the results she was getting. AnAudLife (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Two users responded to the RfC. One of the users AnAudLife is referencing as supporting my theory has been an active participant since before the RfC, as displayed here. In addition, other comments on the dispute, including the third opinion, are freely available on the article's talk page. KyleJoan^talk 21:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Three users responded to the RFC, one agreed with you, Peter Southwood, two agreed with me, Almond Plate and ~ ToBeFree AnAudLife (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon has a point: This seems to be a general Manual of Style question and needs a non-local RfC or Village Pump discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
That has already been attempted twice, which you can find here and here; neither came to a resolution. A user on the first discussion even makes a reference to another previous one, available here, where in regards to the sorting of the name de Quincey, it depends on everything from geography, time period, culture, to personal preference. As this guidance is for sorting of articles into a category, it assumes you can make the determination based on intersections of those factors for the article plus the category. This assessment is in line with WP:MCSTJR, which I fully reference to make my point here. KyleJoan^talk 21:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Let's look at it in simpler terms. Imagine, for argument sake, there are 5 million people in the world who use "de" preceding their family name. Such as:

John A. de Smith
Mary D. de Jones
James L. de Johnson
Susie M. de White

Can you imagine indexing all 5 million people by the "de"? No, because it makes indexing names easier to do and of course easier to locate a certain name by alphabetizing them by their family names, not by the particle, in this case meaning of...which is a preposition. Why don't we allow a resolution or a consensus to be reached instead of continuing to debate? Everything that we've already pointed out is found in the RHONY talk page. AnAudLife (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Note - I would prefer to resolve this by an MOS-level RFC, and it appears that the two previous discussions were never formally put to RFC. If we want an interim solution for this one socialite, I am willing to offer my opinion, but I don't know if you want it. Do you want my opinion, or do you want me to remain neutral? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Please do make it a MOS-level RFC.
On another note, just for everyone's information, Almond Plate has been checkuser-blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I don’t know what checkuser blocked is but it doesn’t sound good. Please notify me of MOS RFC. Thank you. AnAudLife (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

User:AnAudLife - It means that the user was blocked for sockpuppetry by a CheckUser, a functionary who has access to login records that match IP addresses with user accounts. It means that the user was a sockpuppet or puppet-master. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Almond Plate being out of the discussion means that AnAudLife's theory is left with zero user support. ToBeFree, you posed a question in your response to the RfC, which I and WP:MCSTJR answered, so now I would love to hear your categorical view if you'd like to state it. Robert McClenon, I would love to have your opinion to help form an interim solution for this specific case. Thanks, all! KyleJoan^talk 05:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

KyleJoan

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
you really do make up your own facts in your own little world.

Let’s not forget all the support I had in MOS discussion that you referenced above. Which is where I think this conversation should take place as previously stated. AnAudLife (talk) 05:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Note - I am willing to offer my opinion on this specific case, but my opinion on this case reflects what I think should be the rule about cases where the nationality of the person differs from the national origin of the surname. Do you want my opinion on this case, or do you want an RFC about the MOS? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Volunteer Note - Be civil. No insults. Robert McClenon (talk)
I personally would like an RFC about the MOS. AnAudLife (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

This is leading nowhere without a proper MOS RFC. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I still feel that a MOS RfC could very well conclude in that the findings of the previous three discussions that an intersectionality of the factors listed on WP:MCSTJR is the most appropriate solution. Seeing how the last three discussions went, I believe the probability for this is high. That said, there's no reason we can't have both a MOS RfC and an interim solution for this specific dispute. Robert McClenon, I'd still like to hear your opinion on this specific case in the interim because as I pointed out in my dispute summary, the name had been indexed one way for years until only a few months ago, so I feel it is more appropriate to resolve this specific dispute first and then take on the broader idea of indexing if one should so choose. KyleJoan^talk 18:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

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

@KyleJoan: So, basically you're not interested in what is correct and/or accepted standards of indexing, you just want this one particular case decided in your favor regardless of whether it's correct or not? Because to be frank, when I first spotted the discrepancy and corrected it you began an edit war that went beyond believable and you were suspended for one month because of how poorly you handled it. And that was your 6th suspension for edit warring. You've made this one issue about "winning" instead of seeing and understanding the cold hard facts that I presented in several different areas of discussion.

I would like to take this to MOS RFC, for this case and for others that may be affected in the future. AnAudLife (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

As there is no deadline, I'd prefer the general MOS discussion to happen instead of making a local solution dependent on the DRN volunteer's opinion. Simply stating one more opinion here seems unlikely to resolve the dispute. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that we don't even know what Robert McClenon's opinion is. Aside from that, there's already a majority view on the article's talk page, with not one [myself], not two, not three, but four users believing in one way of sorting. I understand that's not a consensus, but since this dispute originated from a bold edit on a specific article that went against what had been a precedent for years, there's no reason for said disputed bold edit not to be resolved in the interim. Therefore, I maintain that both a MOS RfC and an interim solution can exist simultaneously. KyleJoan^talk 01:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

First Statement by Moderator

I will be starting an RFC against the MOS shortly. In the meantime, read the ground rules which restate the rule to comment on content, not contributors. I would appreciate any suggestions as to where to post the RFC. I don't think that the talk page of WP:MCSTJR is well enough read, and I am inclined to try the Manual of Style main talk page, with mentions at other places. Does anyone have any suggestions for where to post the RFC? I am providing a space for back-and-forth discussion in case it makes anyone feel better. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not plan to offer an interim opinion. I will provide my opinion in the RFC a few days after it is posted (waiting to be sure that the RFC is proceeding well). When the RFC is closed, maybe that will decide this and other names. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I would just like to mention that the three previous discussions attempting to address situations such as this did take place on WT:MOS and not the WT:COP, therefore, the discussion you're about to begin would be the fourth on the MOS main talk page. I understand this coming discussion will involve an RfC; I only wanted to make sure the details of previous discussions weren't overlooked. KyleJoan^talk 08:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: the above user has began yet another dispute here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents AnAudLife (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

First Statements by Editors

Thank you Robert McClenon for deferring to the MOS RFC, I look forward to reading your entry and discussing this topic further with other editors. I had started a discussion here that generated a lot of discussion and talking points but unfortunately a conclusion wasn't reached. There is a lot of information available regarding this topic, some are definitive, some have exceptions, it would be nice to finally have definitive guidance on this topic. I also agree that the the Manual of Style main talk page is a good place to start but I'm not sure about elsewhere, as you may sense, I'm on a bit of a learning curve. The discussions here I found particularly helpful and most especially under this heading, just in case you want to reference any of the information in your RFC. Thank you very much for all your help. AnAudLife (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Didn't I reference WP:MCSTJR multiple times already? Now I'm confused. I was under the impression that the dispute began due to a theory that wanted to challenge the "other exceptions" section of the WP:COP article. If there's no issue with the guideline that outlines how to sort names when there are inconsistencies, then why is this dispute happening, again? KyleJoan^talk 08:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Back-and-Forth Discussion

First, it was asserted that indexing according to French conventions was correct. Then, it was easier. Now, regarding the information applied to adhere to said conventions, some are definitive, some have exceptions. The scope of this dispute has been narrowed and broadened so many times that even I'm puzzled. For what it's worth, I stand by every statement I made, every external article I presented, and every guideline I referenced. KyleJoan^talk 09:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Indexing according to family surname is correct. It is also easier for editing, referencing, reading and learning. And yes there are always exceptions to every rule and as anyone who reads the many discussions we've had on this topic, one can glean different interpretations of the information here. For example, "Generally, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish names do not include lowercase particles in sorting, but do include uppercase particles. For example, Otto von Bismarck is sorted Bismarck, Otto von, Jean de La Fontaine is sorted La Fontaine, Jean d, and Alberto Di Chiara is sorted Di Chiara, Alberto." That statement sounds pretty obvious to me, maybe it doesn't to you though. And then there's this one which you constantly reference, "Names with particles or prefixes are a complex field and there are exceptions and inconsistencies. Examples of particles are al, dall, de, della, di, dos, du, el, la, o, and von. Whether or not to include the particle in sorting can be up to the individual's personal preference, traditional cultural usage or the customs of one's nationality." I see that differently than you, we don't know how (in the particular case we're discussing) either Luann de Lesseps or her ex-husband, Alexandre, prefers how they want their name sorted for indexing purposes (although, Alexandre being a direct descendant of Ferdinand de Lesseps, who is always sorted by Lesseps, one could conclude he'd prefer being sorted by Lesseps as well). Traditional cultural usage defers back to how the French generally distinguish particles from surnames when sorting, which is they do not include lowercase particles. And the customs of one's nationality, while Luann de Lesseps is American, she bears her French ex-husband's family name which is, again, "generally does not include the lowercase particle in sorting". As stated by myself and others it seems ridiculous to sort Luann one way and her ex-husband another way just because of nationality, that will most definitely cause problems across the board when sorting married couples or divorced individuals of different nationalities. And if we're going to be frank, Luann de Lesseps has maintained that she is half American Indian, so are we going to start doing ancestry on an individual before we sort them correctly? That is why this conversation was started, sorting indexing, alphabetizing...should be done according to the name itself, not exclusively the nationality. And we haven't even addressed the nobility aspect. Alexandre de Lesseps is a Count and Luann maintains she is still a Countess which according to Encyclopedia Britannica ^[2] is a title of nobility so lets just throw that in the mix as well, what then? In order for Luann to carry the title of Countess, she had to become a French citizen and maintain that citizenship, therefore, her nationality could be interpreted as French and then that would cover the nationality aspect as well, right? So yes, there is a lot to consider, not only in this case but in others now and in the future which is why it's important to be as consistent as possible. I too stand by everything I've stated and referenced, I've scoured the internet and Wikipedia and read so many articles, I'm not going to reference them all, we'd be here all day. I still maintain, the name de Lesseps is French, the name de Lesseps in cases other this particular one is sorted by the L in Lesseps, I still fail to understand why this is even being questioned. I look forward to more discussion on the RFC that Robert McClenon will begin. AnAudLife (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Indexing according to family surname is correct. When has anyone ever said it wasn't?

And the customs of one's nationality, while Luann de Lesseps is American, she bears her French ex-husband's family name . . . The guideline states, "one's nationality," not, "the first person from another part of the world from centuries ago who first obtained the name's nationality."

. . . we don't know how (in the particular case we're discussing) either Luann de Lesseps or her ex-husband, Alexandre, prefers how they want their name sorted for indexing purposes (although, Alexandre being a direct descendant of Ferdinand de Lesseps, who is always sorted by Lesseps, one could conclude he'd prefer being sorted by Lesseps as well). Assumption. WP:OR. The New York Times. Mrs. de Lesseps.

As stated by myself and others it seems ridiculous to sort Luann one way and her ex-husband another way just because of nationality . . . Does this not contradict the very guideline referenced only a few sentences before as well as the "different" opinion on what constructs one's nationality?

. . . so are we going to start doing ancestry on an individual before we sort them correctly? Isn't this part of the process of determining the origin of one's surname, anyway?

And we haven't even addressed the nobility aspect. There's no guideline saying that the American naming system recognizes nobility.

Alexandre de Lesseps is a Count and Luann maintains she is still a Countess . . . She does not. She is not.

In order for Luann to carry the title of Countess, she had to become a French citizen and maintain that citizenship . . . OR.

Anyone else seeing the confusion I mentioned? KyleJoan^talk 17:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You have repeatedly stated that sorting by the family surname is incorrect, that we should be sorting by the particle. That's what started this mess, when I corrected the last name on the page we've been discussing.

As far as the snipit of nationality I referenced, keep reading all of it...what I wrote in it's entirety and maybe you can understand that. Alexandre de Lesseps is Luann's ex-husband whose name she bears, he is French, as is his name, which he, Luann and their children all take a great amount of pride in, centuries of pride.

As far as your NY Times article...I have no idea what your trying to convey there. And yes, it's a pretty obvious conclusion that Alexandre de Lesseps would expect to be indexed exactly as his direct descendants were, by the family name not the particle.

No contradictions.

Wikipedia does recognize nobility. WP:PEERS

Maybe the confusion lies in that one isn't reading all of the information available, maybe one is just picking one reference and clinging to that one to reach their conclusion? One must read all the available guidelines, rely on historical reference, the origination of the name, etc., in other words, everything I just outlined above.

We don't know how they prefer to be indexed without asking them. We know how his name, de Lesseps, has been sorted by his own descendants via traditional cultural usage, which is by the family name Lesseps. We know Luann maintains her French title, the Countess. We know she is of mixed ancestry/nationality. Everything here points towards sorting on the L in Lesseps.

She does. maintain the title although technically she is not. She did however, still retain the noble's last name, which is sorted by Lesseps, not de.

Does anyone else see how simple this decision is, all things considered?

And I wasn't going to continue to debate this here, I was simply providing Robert McClenon material to think about while writing the RFC. AnAudLife (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's so simple that . . . it's a pretty obvious conclusion that Alexandre de Lesseps would expect to be indexed exactly as his direct descendants were, by the family name not the particle and that we . . . don't know how they prefer to be indexed without asking them. No contradiction whatsoever. KyleJoan^talk 19:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm merely covering every point you made...on here, on the RHONY talk page and everywhere else you've addressed this. And more importantly, the points here: WP:SUR, WP:PEERS and WP:MCSTJR. Of course there's a myriad of other editorial references, articles, magazines, etc. that I'm not going to clutter this page with further. If we can't ask them directly, let's go with traditional cultural usage and how it's been done in his family with the family name historically. AnAudLife (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

References

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed as premature. The filing editor made a statement on the article talk page, but there has not yet been a reply. Wait for the other editor to reply. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil. If the discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case may be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 6 September 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. Location of dispute Talk:Kid Cudi#The discography section of the musician%27s primary article (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Qlazarus (talk · contribs) STATicVapor (talk · contribs) Dispute overview After we updated the discography section of a musician's primary article to meet Wikipedia guidelines, another editor, STATicVapor, reverted the whole edit. I understand keeping some of our updates and not others, perhaps even creating a discussion around their own ideas. The trouble is, next this person went back into our edit history and reverted the last several pages that we edited. Wikipedia is supposed to be all about collaboration and volunteerism. Discussions could have been made first in this case, of course, there was no issue with our edits. This wasn’t about improving Wikipedia. When an editor goes back to revert several of another editor’s edits on different pages it is meant to demoralize and dispirit them. This is the most toxic kind of editor. Have you tried to resolve this previously? A talk page section was created. How do you think we can help? Provide a warning to this type of editor and then ban them if nothing changes. Summary of dispute by STATicVapor Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Kid Cudi#The_discography_section_of_the_musician%27s_primary_article discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.* Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:Kid Cudi#The discography section of the musician%27s primary article (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Qlazarus (talk · contribs)
STATicVapor (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

After we updated the discography section of a musician's primary article to meet Wikipedia guidelines, another editor, STATicVapor, reverted the whole edit. I understand keeping some of our updates and not others, perhaps even creating a discussion around their own ideas. The trouble is, next this person went back into our edit history and reverted the last several pages that we edited. Wikipedia is supposed to be all about collaboration and volunteerism. Discussions could have been made first in this case, of course, there was no issue with our edits. This wasn’t about improving Wikipedia. When an editor goes back to revert several of another editor’s edits on different pages it is meant to demoralize and dispirit them. This is the most toxic kind of editor.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A talk page section was created.

How do you think we can help?

Provide a warning to this type of editor and then ban them if nothing changes.

Summary of dispute by STATicVapor

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

Talk:Kid Cudi#The_discography_section_of_the_musician%27s_primary_article discussion

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

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Several reasons for a procedural close here. 1. The RfC on the talk page in question is still ongoing; a DRN discussion should not be opened until that RfC is closed. If there is still a lack of consensus following the RfC, then it may be appropriate to open a case here. 2. The request to convene a panel of experts is not how disputes are resolved on Wikipedia, and is directly in contravention of the instructions at the top of this page, which read This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. Please read through other disputes on this page to get a better idea of how this process works. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:43, 21 September 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. Location of dispute Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia#country categorization dispute (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Lo meiin (talk · contribs) AuH2ORepublican (talk · contribs) WarKosign (talk · contribs) Dispute overview there is an ongoing and contentious debate as to whether Palestine should be grouped with the 193 UN members and Vatican or with Kosovo, Taiwan, etc. There are two sides of the debate - Yes, Palestine should in fact be categorized with the UN members and Vatican, as it succeeded in the first step of UN membership application (overwhelming approval of the GA), exceeds 70% recognition (almost 140 countries) across 4 continents, is a UN observer, it could be a member, but the US veto is blocking that, and the rest is the easy part, and israels claim on it isn't recognized internationally - No, Palestine should NOT in fact be grouped in such a way as it is unrecognized by the majority of politically and economically influential powers, was rejected UN membership by threat of US veto and 8/9 UNSC only, it is claimed by another UN member state, and UN observer membership only allows increased accesss to UN agencies, something with kosovo and Taiwan somewhat have Have you tried to resolve this previously? - RFCs - Myriad discussions - unilateral edits in favour of all - notifying various noticeboards to raise attention to the issue - third opinions How do you think we can help? - Devise a panel of neutral, NPOV, credible, and independent panel of experts on the A-I conflict to make an inquiry on the issue - Find the most fair, objective, NPOV, and least offensive and.or controversial way to categorize Palestine on wikipedia that suits all - Help all parties at dispute reach a fair compromise and consensus Summary of dispute by AuH2ORepublican Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by WarKosign Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:list of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia#country categorization dispute discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.* Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia#country categorization dispute (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

there is an ongoing and contentious debate as to whether Palestine should be grouped with the 193 UN members and Vatican or with Kosovo, Taiwan, etc. There are two sides of the debate - Yes, Palestine should in fact be categorized with the UN members and Vatican, as it succeeded in the first step of UN membership application (overwhelming approval of the GA), exceeds 70% recognition (almost 140 countries) across 4 continents, is a UN observer, it could be a member, but the US veto is blocking that, and the rest is the easy part, and israels claim on it isn't recognized internationally - No, Palestine should NOT in fact be grouped in such a way as it is unrecognized by the majority of politically and economically influential powers, was rejected UN membership by threat of US veto and 8/9 UNSC only, it is claimed by another UN member state, and UN observer membership only allows increased accesss to UN agencies, something with kosovo and Taiwan somewhat have

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

- RFCs - Myriad discussions - unilateral edits in favour of all - notifying various noticeboards to raise attention to the issue - third opinions

How do you think we can help?

- Devise a panel of neutral, NPOV, credible, and independent panel of experts on the A-I conflict to make an inquiry on the issue - Find the most fair, objective, NPOV, and least offensive and.or controversial way to categorize Palestine on wikipedia that suits all - Help all parties at dispute reach a fair compromise and consensus

Summary of dispute by AuH2ORepublican

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

Summary of dispute by WarKosign

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

Talk:list of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia#country categorization dispute discussion

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

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:List of programs broadcast by Seoul Broadcasting System (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved CherryPie94 (talk · contribs) The Banner (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The issue is that I was updating red links using template:ill to help readers access the original-language Wikipedia to aid them in creating articles or simply read the articles if they know Korean. However, The Banner, keeps undoing my changes because "this is the English language Wikipedia. Not much people can read Korean here." They keep removing even the red links, which is against WP:RED, since the subject of the red links is notable and I can find lots of sources about it. Moreover, they keep claiming I have a Conflict of Interest just because I added template:ill. In addition, they tag the article with "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement" and "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject", which is baseless. I tried reasoning with them, however, they keep coming and undoing my change and tagging the article with false tags. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried discussing it here but The Banner refuse to discuss the issue, provide guidelines/rules that I'm wrong in adding template:ill, and help us all reach a solution, and instead keep claiming I have a conflict of interest without discussing the main issue. How do you think we can help? We should reach a consensus if we are allowed to use template:ill in the English Wikipedia, to aid readers access info to read and create articles, or not. Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Could you please tell me where we have recently discussed this, as I am not aware of that. The Banner talk 10:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Talk:List of programs broadcast by Seoul Broadcasting System discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - I am putting this thread on hold to permit discussion at the article talk page to resume. There was discussion at the article talk page, but it was six months ago. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, this thread can be activated. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Comment - The discussion was six months ago, but the The Banner refused to discuss the main point properly and stopped replying after that. However, a couple of days ago, they went back to remove template:ill and other red links and undoing my changes, without trying to reach a solution in the talk page first. They claim it is not usefully and people can't read Korean (of course it will be not useful to them, since they are not interested in Editing Korea-related articles), however, adding template:ill shows that there is an article in Korean and it helped me and other volunteers make articles in English. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 08:06, 12 September 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 discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:List of programs broadcast by Seoul Broadcasting System (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

CherryPie94 (talk · contribs)
The Banner (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue is that I was updating red links using template:ill to help readers access the original-language Wikipedia to aid them in creating articles or simply read the articles if they know Korean. However, The Banner, keeps undoing my changes because "this is the English language Wikipedia. Not much people can read Korean here." They keep removing even the red links, which is against WP:RED, since the subject of the red links is notable and I can find lots of sources about it. Moreover, they keep claiming I have a Conflict of Interest just because I added template:ill. In addition, they tag the article with "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement" and "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject", which is baseless. I tried reasoning with them, however, they keep coming and undoing my change and tagging the article with false tags.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried discussing it here but The Banner refuse to discuss the issue, provide guidelines/rules that I'm wrong in adding template:ill, and help us all reach a solution, and instead keep claiming I have a conflict of interest without discussing the main issue.

How do you think we can help?

We should reach a consensus if we are allowed to use template:ill in the English Wikipedia, to aid readers access info to read and create articles, or not.

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

Could you please tell me where we have recently discussed this, as I am not aware of that. The Banner talk 10:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of programs broadcast by Seoul Broadcasting System discussion

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

Volunteer Note - I am putting this thread on hold to permit discussion at the article talk page to resume. There was discussion at the article talk page, but it was six months ago. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, this thread can be activated. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment - The discussion was six months ago, but the The Banner refused to discuss the main point properly and stopped replying after that. However, a couple of days ago, they went back to remove template:ill and other red links and undoing my changes, without trying to reach a solution in the talk page first. They claim it is not usefully and people can't read Korean (of course it will be not useful to them, since they are not interested in Editing Korea-related articles), however, adding template:ill shows that there is an article in Korean and it helped me and other volunteers make articles in English. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed. There are three problems with this case. All of them can be solved, but the case cannot be handled here without solving them. First, the case does not link to the subject article, Chris Savino. I would correct that if that were the only problem. Second, the filing editor has not notified the other editor. Third, there has not been extensive discussion at the article talk page. The discussion by the filing editor has only been via edit summaries, and not on the article talk page. Discussion must be on the article talk page. Begin discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:26, 12 September 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. Location of dispute Example (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Sambiswas95 (talk · contribs) Amaury (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Here is an article I found about an American animator named Chris Savino. At first, I read it for the sake of curiosity. However, after reading the article, I notice there are some errors that need to be fixed. Some of them are somewhat misleading and outdated. Date of birth is misinformed. There is already information about his birth outside of Wikipedia. All of which shows the same date. Since after Savino was fired from his job, there is still no sign of new reports about Savino's post-career life, so the years active is officially outdated. The year active should be 1991-2017 not 1991-present. Although this is considered optional instead of factual, I felt like there should be an image of Savino that needs to be displayed in this article. Savino plays an important role in the animation industry and has a history of Sexual harassment allegations, I think is important for the viewers to be aware of this man especially of what he looks like. Bethney Savino plays an important role in Savino's personal life. She was the wife of Chris Savino and later divorced him for the allegations. Despite the evidence and references, the article didn't bother to mention her name. After editing, I notice there is another editor name Amaury who disapproved my editing which I clearly understand. Every editor is just making sure there aren't any vandalism and misleading biases in the articles. However, what I don't understand is that not only he didn't explain of what reason for him revert back to the previous version, but made a report of me for disruptive editing which leads me to be warned that if I do that again I may get blocked from editing. And that is why I came to you guys. Have you tried to resolve this previously? After being disapproved by the editor, I undo his reversion and talked to him "Please give a valid reason why you need to revert back to the previous page. There's already new and clear evidence about Chris Savino's backstory." How do you think we can help? As long there is a piece of new and valid evidence about Chris Savino than I'm sure references should help. Summary of dispute by Amaury Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Chris_Savino discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.* Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.*

Closed discussion

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Sambiswas95 (talk · contribs)
Amaury (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Here is an article I found about an American animator named Chris Savino. At first, I read it for the sake of curiosity. However, after reading the article, I notice there are some errors that need to be fixed. Some of them are somewhat misleading and outdated. Date of birth is misinformed. There is already information about his birth outside of Wikipedia. All of which shows the same date. Since after Savino was fired from his job, there is still no sign of new reports about Savino's post-career life, so the years active is officially outdated. The year active should be 1991-2017 not 1991-present. Although this is considered optional instead of factual, I felt like there should be an image of Savino that needs to be displayed in this article. Savino plays an important role in the animation industry and has a history of Sexual harassment allegations, I think is important for the viewers to be aware of this man especially of what he looks like. Bethney Savino plays an important role in Savino's personal life. She was the wife of Chris Savino and later divorced him for the allegations. Despite the evidence and references, the article didn't bother to mention her name. After editing, I notice there is another editor name Amaury who disapproved my editing which I clearly understand. Every editor is just making sure there aren't any vandalism and misleading biases in the articles. However, what I don't understand is that not only he didn't explain of what reason for him revert back to the previous version, but made a report of me for disruptive editing which leads me to be warned that if I do that again I may get blocked from editing. And that is why I came to you guys.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

After being disapproved by the editor, I undo his reversion and talked to him "Please give a valid reason why you need to revert back to the previous page. There's already new and clear evidence about Chris Savino's backstory."

How do you think we can help?

As long there is a piece of new and valid evidence about Chris Savino than I'm sure references should help.

Summary of dispute by Amaury

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

Chris_Savino discussion

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

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Closed discussion

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

Location of dispute

Ashleigh Barty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Regarding the (correct) Nationality description of "Indigenous Australian". The word "Indigenous" keeps getting removed when describing her ethnicity. This is significant because Ashleigh identifies as an Aboriginal person and is recognised as such by the Aboriginal community. She is not described as an Indigenous Australian anywhere on the page - her father is - but mention is only made to her background. This is not accurate and it is completely inappropriate that non Indigenous people keep redefining the identity of an Aboriginal person. The Aboriginal community has perceived this ongoing edit war as a racist attack to attempt to obscure her Aboriginal identity. It is an example of non Indigenous people cleansing content to suit their own comfort level of race. Wikipedia should not be a platform governed by White Privilege, there is no room for racism here. User Nigos closed down my previous attempt at conflict resolution stating I did not provide a source - which I have done - and that accusations of racism were "borderline attack" - I'm not sure how you would describe the behaviour of non Indigenous editors in seeking to obscure a successful Aboriginal person's race except as racist. Furthermore Nigos seems to be basing stated opinion on the simple version of the page and not the comprehensive page that I referenced in the dispute - guess Nigos is using a mobile phone to make judgements to close disputes. The talk page has very clear and well articulated reasons why Ashleigh should be referred to as an Indigenous Australian and many pages of other Indigenous Australians use similar descriptive language prominently. Everyone who is coming into this discussion with an Aboriginal voice or perspective is being shut down.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page, provided link to news article which outlines how Aboriginal people see the edit war - Digital Genocide is the title of the Welcome to Country article on the subject.

How do you think we can help?

To resolve the ongoing stalemate over the use of the word "Indigenous". This edit war has been going on for months and it is not going to stop - the Aboriginal community are offended by the digital ethnic cleansing at the hands of non Indigenous editors.

Summary of dispute by WWGB

Per MOS:ETHNICITY, "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability". Barty is notable for being a top tennis player. While it is undeniable that Barty is indigenous, that is not the reason for her notability. WWGB (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion in the summary of dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

WGB : You keep talking about the lead but I have said this numerous times, I will try again. Nowhere in the article does it say she is an Indigenous Australian. Furthermore your assessment of the relevance to the notability of her achievement is racially biased based on your own comprehension of the issue. You might not fathom why this is notable and that is understandable if you are not well educated in Indigenous Australian issues. But your resistance to trying to understand the inappropriateness of your obstructive actions is troubling. (Sharyn4939 (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC))

You showed a link to an article on Welcome to country, which called Wikipedians "colonists" who commit "digital genocide". I think this is a borderline personal attack. On W:Simple:Talk:Ashleigh Barty, you claimed it wad a source, when it seemed to be a personal commentary. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 08:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

By the way, there are 13 mentions of the word "indigenous" in the article. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 08:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Nigos A "borderline personal attack"... by an Indigenous Media outlet 3 months ago? How is that exactly? I'm not being difficult, I just can't join the dots on that. I provided that link as evidence of my statement about how the Aboriginal community perceives this issue, I assumed that is what you meant when you said the onus was on me..or did you mean that I needed to provide evidence of her Aboriginality? (surely not?) Do you think that whenever racial bias is called out it is to be characterised as a personal attack, because this is the second time you have used that phrase. Are you familiar with the history of genocide in Australia? Would you like me to outline the history and context of the article? I believe that an issue in this dispute is that the people who are resistant to the addition of the word "Indigenous" are not very well educated or informed on Aboriginal history, culture or contemporary issues. In this I would be more than happy to explain why so many people have tried to edit this page over the last 3 months, and why it isn't going to stop until Ash is properly described as an Indigenous or Aboriginal Australian. My family is Bundjalung and I am very much involved in contemporary Aboriginal issues. I worked for many years as a cultural awareness facilitator within both the Australian Federal and NSW State Government. I was the National Project Manager of Cultural Awareness within the Department of Employment, Education and Training so I am qualified to assist in the elevation of cultural sensitivity. I would also love it if someone could help me understand why so many users object to the term Indigenous Australian, and why this edit war has gone on for so long. I understand the passion and indignation of Aboriginal people and their allies who want to see the word included. If not racism, then what is the motivation of the many users who keep expunging her cultural identity? Plenty of prominent Indigenous people on Wikipedia have their cultural identity stated in the first couple of sentences, so it is not a stretch that this person could as well, why the fuss? The number of times "Indigenous" is used is not the issue, and I refer you back to the dispute I have outlined above. Thank you (Sharyn4939 (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC))

You can't just assume that the people you aren't happy with are "modern-day colonisers". We don't even know where they actually are. I haven't fully read the manual of style, but apparently there is this MOS:ETHNICITY. The info can be added to the infobox. Just remember that not all Wikipedia editors are White, as you said at User talk:Thebrisc. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 11:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Fyunck

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

@Fyunck: This is my first dispute, was unsure of the process of notifying you for comment. (Sharyn4939 (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC))

Wrong ping name. It's lucky I even saw this since you'd need to put Fyunck(click) as the name. First off, you need to follow protocol or things go south very quickly in a discussion. You make a bold edit to an article. You get reverted by someone. You make the same bold edit to the article with perhaps a better summary as to why. Someone else reverts you. You NEVER re-add it again. It's brought to talk and you try your best to convince others why your way is correct. If others disagree you can try to bring more people into the discussion with an RFC, but you don't force the change by edit warring.

As for the post here, I'm kinda confused by it. You say indigenous keeps getting removed, that we are all racists with white privilege. Well that's hogwash. Not everything goes in the first paragraph of the lead. We don't say Maria Sharapova is a Siberian Russian born tennis player. We wouldn't say someone is an Eskimo if they represent Canada. The WTA has a bio on Barty that makes no mention that she's aboriginal (or actually half aboriginal). Tennis.com Australia, same thing, nothing in the bio. Her twitter and facebook accounts, zip on aboriginal! You say there's no mention of it in the article, and that would be incorrect. The lead already says ""Barty is of Indigenous heritage and serves as the National Indigenous Tennis Ambassador for Tennis Australia." Prose also says her father is "a Ngarigo Indigenous Australian" and her mother is "the daughter of English immigrants." Later in prose we have a quote from Barty, "I'm a very proud Indigenous woman...". There is plenty there but I'm guessing you demand it be in the first sentence, not just the lead? I would disagree, and it appears so do many others. And that's where we are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion in the summary of dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Fyunck I have had my toes in the Wikipedia pool for less than 24 hours and it is about as user friendly as a porcupine, so if I have not followed protocol it's because researching protocol is like putting stockings on an octopus. I takes a little time and obviously it is easy to mess up. OK so all I can really glean from your comment is validation that your cultural awareness of Australian Aboriginal people is not very high. If someone identifies as Aboriginal, then they are Aboriginal (and please note the capital A in Aboriginal). There is no half Aboriginal, there is no quarter Aboriginal. Those are terms that people use who have really identified as non Indigenous but are describing their ethnic heritage as a jigsaw - personal identity is not a jigsaw - you are or you aren't. In Australia, generally this is the language of people who use skin colour or European ancestry as a way to discredit, delegitimise, denigrate or discriminate against Aboriginal people. Furthermore, in Australia Blood Quantum is highly offensive and considered racist because it was used as an instrument in the Stolen Generation to usurp the parental rights of Aboriginal people and steal their children. No culturally sensitive person describes a person who has identified as Aboriginal as half Aboriginal. Nowhere in the article (in the words of editors) does it say that Ash is an Indigenous Australian. It says she is of Indigenous heritage which (as I explained above) is not the same thing. (I have Scottish, English and Irish heritage, and I do not identify as any of those). The description of her father is accurate, unfortunately the only similar description of the subject is wayyyyyy down the bottom and in her own words. And those words show that the woman herself feels that her cultural identity is a significant part of who she is.. (and note Fyunck, she does not say she is a proud half Aboriginal woman). There are reasons why Indigenous Australians identify specifically as Indigenous Australians that can not be compared to your Sharapova analogy above, but I feel like I could write you a book on your knowledge gaps of Indigenous Australia and what you need to take away from this is that you are culturally and historically ignorant - which is fine in itself because lots of people are - what is important is that you take the time to listen to Aboriginal people and be prepared to understand that the sphere of white privilege does not extend to encompass the Earth, there are actually other valid perspectives... And many others disagree with your take too... hence a 3 month back and fro - kinda like a ball over a net - and it isn't going to end until the page reflects her Cultural Identity. (Sharyn4939 (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC))

Its quite weird that some of those accounts and IPs made most of their edits on Ashleigh Barty... Yes, there may be some grammatical errors. Did this whole thing start with that news outlet article??? Nigos (talk • Contribs) 11:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Some of these points could have been brought up on the talk page and discussed instead of ramming things down peoples throats. You complain of Wikipedia being unfriendly and that it takes time to learn. You haven't exactly tried with all your racism talk. You don't come in as an ensign and turn the engines up to warp 5. That's asking for disaster. That is not working and playing well with others. Talk pages are where changes happen and for getting your point across. All this seems to mean more to you than it does to Barty whose personal pages are pretty baron of the issue. We also have to be careful because according to the wikipedia article on Indigenous Australians, the term can actually be hurtful and disgusting to the original inhabitants and many don't like it at all. There is a Barty article on wikipedia because of one thing, she is a good tennis player and is notable for her playing. Highlights of those things are what belongs in the lead section. The only reason indigenous gets mention in the lead at all is because she is a National Indigenous Tennis Ambassador for Tennis Australia. The rest belongs in her early years or personal life section just like you'd do with baseball great Johnny Bench and his indigenous background. In her early life and background the first sentence, with consensus, could be tweaked to say "Barty was born on 24 April 1996 to Josie and Robert Barty, and is an Indigenous Australian." It's possible that could work. But it would be best for you to understand what a paint brush is before you start creating the next Mona Lisa. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Nigos

I (mistakenly) reverted one of their edits on simplewiki for being unsourced. I closed the previous dispute on enwiki as it was made when the filer only made one edit to the talk page. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 08:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Ashleigh Barty discussion

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

Just to be clear I have changed the relevant section heading to "Indigenous Australian or simply Australian?" Bus stop (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to the views of Sharyn4939 but I am ultimately opposed to it. In this instance we should simply follow standard practice. In the first sentence of the lede it is sufficient to just note date of birth, reason for notability, and country. Further down in the lede it does mention that she is a member of the Indigenous population of Australia. But I think this is of secondary importance to the prevailing government. It tends to be standard practice in our bio articles in the first sentence to mention the country from which the subject hails, and that would simply be Australia. That is not a slight against her identity as an Indigenous person. Bus stop (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The term "Indigenous Australian" has been added in the last paragraph of the lead. That may satisfy the complainant. WWGB (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible First Statement by Volunteer

User:Sharyn4939 User:WWGB User:Fyunck(click) User:Nigos : Are you still interested in moderated discussion? If so, please respond below this line. You may optionally make a one-paragraph statement, but I will ask for statements shortly. Please do not respond to each others' statements at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible First Statements by Editors

WWGB added the term to the bottom of the last paragraph of the lead. I'm fine with that and consider it settled. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

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. Location of dispute Talk:International Society for Krishna Consciousness#Editors reverting showing bias? (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Users involved Shiva das (talk · contribs) Freeknowledgecreator (talk · contribs) Chiswick_Chap (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I removed a paragraph at the top section where an intro is explaining the topic, the paragraph I removed is clearly a subjective opinion which is clearly meant to be prejudicial against this religious group, and also a part of the paragraph is redundant since the same thing is covered further on--and again the only reason it is there at the top is to inspire prejudice. Two people keep putting it back, which along with numerous other edits they have made shows a pattern of trying to inspire prejudice. The other dispute is a much more minor dispute and involved both of them removing a section showing some images of temples, which the person claims is too many for his or her taste, so they simply removes the entire section. They have both targeted this topic in a clear attempt to inspire prejudice. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I started a discussion on the talk page but only one person responded and only about the image removal, which the person simply decided wasn't to their liking? How do you think we can help? Clearly those two are trying to inspire prejudice by their editing on this topic and refuse to discuss this because it is obvious, they have made many more edits and it is clear they seek to mislead based on an unknown agenda rather than to inform. I would ask that they be removed from commenting on this page and all their edits removed. Summary of dispute by Freeknowledgecreator Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Chiswick_Chap Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:International Society_for_Krishna_Consciousness#Editors_reverting_showing_bias? discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.* Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.*

Closed discussion

Location of dispute

Talk:International Society for Krishna Consciousness#Editors reverting showing bias? (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

I removed a paragraph at the top section where an intro is explaining the topic, the paragraph I removed is clearly a subjective opinion which is clearly meant to be prejudicial against this religious group, and also a part of the paragraph is redundant since the same thing is covered further on--and again the only reason it is there at the top is to inspire prejudice. Two people keep putting it back, which along with numerous other edits they have made shows a pattern of trying to inspire prejudice. The other dispute is a much more minor dispute and involved both of them removing a section showing some images of temples, which the person claims is too many for his or her taste, so they simply removes the entire section. They have both targeted this topic in a clear attempt to inspire prejudice.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I started a discussion on the talk page but only one person responded and only about the image removal, which the person simply decided wasn't to their liking?

How do you think we can help?

Clearly those two are trying to inspire prejudice by their editing on this topic and refuse to discuss this because it is obvious, they have made many more edits and it is clear they seek to mislead based on an unknown agenda rather than to inform. I would ask that they be removed from commenting on this page and all their edits removed.

Summary of dispute by Freeknowledgecreator

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

Summary of dispute by Chiswick_Chap

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

Talk:International Society_for_Krishna_Consciousness#Editors_reverting_showing_bias? discussion

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