Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 181

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Israeli settlement#Irish_bill

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Selfstudier on 18:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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.

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

Location of dispute

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

Banana Republic (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


Icewhiz seems to be misapplying WP policies.

  • 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. Tradediatalk 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. Tradediatalk 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 [1] 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 StageCommittee in the Lower house following a Second Stage vote of 78 to 45 on 24 January 2019.RefRef. 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)

Fifth Statement by Volunteer Moderator

Did you read where I said, both at statement 1 and at statement 2, not to engage in back-and-forth discussion? Did you read where I said that I was only interested in the final content of the article and not in what was edited when in the past? If you want to get this resolved, let me moderate it in accordance with my rules. Each of you may propose a draft of what you want in the final version of the article. If you don't think that anything is needed in the final version of the article at this point, then say Nothing. Each of you may provide a draft of what you want in the final version of the article. The RFC will be neutrally worded. If there is any more back-and-forth discussion, I will fail this thread, and you can resolve it yourselves, possibly with a non-neutrally worded RFC that won't resolve anything and may result in blocks. So try doing this as I say. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Fifth Statements by Editors

In Ireland, the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill cleared the Upper house on 5 December 2018 and has progressed to Third StageCommittee in the Lower house following a Second Stage vote of 78 to 45 on 24 January 2019.RefRef. 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) 22:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC) .

  • Option B: Nothing. Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Sixth Statement by Moderator

The RFC is running. I will close this thread shortly. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Sixth Statements if Any by Editors

Your instructions for the RFC were to "Enter Yes or No with one-sentence explanations". Would it be possible to highlight this requirement? Editor Icewhiz has written something like 10 sentences. Or, since I have not replied yet, may I simply respond in kind? Selfstudier (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I assume you are busy, not to worry, I'll remind people of your instructions myself.Selfstudier (talk) 21:09, 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.

Song Thang massacre

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Deogyusan on 16:24, 22 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Removal of a description from a source, as another user had characterized the material as a "generalization" made by an author and removed it. Concern over ability to contextualize content. WP:BRR and WP:2R had started. Edit in question is here [2] and here [3]

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

Engaging in WP:BRD

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Whether this decision to edit falls under WP:OR. Third party comments on this edit.

Summary of dispute by Mztourist

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

I have opened an SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette as I believe that Deogyusan is a sock of A bicyclette who pushed a particular POV regarding the Vietnam War and particularly real and alleged massacres. Song Thang massacre was a page originally created by A bicyclette which Deogyusan has somehow come upon today in their 2nd burst of activity since opening their account. A bicyclette used many of the allegations made by Nick Turse in Kill Anything the Moves to create and/or add to various pages, many of which Deogyusan has also edited today. The "description" that Deogyusan wishes to retain comes from Turse's book and is a generalization made by Turse about resettlement areas, rather than a specific comment about a safe zone that the Song Thang villagers were asked to move to and so this is a POV insertion.Mztourist (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I have not used or made allegations, I reverted unfairly justified removal of content, as the user is engaging in poorly reasoned edits and contributing original research. None of my content adds anything as it only restores deleted content from the wikipage the user edited. I am making sure fair process is followed due to the user's significant POV editing on this subject and the user has an unusual history of reporting multiple edits to the same pages as sockpuppets. Deogyusan (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Song Thang massacre discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:List of American Horror Story episodes

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Radiphus on 13:01, 20 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

An editor with a 1366x768 screen resolution reduced the width of the graph located at List of American Horror Story episodes#Ratings from 1138 to 1100 pixels, in order to make a horizontal scrollbar disappear. This however, disrupted the spacing between the bars, it made it inconsistent and hard for me to read it. They insisted that the bars are "still perfectly visible", even though i kept repeating that it's hard for me to distinguish from one another and that the inconsistent spacing between bars is something uncommon amongst professional/published sources. Another editor restored the first user's version of the graph saying that it "reads fine" to them, while another editor said that the "change to fix the issue was miniscule". Since then, two other editors have tried fixing the spacing between the bars, as they obviously noticed the same problem as i did, but they got reverted from said editors. I wonder if consensus has actually been reached in the talk page, and if accessibility issues is something negotiable.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have notified WikiProject Accessibility about the ongoing discussion.

How do you think we can help?

I request that you examine the arguements that have been presented so far in the ongoing discussion and help determine which version of the graph meets encyclopedic standards.

Summary of dispute by Alex 21

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

The filing editor initially began their edit-war by reverting my change to the graph width, which changed the width by a mere 38px to remove an unnecessary scroll bar that did nothing to improve the listed article; over such a minor issue, the edit-war seems to have been started solely to pick a fight. They automatically did not AGF by assuming that it did not even exist (while it may not have on their editor, multiple editors have confirmed it does on theirs) and reverted the change multiple times, and after a back-and-forth on the talk page, other un-involved editors stepped in to restore and support the change, and a consensus was formed for it. As far as I can tell, the only reason to have the bars at an even width is to make it look nice, and, in my terms, "pretty", an argument that the filing editor turned around and used on my as an my apparent reason for removing the scrollbar. Another un-involved editor has recently tweaked the width further and I reverted them, informing them of the discussion and consensus on the talk page, but now the filing editor has continued their edit war by restoring the new change and returned to the talk page against the change, with slurs towards myself, a clear and direct personal attack. These are not the actions of an editor here to build an encyclopedia, or to find a resolution to this dispute, or to work with collaboratively with editors. -- /Alex/21 13:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Esuka

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

I'll only say this once, if you want more from me it simply isn't going to happen. I restored the edit by Alex as I had the same issue as him and felt that it was a justified fix to the page. Please also forgive my tone here but I find it ridiculous that an editor who has clearly got hurt feelings about being reverted has made such a big deal over nothing. Just to conclude, that IP editor I also reverted had one edit to his or her name and that edit was to the ratings graph. That to me is highly suspicious as I reaaaaally doubt a random person who has never edited a Wikipedia page before would know about graphs or how to change them. What are the odds of that huh? More so that the IP editor just happened to edit when this little disagreement was going on. I'm not one to throw accusations but read between the lines.

Just to double confirm my point, I refuse to be drawn into this nonsensical dispute and if you want to sanction me for refusal so be it. You have my statement and if thats not enough, so be it. I don't edit Wikipedia to deal with hurt feelings because someone is upset about being reverted. Thanks. Esuka (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TedEdwards

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

As a user who evidently has a larger screen resolution than Alex 21 and Esuka, I am not affected by the width of the graph. However, as Alex provided clear evidence, I believe there is a problem. I looked at the graph after I became aware of the discussion, and I suppose now the bars are closer together (in slight contrast with my earlier reply, where I implied I didn't notice a difference), but I am not suddenly struggling the read the graph more. And also, if Radiphus is claiming they are stuggling to read the graph, surely Alex and Esuka would be struggling more, considering they have lower screen resolutions? Neither of them is claiming they can't read the graph, so I stand by a earlier comment that Radiphus is picking a fight against nothing. --TedEdwards 23:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of American Horror Story episodes discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • I've read the talk page, and frankly, the conduct has all round been pretty atrocious. Slinging references to policy pages about each others behaviour is not helpful, especially when most of you are guilty of poor conduct. I don't see an accessibility issue caused here by reducing the table by 38 pixels, which is an insignificant change and I would encourage the original poster to drop the matter and move on. (I personally use a 2k display and I see everything in the table just fine). Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 08:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I have nothing else to say, except one thing. Esuka, please know that you are a complete idiot. Not trying to offend you, just reading between the lines. The IP that tried to fix the graph width was from Australia (i pointed this out in the article's talk page) and i am from Greece. For all i know, it could be you that logged out and then reverted yourself to make me look bad. I am very disappointed at the way this has been handled and the indifference to readability issues. Noone has commented so far on how uncommon the inconsistent spacing is amongst published sources. Perhaps i should have also notified WikiProject Usability that concerns itself with the Visual appearance of Wikipedia; making it 'easy on the eyes', and standardized, but i don't have the energy nor the time to continue dealing with this issue. Just to prove that this an actual problem for me (i shouldn't have to do that), i would like to note that i am the one that wrote the code on Module:Television ratings graph, so that there is always an automatically adjusted 2px space between the bars (see first and second edit), and i have also created Category:Articles with television ratings graphs that use the width parameter to keep an eye on that, which is how i was notified about Alex 21's change to the template. I am really starting to hate this place. Radiphus (talk) 11:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I have striked the uncivil comment made towards another editor. Conduct like this is not acceptable. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 12:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Further personal attacks and name-calling. Disappointing. This is not the place for that; that is, DRN or Wikipedia in general. -- /Alex/21 12:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Alex 21 - I think what set Radiphus off (as well as this discussion in general) and in a heated direction was that Radiphus interpreted your initial comment (as well as many of your responses) there as chippy, snarky, and with a negative demeanor and conduct toward his ideas and thoughts, which eventually had him/her doing it in return to you. Things obviously went further and further from there, and I think that you both just need to clarify some confusion in that regard, apologize for any confusion and where comments were given or interpreted negatively, and work together positively from there. Nobody should be calling another editor an "idiot", and we should make sure that any comments we make don't give the impression that their input or idea is stupid or assume bad faith on their part. Use your words, not your voice. It's the rain that grows flowers and trees, not the thunder. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm disappointed to see that Radiphus has retired and did so in such a fashion. I feel that the discussion on the article talk page could've overall been started and handled much better than it was. The matter could've been discussed and resolved peacefully had at least one of the users involved just took a moment to try and calm things down and offer to start things over and on the right foot with one another, and Radiphus would still be here. I'm not implying or casting blame on anybody at all; I'm simply saying that heated discussions and incivility by those involved are a group effort, and they can easily be avoided. That being said, I will say that the incivility by Radiphus was not okay in any regard, and it's unfortunate to see discussions resort to such conduct. Incivility only makes things worse, and when someone resorts to violating that policy, they've stopped putting the project first at that moment. It's really too bad to see that this happened... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, I did find his comments chippy, snarky, and with a negative demeanor and conduct toward my ideas and thoughts. Well said. "Gain a consensus" for a width change of 38px to remove a scrollbar that only one editor disagrees against? Why? What did he want me to do, hold an RFC for such a trivial, minor edit? It was my initial edit (yes, I was the one who made the initial edit) that he decided was faked and that he needed to edit-war against instead of just asking me why I made it. I frown heavily upon such behaviour. -- /Alex/21 12:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
In response to the second edit, his over-reaction is not the fault of the other editors who took place in the discussion. This is his own decision, and I wish him all the best in whatever he decides to do next. -- /Alex/21 12:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Alex 21 - I agree, and I edit conflicted with you while I was adding clarification to my thoughts to my follow-up comment above. I apologize if it initially implied a cast of blame upon anyone regarding the cause of Radiphus' retirement. I was absolutely not trying to do such a thing. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Exactly, and thankyou. I didn't want to comment on this issue beyond my initial statement but I'm surprised he has resorted to personal attacks. Which further reinforces your earlier point. I also just want to say and I forgot to say this earlier but I am happy to abide by what decisions are reached here by the admin or volunteers. If you believe that Radiphus is correct I won't revert anyone readjusting the graphs further. Esuka (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Radiphus has been warned about conduct (but the same warning applies to everyone here). They've since retired from Wikipedia. That said, I was disappointed by the talk page discussion overall and would recommend everyone considers how they interact with each other in future. I've made my comments on the content question here, I feel the status quo is fine and consider this discussion closed. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 12:40, 21 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.

Talk:Siddha medicine#Ministry_of_AYUSH_is_a_governmental_body

– 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 103.231.217.50 on 12:03, 17 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The Editors claim that Siddha medicine as Quackery But Siddha medicine is a scientific process. Tamil Nadu state runs a 5.5-year course in Siddha medicine (BSMS: Bachelor in Siddha Medicine and Surgery). There are research centers like National Institute of Siddha and Central Council for Research in Siddha.

I believe the editors must feel that Siddha medicine as Quackery because of it's spiritual aspect. I have asked them to provide the details of the experiments done on Siddha medicine to prove that its Quackery.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have discussed on the Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

If possible it should not be added since it has not been proved as quackery, and will mislead the new people looking for alternative medicine. If that is not possible then it should be added on a separate subheading called "Criticism".

Summary of dispute by Zefr

There are two levels of the dispute. 1) Specifically and mainly, the IP refutes a widely published account and fact that the Indian Medical Association (members are conventional MDs) identifies Siddha medicine as quackery (stated and sourced in the article lede). 2) More generally, the IP is attempting to redefine Siddha medicine as science-based, but rather there is decades-long knowledge of it as myth-based with no actual scientific practices (same as for other Indian rural medicine, like Ayurveda and Unani), including in 1996 and 2018 by the Supreme Court of India (talk page discussion, and here). Under WP:BURDEN, the IP has no reputable science-based evidence that Siddha is not quackery, and is soapboxing an isolated opinion to counter the prevailing widely-held view, even in India by the Supreme Court and fact-based professionals. We have two essays guiding how Wikipedia deals with medical quackery and pseudoscience: WP:QUACKS and "Yes, we are biased". --Zefr (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ifnord

Zefr has summed this up very nicely, please see [4] on the article's talk page. The IP has violated 3RR to remove the indication that this pseudo medicine is considered quackery by mainstream medicine. The article is unbalanced, as is. There is no criticism, no indication (other than the lede) in the text that this is pseudoscience. A reader needs to see an article which is more than simply an advertisement to this practice. Ifnord (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn

We must follow policy and sources; the OP's requests here are not aligned with these basic requirements. Alexbrn (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Siddha medicine#Ministry_of_AYUSH_is_a_governmental_body discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Pretty cut and dry, this one. 103.231, on Wikipedia we need to stick to reliable sources and what they say, and not give undue weight to minority viewpoints on topics. I've reviewed the article discussion page and editors there have made their argument well on the quackery claim being backed up by reliable sources, so I really don't see any further need for discussion here. The status quo (having the content in the article) is the correct outcome here per policy. I'll close this in 48 hours if no other comments crop up. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 08:42, 21 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.

2020 Summer Olympics and the 2015 Pan American Games opening ceremony

– Closed, as not yet appropriate for DRN. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by SpinnerLaserz on 16:24, 22 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Me and Sangjinhwa were counting how any athletes were qualified for the 2020 Olympics when suddenly Sportsfan 1234. She/he/they accused me of disrupting the article when I'm actually counting how much does each of the NOCs has regarding qualified atheles via their articles. She/he/they removed them for no reason other than "speculation and false info" (which is not true even the fact that many sporting organizations have mentioned the athletes qualification and that each article for each of the countries that will participated). Also, that is not considered disruptive as the edit that Sportsfan removed only counts athletes from each country as of the date today until the opening ceremony.

Also, I also want to dispute the licensing that Sportsfan had uploaded as some of the uploads the user made are from a TV broadcast of the Toronto 2015 opening ceremony (just look up "Toronto 2015" at https://www.panamsportschannel.org and you'll see that they are the exact same footage and that the footage of the ceremony is still property of Pan Am Sports). This was a violation of both Commons and Wikipedia guidelines as TV broadcasts of the ceremony are still copyrighted. About two years ago, the user reverted a bot's removal of copyright images.

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Just let Sportsfan know that this is the total number as of recent until the opening ceremony and tell her to take a look at each of the articles of the participating NOCs. If Sportsfan wanted to summarize the dispute, it has to be extremely longer and more understandable.

Summary of dispute by Sportsfan 1234

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

2020 Summer Olympics and 2015 Pan American Games opening ceremony discussions

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note - The filing editor does not appear to have notified the other editors of this thread. Also, there does not appear to have been actual discussion at an article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 24 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.

Talk:People%27s Mujahedin_of_Iran#Recent_revert_by_Mhhossein

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Stefka Bulgaria on 09:38, 17 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

This section Ties to foreign actors has three unnecessary subheadings:

  • "After exile" (no need for this since we don' have a "Before exile" subheading anymore).
  • "State sponsorship" (a subsection that only consists of one sentence can be merged under section's current heading).
  • "Non-state actors", which can be merged together with the section's current heading: "Ties to foreign and non-state actors"

user:Mhhossein's objection to this has been: "IRI POVs and MEK's possible counter-POVs need to be included in the "State-sponsorship" section which justifies keeping the section."

I find that Mhhossein's objection does not address the issue of having unnecessary subheadings.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

TP discussion that led to nowhere

How do you think we can help?

I think my request makes sense, but Mhhossein's objection doesn't, so we need a uninvolved editor to take a quick look and decide.

Summary of dispute by Mhhossein

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

Talk:People%27s Mujahedin_of_Iran#Recent_revert_by_Mhhossein discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hey Steven Crossin. I think the capacity of the article talk page is not used well and it's too soon to come to this board, though I'm ready to respond. --Mhhossein talk 14:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Mhhossein has not provided a substantiated response on the article's TP about this, as he's not done here either. Does this mean they forfeit their position? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:20, 23 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.

Talk:T. S._Wiley

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 67.143.160.240 on 15:51, 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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

articles about T.S. Wiley and separately the Wiley Protocol are full of errors and deliberate deletion of corrections. That T.S. Wiley has a college degree was DELETED. The description of the protocol as "potentially dangerous" is ten years old and it has proven not to be. I've attempted to add her articles in peer-reviewed journals to dispute that she "lacks qualification" but they get deleted. I've posted all of these on the Talk pages to no avail.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Both articles are out of date and incorrect and biased. At the very least, they should be updated with current information like her degree, academic publications and third-party experience with those who use the Wiley Protocol, some for 15 years

How do you think we can help?

Since I'm COI, it would be better to have a third-party work with the editor to fix these misleading and obsolete pages. For example, there is a report by a Rosenthal depicting the Wiley Protocol as unethical. It is full of errors and attempts by others to point that out have been refused.

Summary of dispute by WLU

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

Talk:T. S._Wiley 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.

User talk:Koavf

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Koavf on 19:55, 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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Under what circumstances should redirects have WikiProject tags? Do certain types of redirects merit them and others don't? Can they be paired with templates like {{Talkpage of a redirect}} (e.g. see Talk:Spin the Bottle (Juliana Hatfield song))

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion (at User talk:Koavf), edit summaries, a post at WP:3RR board. I cannot find any centralized discussion of this or a best practice anywhere and have solicited it from others with no results.

How do you think we can help?

The best case would be to have a uniform policy that shows a strong community preference (e.g. "All talk pages should have the tags associated with their targets" or "Only apply tags to redirects when the WikiProject explicitly asks for them" or "Only tag the talk pages of redirects with possibilities")

Summary of dispute by Richhoncho

The complainant failed to give the link for the edit warring which was closed with “This is dumb. How about just redirecting the talk page like we do for all other redirects? In any case, No violation ‘ by Bradv.

The nub of the discussion is ‘should a redirect, which is duplicated and fails WP:Title be tagged as belonging to a project. I say, no, not relevant, Koavf wants to argue ‘yes’

In my edits I have tried to find alternative solutions including redirecting the talkpape to the relevant talkpage. Koavf reverted every edit including my added assessment to his project tag!

I have searched and checked 30/40 entries in the Category:Avoided double redirects and none of those I saw the Talkpages were either blank or redirects. Some project tags had been removed.

I have suggested to Kaovf if he feels this is an important matter then he should take it to an appropriate forum for a discussion where other editors can comment and gain community consensus, which we could both follow, rather than an endless discussion on his talkpage. He doesn’t want to do this, he’d rather keep arguing and reverting me.

All this is visible at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Koavf#Talk:Spin_the_Bottle_(Juliana_Hatfield_song), Talk:Spin the Bottle (Juliana Hatfield song) and Talk:So. Central Rain (I’m Sorry)

Yes, I know it is a pointless and useless argument. If I didn’t think I was going back over the same ground in 6 months/a years’ time, I would have dropped it and not bothered to start another discussion with Koavf. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Koavf 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.

Hunter Biden

– Closed, as not yet appropriate for DRN. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 107.220.253.112 on 22:24, 3 October 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

I was hoping that Wikipedia was an unbiased source of information. But, based upon the slat in the Hunter Biden information that is clearly not the case. Your authors, editors, contributors should keep their political opinions OUT of the information provided via Wikipedia. I just want factual information without all of the negative digs toward PRESIDENT TRUMP or any other REPUBLICAN!!! This should be simple - just report the TRUE FACTS - not your opinion/twist/political spin!

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

wikipedia:dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request#top

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

DEVELOP BIPARTISAN GUIDELINES AND MAKE SURE THEY ARE ACTUALLY FOLLOWED. OR BETTER YET, AS I STATED ABOVE... JUST REPORT THE TRUE FACTS - NOT OPINIONS/TWISTS/POLITICAL SPIN.

Summary of dispute by None

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

Hunter Biden 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.

Tariff of Abominations

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Runstedt on 16:24, 2 October 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The totally unsupportable claim that there are export and interstate tariffs in the United States is repeatedly being made in the opening paragraph. After correction a particular user reverts it back. This is an import tariff legislation, there are no export tariffs in the US.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tariff_of_Abominations https://civilwartalk.com/threads/the-walker-tariff-of-1846.163092/page-6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4


How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

That there are no export or interstate tariffs is basic stuff. This editor refuses to accept this and is trying to pass off a political agenda through Wiki. I've supported my post changes with primary sourcing. There is no debate about this, the 1828 tariff, no matter what else one wants to say, did not tax exports and did not tax Southern Cotton sold internally within the United States. The page needs to be locked or the editor that is repeatedly making these fraudulent claims banned.

Tariff of Abominations discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note - I have requested semi-protection of the page to prevent edit-warring by the unregistered editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 2 October 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.

International Society for Krishna Consciousness

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Shiva das on 16:24, 2 October 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

There are 2 issues:

1. There is a line in the top intro section which reads:

"The movement has been the subject of controversies. It has been labelled a cult by anti-cult organizations."

That is clearly intended to create prejudice. You do not see similar statement in the into section of other religious groups. ISKCON has a long history of Christian fundamentalists labeling them and other Hindu religious organizations as cults. Using their bias as a standard way of describing a Hindu religious group in an encyclopedia is clearly based on prejudicial editors.

2. There were images of some of their temples which were removed without a good reason.

When I attempted to fix the above, 2 editors kept reverting my edits. One has even threatened me on my talk page and made false claims about my using a sockpuppet account to edit.

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

We has a discussion on the talk page, they both disagree and see nothing wrong in what they have done. [5]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I want their edits reverted. Also they seem to have an interest in this group with other edits which removed a lot of sections, with what seems like a possible personal bias as motivation. I would ask that their ability to edit this article be revoked.

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.

Summary of dispute by

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

International Society for Krishna Consciousness discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer comment – Having read through the discussion on the talk page, a significant part of the conflict appears to be a misunderstanding on the part of the filing editor as to how leads are written on Wikipedia. I would suggest that they read through the relevant guideline, MOS:LEAD. If they have issues with specific claims raised in the body of the article, or feel that the lead is not an accurate summary of the article, I would suggest raising those on the talk page before coming here. As for the dispute over images, the relevant guideline is MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. I am skeptical of the degree to which a DRN discussion would be helpful in this situation as currently frame; the purpose of DRN is to mediate between editors, not to impose a judgment or reprimand editors for not adhering to neutrality. Thus, unless the other involved editors say otherwise, I would move to close this discussion in 48 hours. If the dispute persists after this and editors feel it would be productive, we can open a new discussion then. signed, Rosguill talk 00:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - Also, the filing editor has not notified the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 2 October 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.

2020 London mayoral election

– New discussion.
Filed by CAWyatt on 14:01, 4 October 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Hello,

There has been an ongoing discussion about the inclusion of Siobhan Benita in the infobox of this article for some time now. No consensus has been reached, and statements that are directly contradicted by sources given in the page in question have been made. It is my belief that certain editors are being disingenuous for political gain, and I would like to suggest that a senior administrator make appropriate changes and lock the page.

A few bullet points: 1) The claims of 'consensus' are clearly untrue from the talk page. 2) The 5% guideline claims are incorrect, the latest poll shows Benita at 10%. 3) No reason has been provided not to use the standard formatting used by YouGov. 4) I would suggest that the message sent to me by SerialNumber54129 counts as posing as an administrator. This is perhaps subjective, but as a new editor, I couldn't immediately tell.

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

Talk:2020 London mayoral election#Benita bewilderment

Given the serious political nature of this (the attempt to remove a leading candidate from an election page), I believe that the barrier to dispute resolution should be low.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Given the serious political nature of this page, and the apparent disingenuous political motivation behind some of the editing, I would suggest a senior administrator should intervene.

Summary of dispute by SerialNumber54129

(Procedural close: CAWyatt has made all of three edits to the talk (only two before filing here), so can hardly be said to have exhausted dispute resolution procedures. in fact, they should more aware that they are now on 4RR, and I am currently waiting for them to self-revert before filing at WP:ANEW. Sorry you're having your time wasted like this, DRNers) ——SerialNumber54129 14:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

2020 London mayoral election 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.

Saini

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Sardar00 on 04:40, 13 October 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Respected sir I have seen dispute on talk page of saini articles in fact someone have added Mali word in brackets with saini as this article is about saini(mali).. ,Rajputs mali group have started using saini surname after 1937 we can not declared whole saini community to be a Mali ,kindly remove Mali word in brackets as in hatnote summary of saini caste ,India is backward country castes have deep roots ,do not spread hate by writing about any caste wrong information ,now people start degrading by reading Wikipedia wrong information Please remove Mali word in brackets you can mention in the article in 1937 rajputs Mali have started using saini surname only in 1937 not before.

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please remove Mali word in brackets with saini in the hatnote summary of saini caste as rajputs Mali group from rajasthan have started using saini surname after 1937 we cannot write whole saini to be a Mali ,as saini is upper castes in many states of India ,while mali is declared backwards caste in all states, before 1937 saini caste exist and is declared as Martial class you can check Wikipedia why we spread hate in the world by writing wrong on Wikipedia

Summary of dispute by punjabier

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

Summary of dispute by sitush

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

Saini discussion

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

please removed the hatnote as there were no incoming redirects containing "Mali", so we don't need to point to other Mali articles in the hatnote summary

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.

Saini

– Closed, as not yet appropriate for DRN. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Sardar00 on 08:56, 13 October 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

There is dispute between many editors of saini caste and sitush please remove Mali word in hatnote summary of saini caste don't disgrace by publishing wrong information on the Wikipedia

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please remove Mali word in the summary of saini caste this there is no need of hatnote summary remove Mali word in brackets with saini caste

Summary of dispute by Manmohan SINGH saini

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

Why Wikipedia have declared whole saini community to be Mali old remove mali word in hatnote summary of saini caste

Summary of dispute by sitush

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

Summary of dispute by punjabier

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

Saini discussion

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

Moderator comment: DRN cannot mandate that something be removed from an article. Nobody can -- there's not an authority on Wikipedia that allows this. Since we can't remove something from an article, how do you now want us to help with your dispute? Thanks, Xavexgoem (talk) 09:25, 13 October 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.

Talk:Italian language#Official minority language in Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina

– This request has been placed on hold.
Filed by DavideVeloria88 on 09:48, 21 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages protects the Italian language in Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina as a minority language; however, few people actually speak it in these countries. So the question is: should they be included in the infobox as countries where Italian is recognized as a minority language or not? According to some, Romania and Bosnia-Herzegovina must not be entered in the infobox as only this card says that, but the Template:Infobox language says the parameter minority is for "countries in which it is a recognised/protected minority language" and that is "intended for legal protection and de jure recognition".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk about it with other users, but no solution has been found.

How do you think we can help?

Checking whether Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina can be included in the infobox of the Italian language as done on other pages.

Summary of dispute by Springpfühler

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

Talk:Italian language#Official minority language in Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hi, I'm a mediator here at DRN. I'd recommend notifying the other editor of this discussion. I've read over the discussion page and have some input. I'm happy for an open discussion to take place here. The Italian language article currently lists Croatia and Slovenia as countries Italian is a recognised minority language, and this is backed up by their articles - Croatia#Languages writes Minority languages are in official use in local government units where more than a third of population consists of national minorities or where local legislation defines so. Those languages are Czech, Hungarian, Italian..., and then for Slovenia#Languages, it says Hungarian and Italian, spoken by the respective minorities, enjoy the status of official languages in the ethnically mixed regions along the Hungarian and Italian borders, to the extent that even the passports issued in those areas are bilingual. So we have clearly defined recognition by the government of the country. Do we have sources from the Romanian or Bosnian/Herzegovinan governments about the recognition of Italian as a recognised minority language? That seems to be the bar that has to be met here. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 13:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages has been signed and ratified by the government of Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sources: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. And according to thei articles: Bosnia and Herzegovina#Languages: "the 1992 European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, Bosnia and Herzegovina recognizes the following minority languages: Albanian, Montenegrin, Czech, Italian [...]"; and in the page Romania it is listed in the Infobox country as Recognised minority language. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The Template:Infobox language says that Minority language is "intended for legal protection and de jure recognition"; that Treaty has been signed and ratified by Romania and Bosnia. Also, previously Romania and Bosnia were added in the Infobox with the word "(de jure)" to indicate precisely that they are recognized by the treaty. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Springpfühler, User:DavideVeloria88 - Is there still a content dispute about Italian as a minority language, or has this matter been resolved? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Robert McClenon- No, it hasn't been solved yet. No one else has responded at the moment. I'm still waiting. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm back around, sorry, have been away a bit. Let me look into this one and respond within 24hr. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 08:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Quickly butting in, but when it comes to Romania both the Council of Europe and the Romanian government explicitly recognize Italian as a minority language in Dobruja (easiest to ctrl-f for "italian"). That one, at least, seems fairly straightforward. ‑ Iridescent 09:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Too long, difficult to read. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not have anything agains listing Italian in another country, provided that it is officially recognized. The issue is that it is not such in Bosnia, absolutely not, and apparently in Romania neither. If someone can provide proof of Italian being officially recognized by the Romanian Government, then we will put it. About Bosnia, it is impossible - such proof simply doesn't exist because in the country there is no recognition of Italian and no usage of this language too. This list of minorities languages so many times mentioned IMHO is not enough, because it is not a proof of a real recognition, protection or support for a given language. This list was made once, and I have no idea whether it is being updated or not. In this list, a lot of countries included many languages, 10, 14, or even more...of course they are not officially recognized by the respective governments. On the contrary, it is well-known that countries like France or Italy have not ratified this charter yet. Nevertheless, they do have minority language on their soil, that is evident. Italy does not only have German, but also Slovenian, French, Sardinian, Friulan...they are all, at different levels, co-official in the respective regions (in the case of German in South Tyrol, it is as official as Italian is or maybe more); French has Breton, Basque, Corsican... So, this charter does not determine which languages are really official or minority in a certain country. It is, IMO, a plain list of languages who are or have been sometime spoken by a certain minority in the country. "Minority" language means just that: language spoken by a minority. It DOES NOT mean that it is officially recognized. A minority can be even 100 persons - that is clearly not enough to say that this language is official or protected in a country. I see that we, not only in the English Wiki but in others too, are trying to put flags only for languages who are either official in the whole country or co-official (officially recognized) in some parts of the country. Of course there are cases where we could remove some flag, but we are slowly doing like this. Putting a flag of a country where a language has neither importance nor diffusion or officiality brings just confusion and it is basically a false information. For these things, for mentions of languages like this one of Italian in Bosnia and Romania, a mention in the article is a good solution: we do not want to hide the fact that a language is included in a list of "protected" languages in a country, but it does not mean that is officially recognized by the national or any local government of that country, so it is not worth putting a flag for it just for the sake of putting it (knowing that this language is not recognized). In the case of Spanish, for example, we have really put just the country where it is official, and not others where it was or it is mentioned somewhere. That's why the Philippines are not on this list. The only three countries where Spanish is not first language are Belize, but Spanish is official there, Andorra, but Spanish is first spoken language there, and the USA, but Spanish has like, well, 50 million speakers there, plus it is officially accepted by the Government of New Mexico, plus is first official and primary national language of Puerto Rico, which is a US dependence. So, nothing to do with Italian in Bosnia or Romania, which is more or less a phantom...Apparently there was in Bosnia just a single village originally populated by Italian immigrants, for a total of a couple of hundreds of persons, but nowadays not even they are still there, and Italian has no official recognition. Concerning Romania, on the contrary, the link you provided from the Council of Europe says that Italian is taught in Bucarest and there are 257 pupils in an Italian school, plus some hundred more in other schools - but that, apart from being a very low amount, does not mean at all that Italian is an officially recognized language there! You can find schools of a specific language everywhere - here in Vienna you can find a French school, a Polish school, a Russian one, probably also an Italian or Spanish one, and many more, without counting English schools, which are everywhere. You'll find such schools in all European cities. Does it mean these languages are officially recognized minority languages? Of course not. Further the report of the COE says that " However, Italian is not yet taught in Greci (Tulcea county) in Dobruja, a traditional stronghold of the Italian speakers"...Well, THIS sentence, according to me, proves that Italian is not official and thus not an officially recognized minority language. That's why a mention in the article where we put a link to these pages would be fine - without putting a flag like we would do if Italian was official in Romania, unless we find some proof that it is indeed. A mention in the article would inform about the fact that in Romania there is a small Italian community, or immigrants, what of course does not mean their language must be officially recognized. About Bosnia, as I probably already said, I havent'found nothing at all. --Springpfühler (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Springpfühler, User:DavideVeloria88 - Is there still a content dispute about Italian as a minority language, or has this matter been resolved? If there is still a content dispute, I am willing to act as the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon It hasn't been solved yet. No one answered: can Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina be included in the infobox using ECRML as a source? DavideVeloria88 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Too long, difficult to read. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I had already explained my point of view, but if nobody even read it, I'll try to do it again. Here we have a user who wants to put "a flag" for Italian in Bosnia and Romania, even though it is well-known that Italian is not official there, at any level. He bases his claim solely on the mention in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages - there is not any other source to support this claim. I have nothing against flags, but we are normally using them just for countries where a language is official/national or an officially recognized minority language in some part of the respective country. Italian is none of these, neither in Romania, nor in Bosnia. Surely there may be cases, where we put some flag for countries where it was not necessary or appropriate, but we are trying to correct those cases. It can not be an excuse to put an incorrect information on purpose - just because there probably are other incorrect data regarding other countries too. "Minority language" can be a lot of things. It is not necessarily an "officially recognized minority language", it can literally just mean "a language spoken by any minority". It could also be a minority made by some thousands or hundreds of persons, or even less. That is the case of Italian in Bosnia and Romania. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages collects all languages spoken by minorities on the soil of some European countries. It is definitely a very good purpose and we should support these charters because they contribute to avoid that a given language is definitely forgotten. Nevertheless, many of the languages mentioned are not official in any part of the respective country and don't enjoy any kind of protection or support. For example, in the case of Austria, the Charter mentions Czech and Slovak language too, but they are neither official nor co-official in any single Austrian village. On the contrary, Italy and France haven't ratified this Charter yet - nevertheless they have co-official languages on their soil, languages acknowledged by the Italian and the French Governments, like German, Sardinian, Corsican or Basque. So, this Charter is not a reliable source in order to determine which language is official or officially recognized in a given country. In order to do that, we have to rely on official documents of single administrative units of the country we are taking into consideration. There are not any kind of documents who attest the presence of Italian language on Bosnian soil, simply because there is not any presence. It seems there was just a village populated by immigrants from Trentino, Štivor, in Republika Srpska, where nowadays remain no more than about two hundred persons of Italian origin. Italian language is not official, not even there. And Italians are not even mentioned in the Bosnian, Croatian or Serbian Wikis. That is obviously no reason at all to claim Italian being a "minority language" in Bosnia. Concerning Romania, Italian presence there is necessarily bigger than that almost non-existent in Bosnia. There are villages who had a more consistent Italian immigration. Nevertheless, as it is also mentioned in the link provided above, https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016807766d3, which is from the European Council and about the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, Italian is not even official in the village where there is an Italian minority, where it is not taught at school. And the schools where Italian is taught in Bucarest are Dante Alighieri schools, that means Italian schools like you can find them in several cities across the world, mostly supported by the Italian Embassy - it does not have anything to do with Italian being official or officially recognized minority language. So, unless someone provides more sources about Italian presence in Romania, I don't see any reason to include Italian as a minority language there - and in Bosnia definitely not at all. It should be a decision supported by sources and with a consensus of people - if there is such a premise, I have nothing against it. I am aware that something like that cannot be determined just because a person, me or another user, wants it. Without consensus and appropriate sources it makes no sense. --Springpfühler (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

Okay, let's try one more time. Read the rules that are in use. Other rules will be in use by other moderators. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Be concise. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what the issue is? Do not provide lengthy explanations. They will be ignored. Be concise. If the issue can be summarized concisely, it is likely that this can be answered based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If the issue can only be summarized in 300 words, then it may never be answered. Be concise. Please state in one paragraph what the issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

You are right at one point - other rules will be in use by other moderators, in fact we always use long texts, they also use very LONG texts, much longer and much more complicated that this one of mine, because you can't "summarize" anything, as you seem to believe. So, it is a thing of yourself. For the rest, I have always been civil, so it is not a point. Comments are on content, if you read it you'll see. Nevertheless, my answer is there, even if you collapsed it, so I am sure other people will read it. It is difficult to summarize this topic, but I'll try to do it when I have time --Springpfühler (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


First set of concise replies by editors

Lengthy statements and back-and-forth discussion

Second statement by moderator

I am no longer acting as the moderator for this dispute, because at least one of the editors is not willing to be concisechose not to be concise even when asked to do so the second time. I will request another moderator. I am not optimistic that another moderator will be found, unless the previous moderator returns. I will keep this case open on hold for at least one week. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

I am sorry but it's not correct. Writing that "I am not willing to be concise" is false, it is your personal yet arbitrary conclusion. I said before, very clearly indeed, that sometimes, depending on the topic, is not easy to be "concise" as you would expect. That means, I do will to be concise, but I haven't managed that for two times in a row. That's exactly why I wrote that content, not because it was my pleasure, but because the topic did not allow me to be more concise. Nevertheless, I also said clearly, in my last sentence, that I will try to summarize what I wrote. I don't live on Wikipedia, so I haven't found time yet, but I will. Nevertheless, what I wrote remains, with the motivation why Italian is not official nor minority language in Romania and even less in Bosnia, and thus the flags of those countries do not belong among the countries where Italian enjoy some status. As I said, I'll try to summarize it again--Springpfühler (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The summary can be: There is no evidence that Romania and Bosnia currently officially recognise the Italian Language as a minority language. Therefore, no flag should be put in the infobox. TheTrainNoch (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC) I think the evidence is there for Romania. TheTrainNoch (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, very shortly it could be like that. I am 100% sure about Bosnia, as there is not a single piece of paper coming from this country where Italian language is ever mentioned. I think it says it all. About Romania, myself I said that I am less sure, but...We found some sources coming from Romania where Italian is mentioned, yes, nevertheless more like a language spoken by a (relatively small) community of people on Romanian soil, not like an officially protected language by the Romanian Government. Italian cannot be compared to Hungarian or German, which enjoy complete official or co-official status in some Romanian regions, and therefore are "recognized minority languages". The paper (in Romanian) where all languages present in the country are mentioned lists Italian among those which do not enjoy any enhanced protection. And the paper of the Concil of Europe provided above states that Italian is not even taught at school in the municipalities where most of the Italian community is based. International Italian schools subsidized by the "Istituto Italiano di Cultura" or "Dante" are special schools, like English or French language centres, and not a proof of the language being used at a public school as a teaching language. On the basis of that, I would say that it would be more logical that someone writes a mention about the presence of the Italian language in Romania, as there are lines or paragraphs about the presence of Italian in other countries too, instead of putting a flag just for the fun of it. --Springpfühler (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Nevertheless, if there is a majority wanting to include the Romanian flag in the Italian box with a founded motivation, I don´t have anything against it. However, I see that normally the sole fact that a given language is spoken by a certain minority (mostly if a small one, but often even if it is a large one) in a country does not represent a criterion to include that language among the "(officially) recognized minority languages" of the country - otherwise there would be thousands of "minority languages". In addition to that, sometimes not even an official mention of a determined language is enough. For example, Spanish is even mentioned in the Constitution of the Philippines as a historic important language for the country, nevertheless it is not included among the officially recognized regional or minority languages in the Philippines. Surely there are articles who need to be corrected, where there are flags that were put for countries without a reliable source attesting that they are protecting, teaching, promoting or recognizing the language in question, in a few cases merely because of a mention of such language in the European Charter for Minority Languages, but most of these cases were already amended, there are just a few left. --Springpfühler (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Caller

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 2601:8C:C301:14B0:C4C8:1536:BFD5:5D89 on 16:08, 15 October 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

I represent The Daily Caller. I am not a WP editor. Unfortunately, prior to retaining me, there were efforts at correcting factual errors and some bias that fell outside of WP principles. It apparently turned into an edit war, and a lot of ad hominem was thrown around, leaving the process somewhat contaminated and no room for real communication or compromise. I seek your help in having some sort of formal review based on a filing I would like to submit, starting afresh. Please have someone contact me? My sole interest in finding that "right" place where the public interest served by WP is maintained and at the same time, improving readership trust in WP, as well as fairness to The Daily Caller. Some of the issues involve biased language, lack of citation and/or citation to unreliable sources. This is not rocket science, and I am sure we can sort this out. Thanking you kindly in advance, Charles Glasser, Esq. 973-666-6270 [email protected]


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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Daily_Caller; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Daily_Caller&action=history

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

My suggestion would be to find an editor or editors not emotionally involved in the editwars, or without a personal animus to The Dally Caller, have them contact me, and allow me to submit a short paper pointing out specific erroneous statements on the page or other potential errors, along with suggested fixes. If in the cool light of reason and fairness you agree with my proposals, I'd ask that you make the edits and lock them down to prevent vandalism.

Summary of dispute by Markdask

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

Summary of dispute by Snooganssnoogans

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

The Daily Caller 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.

Film in 2019, Film in 2020

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 92.19.198.185 on 19:22, 17 October 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

When observing "XXXX In Film" pages; the content has clearly been a reliable source for years as a way of listing significant films being released in the calendar year on English Language Wikipedia. Until "2019 in Film".

Following the talk history on "2019 in Film" and it's RfC... the resulting edits to the format have removed the Articles' most key content, purpose and value and placed it under different articles, rendering the main Artical more akin to a Category Page.

The RfC survey's archive may reflect the views of certain users by majority but the actions taken as a result of the survey are detrimental to the entire user/visitor community to a much greater extent than

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019_in_film#Survey (and onwards)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

In the immediate: Revert the page format to appear identical to 2018 and earlier editions In the long term: A wider and longer survey must be achieved regarding 1) the editor's concerns, 2) the page format This needs to be done before wholesale format changes to the article should be made which should then lead to: 3) agree any new potential format following steps 1 & 2.

Summary of dispute by DeluxVegan

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

Film in 2019, Film in 2020 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.

Map projection

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Strebe on 18:02, 14 October 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The map projection literature addresses an apparent misperception among the populace that map projections are a “geometric” construct. The literature warns against thinking about map projections as merely geometric. The article used to state this. A collection of editors have reached agreement to narrow the verbiage from “geometric” to “perspective”. This statement is left unsourced. I am unable to get an explanation from the editors involved about how the text they changed does not comprise WP:SYNTH or why it is permissible to leave it unsourced.

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

Talk:Map projection#No geometric meaning

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like to see Wikipedia policies applied here, particularly with regard to respecting sources.

Summary of dispute by Joel B. Lewis

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

I think the rest of us find Strebe's preferred version problematic for similar reasons, and the alternative text I proposed seemed to gain consensus fairly easily. I agree with Strebe's "qualified yes" about 4 against 1.

Summary of dispute by Jasper Deng

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

The crux of the dispute is that Strebe believes that his sources directly support the claim, and that the claim need not be precise because the problem is not precise. He is, in the consensus achieved by the rest of us, wrong on both counts. The problem with a lack of precision is really that, the statement is not very meaningful. As an experienced mathematician I scratch my head at the claim. It is therefore next to useless for the reader. Strebe evidently got upset at my removal after I called the statement absurd, a statement I still stand by. The preponderance of mathematics writers do not use "geometry" in the classical sense today, and even when that meaning is used, the statement is still meaningless because of the vagueness of "direct" and "interpretation". MOS:MATH dictates that all statements be meaningful in a rigorous fashion. I admire Strebe's intention to clear up what likely is a common point of confusion, but he needs to provide a text that explains this restricted use of "geometric" and the definition used in his sources. The fact that he needed to provide the sources on the talk page already shows that readers cannot be reasonably expected to use that definition; his audience is not the cartographer audience he assumes it to be.

I'm not sure what use DRN can be here given that consensus has already been achieved, but I firmly stand by my original view.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by David Eppstein

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

I, for one, still do not understand what Strebe means by the disputed wording. In the disputed sentence "most projections ... are usually defined in terms of mathematical formulae that have no direct geometric interpretation", it appears that the words "direct", "geometric", and "interpretation" should have some specific interpretation, but it is opaque to me. Even the word "most" is mysterious: Does it mean that the projections under discussion are used by a majority of printed maps? That they are a majority among the set of projections that people have explicitly studied? That they form a set of measure greater than 1/2 in some mathematical space of projections? Without clarity on what all these terms mean it is impossible to verify whether the sentence might be true, or even meaningful, and whether it is supported by our sources. Per WP:AGF, I would like to assume that my lack of understanding reflects a failure by Strebe to communicate the intended, precise and rigorous meaning of these words, rather than an intent to use mathematical terms vaguely to convey a false impression of rigor where there is none. But in either case, until I understand what Strebe is trying to say I cannot agree to including that wording in the article. In the meantime, there is a clear consensus on alternative and less-problematic wording among the other talk page participants. So I don't see that there is much of a dispute to resolve here. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by XOR'easter

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

As best as I can tell — the walls of text have not made it easy — Strebe has insisted upon definitions of words like geometric, direct, classical, and perspective that are both idiosyncratic and opaque. (This applies to the summary written above, as well.) When I expressed genuine confusion, I got accused of "trolling", which did a lot to convince me that further attempts at conversation wouldn't do much good. After that, my only contribution was to say that I liked the phrasing in an edit that JBL had made.

JBL described Strebe's actions as trying to stitch together unimportant asides in a bunch of sources into your own, different, also unimportant aside in this article. I think that is basically accurate. XOR'easter (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Map projection discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Question - Is this a one-against-four dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Answer: A qualified yes. I did not add User:Alvesgaspar into the DNR. He reverted one of the reversions, supporting the original text, but has not weighed into the Talk Page discussion. Strebe (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - Alvesgaspar isn't one of the parties to this dispute. If this is a one-against-many dispute, then moderated discussion is not likely to resolve the situation, because it is not likely that the one editor will persuade the moderator to persuade the other editors of his rightness. Either accepting that there is a localconsensus against them, or using a Request for Comments is more likely to work. However, this case is waiting for responses from the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - I will leave this thread open for 24 to 48 hours to see if the other editors agree to discuss, but it appears that the other editors think that consensus is against the filer and that discussion would be repetitive or would be bludgeoning. If none of the other editors want to discuss, then the filer is asked either to accept that consensus is against them, or to use a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 17 October 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.

Timeline of_investigations_into_Trump_and_Russia_(2019)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 75.167.172.161 on 10:13, 23 October 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Im being treated unfairly and accused of things like vandalism of the content, disruptive editing,defamatory content, then Im being threatened with being BLOCKED. All I stated were facts in the timeline, "no evidence to date has been found" Because they don't agree with the facts, im being treated unfairly. Im being told: Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2018). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. —MelbourneStar☆talk 09:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019), you may be blocked from editing. - pivotman319 (📫) 09:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC) 

   If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add defamatory content, as you did at Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019). - pivotman319 (📫) 09:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.167.172.161&diff=cur

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The only discussion they had for me was threats of blocking me and accusations of wrong doing.

Summary of dispute by MelbourneStar☆

I don't think I have that much to add. The filer's contributions speak volumes and I most certainly stand by my reversal of their edit/s. I cannot speak for the other editor involved (User:pivotman319), but looking at the filer's contributions that I did not revert, if in the position to revert them -- I'd revert them too. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆talk 12:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@MelbourneStar: This dispute does appear to be falsely filed; in no way have I threatened or unfairly treated the filer. More or less, it was the direct opposite of what he claims I had done. Judging by his contributions, there was a lot of reason why I'd revert and warn him against doing these kinds of edits. - pivotman319 (📫) 15:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by pivotman319

Dispute was falsely filed by the reporter. Reporter made four consecutive inappropriate edits to the page I had reverted his edits from. - pivotman319 (📫) 15:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Timeline of_investigations_into_Trump_and_Russia_(2019) 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.

Steve Huffman

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Siihb on 20:38, 25 October 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

User opencooper continues to revert edits that seperated the user comment manipulation scandal into its own heading on the Huffman page. User opencooper has been personally selected by paid wikipedia editors for Huffman and has provided no legitimate reason why a major news story about the subject wouldn't receive its own heading on the Huffman page.

To be clear - The user comment manipulation controversy should be its own heading on Huffman's page. Opencooper continues to revert said changes. I did not add content, I simply broke it out into its own heading.

Additionally, user opencooper has been accused by multiple other users of disingenuous edits on the Huffman page. I would argue that the Huffman page is clearly being manipulated by paid individuals to be a PR piece and not in line with typical wikipedia pages.

MarnetteD reverted changes with no reasoning. Added them to dispute as well.

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

I've asked opencooper to provide some reasoning of why he believs a major news event about an individual (their only one, to be honest) would not be a seperate subject.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Keep the incident as a seperate subject on the Huffman page and restrict opencooper or his allies or Huffman's paid wikipedia editors from modifying it to be less prominent.

Summary of dispute by opencooper

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

Summary of dispute by MarnetteD

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

Steve Huffman 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.

Manzanar

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by BeenAroundAWhile on 06:53, 25 October 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

A Request for Comment asked 'Should the term ‘’incarcerees’’ be used as an acceptable word for those people housed in Manzanar in the body of the article outside the section headed “Terminology” (where the word itself is being discussed)?' Within 13 days, one editor stated Yes, one stated Lean No, and seven stated No. A decision should be reached.

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

Talk:Manzanar#Request_for_comment_on_terminology

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Make a decision on the original question. The framer of the question (me) hesitates to make it himself because of adverse reaction within the community watching this page.

Summary of dispute by Gmatsuda

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

Summary of dispute by EEng

This isn't a candidate for DRN. All this needs is an uninvolved admin to make a close with the obvious result. I suggest that BeenAroundAWhile withdraw this to save a lot of editor time -- DRN is an expensive process. Drmies, calling on you as a random WP:UNIVALVED admin to make the close. EEng 07:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Snow

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

Summary of dispute by Dr Horncastle

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

Summary of dispute by Bryan Henderson (giraffedata)

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

Summary of dispute by AReaderOutThataway

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

Summary of dispute by Pedestrianswimmer

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

Manzanar discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • EEng, thank you for giving me the opportunity for some study: I learned a lot. The usage of "incarceree" should be accepted, as well-verified by relevant and peer-reviewed academic sources. But you asked me to close the RfC, which I did, and that's another matter. Take care, Drmies (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    I hope you don't mind, but the reason I thought of you is that I figured you'd say exactly that. EEng 16:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Haha, you know me too well. Srsly, I found this really interesting and important. I was reminded of how I wanted to use the verb "disappear" as a transitive verb, and maybe heard it on the radio once or twice (in the Latin-American context) and to my surprise found that scholarship also agreed with that usage. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • User:EEng - DRN is only an expensive process when there is moderated discussion, not when it is used as the wrong noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    Just to say that your (and others') largely thankless efforts here at DRN are underappreciated but not unappreciated. EEng 22:03, 25 October 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.

Natalia Toreeva

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Toreeva on 20:51, 27 October 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

As COI, I was suggested by Theroadislong editor to request for help, so I asked to include one sentence of input to the article. Spintendo editor started clean up article, and Theroadislong jumped in and started discussion, it is not good etc. I created comments in Talk what was incorrectly edited, misplaced some citations etc asking to put correctly back. Than someone asked Seraphimblade to be involved, who is happy to delete, according of his talk, and he deleted almost everything in the Article. Than Theroadislong put his comments that now the Article looks by his recommendation to be deleted. I discussed with these editors that to see reliable or not sources the editor(s) needs to know Russian language and/or Russian Art of Soviet time, that for me looks they don't, based on missed up citations, and deleting material that was included info in Russian lang. I told them that I will complain that they can't do editing w/o knowledge of content. Almost all sections were deleted by Seraphinblade without good knowledge what he is doing. For example, Master degree got in Russia was there, but Master degree got in US was deleted. All career experience as an artist in Russia and exhibitions (in Russia and US) were deleted. So, is it retaliation for my comments by Theroadislong to ignore any editing and his recommendation that the article does not have any nobility and he recommended to delete the Article? Can you help and restore the article that was before their editing (before Oct 13) and find the editor(s) with the good faith and who has a knowledge in Russian lang and both Russian and American Art? Without this knowledge you can't tell that citations and text is not reliable in the content. Retaliation attitude does not help the Article. I hope you can resolve the problem and find the right editor(s) to help with editing.Thanks for your time.

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

It was already discussed on Talk page of Natalia Toreeva article.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Find another editor(s) with the good faith and good attitude to help with the article.

Natalia Toreeva 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.

ah bagdadi death

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 67.5.124.126 on 04:36, 28 October 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Bagdadi was killed in 2017. Not on Oct 26th of 2019. You were too quick to change your information. Trump made it all up and Russia is even mocking him. None of it adds up. Maybe you should of checked into this further before adding the incorrect information. Its called fact checking !

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

Edit

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Fact check this information and correct it on your page.

Summary of dispute by unknown

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

ah bagdadi death 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.

List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Katfactz on 15:14, 28 October 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

At issue is the definition of "mass shooting" for the purposes of creating a list of mass shootings.

The current list on this page lists "Only incidents considered mass shootings by at least two of the above sources are listed."

There are multiple issues with this.

The sources vary in credibility and bias. There are no standards as to what constitutes an actual source, and one article from ABC carries as much weight as an official study done by the Congressional Research Service, which is not in line with common definition standards. Another source, the "Mass shooting tracker", is no longer active, yet the list contains shootings which only met the two-source standard because of the "Mass shooting tracker". Further, that source, when active, had an admitted bias, with this statement in its "about us" section: "Maintaining a list like this also punches a hole in the NRA argument...".

This leads to many shootings listed which no media source lists as a "mass shooting". It appears as a biased attempt to sway public opinion, rather than a list of a commonly-defined event.

At a minimum, the list needs to be updated now that mass shooting tracker is offline. However, the fact that such a biased source was used as a source in the first place is a larger issue. Anyone can create a website and maintain a list and then use it here currently. I can register a website and list every shooting where 2 people were shot and say it's a mass shooting, and it would be accepted under this logic.

Likewise, the "gun violence archive", while an impressive collection of data, is using a definition that the two men who created the website thought would work best. There has to be some sort of quality threshold.

I've previously proposed limiting the list to shootings that three or more major media outlets call mass shootings - the kind we see dominate the news cycle and know to be a mass shooting when we see the headline.


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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2019#This_whole_article_is_wrong_and_needs_a_rework.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think a better threshold for the list must be created. Currently, the most notable sources (and common sense) state that a mass shooting is not also another crime... it's not gang violence or a bank robbery gone wrong. A mass shooting is an indiscriminate act of violence with an intent to kill or injure as many innocent people as possible.

At a minimum, the list must be updated now that massshootingtracker is offline, but the fact that it was a source in the first place is a larger issue.

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.
User Katfactz has been been deeply pushing a POV on multiple pages. They refuse to follow consensus and have been forumshopping (e.g., WP:THIRD) to attempt to get the result they want. I was on my way to write up an edit warring report but hey, this will do. Katfactz has attempted no real engagement other than a vague appeal to their authority. They are are in desperate need of a topic ban from the area, and/or an indefinite block.--Jorm (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
This user is reverting multiple editors, I think an admin may have to step in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:26, 28 October 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.

Intermittent fasting

– New discussion.
Filed by Signimu on 00:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The addition of 2 sentences is being disputed under WP:MEDRS, more details:[11]. Summary:

  • 1st disagreement is on the influence of intermittent fasting on IGF-1 levels, which is a result from a 2019 systematic review on human randomized clinical trials (journal with impact factor 8.973).
  • 2nd is on the mention in "Mechanism" section of the 2 main hypotheses for the established health effects of intermittent fasting: are they due to simple weight loss, or to a specific biological mechanism dubbed a "flip switch" activated by temporary fasting? These two opposing hypotheses are well discussed in the literature and several MEDRS reliable sources are provided (they are already used elsewhere in the entry).

In both cases, one of the editors (Signimu) argues they are of interest, while the other (Zefr) argue they are not pertinent/adequate.

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

Latest: Talk:Intermittent_fasting#Disagreement_2, Oldest: Talk:Intermittent_fasting#Disagreement, a Third Opinion was requested but no volunteer showed up, Zefr did not respond in more than a week, the issue is stalled and avoiding edit warring is preferable.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Another pair of eyes to evaluate whether these additions may be pertinent would be very helpful

Summary of dispute by Zefr

The issues have been adequately covered in edit summaries and on the talk page, with no consensus among expert editors for the applicant's view. A better place for input than here is at WT:MED.

Intermittent fasting discussion

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

Thank you to @Zefr: for replying. The diffs can be consulted, they have little to no pertinence, some arguing the source is not reliable (?), others arguing WP:NOTEVERYTHING, so I still have no idea what precisely Zefr is really arguing, and they unfortunately do not precise here either. Also, there is no consensus, it's only 2 editors (me and Zefr) until now, hence this request. --Signimu (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: 2nd point is now supported by 4 notable reliable sources (instead of 3 before). --Signimu (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@DRN volunteers: Can someone help us? Thank you very much in advance! --Signimu (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Signimu, I am in; please wait. ∯WBGconverse 16:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Just to clarify, please don't bother too much with the long and old Talk:Intermittent_fasting#Disagreement, the points there were settled (except for one of the points above that started there). Talk:Intermittent_fasting#Disagreement_2 and the latest diffs have all the infos required and it's way shorter --Signimu (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Zefr obviously does not intend to participate; so you need to seek other dispute resolution measures. I will shut down this thread but might chime in over the t/p, in my editorial capacity. ∯WBGconverse 14:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh wow, I did not expect that. Thank you for having a look! I'm not sure what to do next, but I'll try some more peaceful approaches to resolution, if at least he would discuss I think we could come to an agreement --Signimu (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Signimu - Read the failure to discuss essay. Also note that the other editor suggested the talk page of Project Medicine. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Ah great! I did not know this essay, thank you very much! Yes I have taken this to WT:MED, this request can thus be closed, thank you both for your advices --Signimu (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Effective altruism

– Discussion in progress.
Filed by Bodole on 13:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

There is a difference in opinion regarding who should be included in the list of People in the effective altruism template, particularly Jacy Reese. Reese was very involved in the early days of the EA movement and the development of its ideas and continues to be one of the most prominent figures associated with EA, including writing many essays and one of a handful of books that exist on the topic, founding an EA organization, having leadership roles at other EA organizations in the past, and being one of the most popular (if not the most popular) EA social media personalities. He is also the only person listed in the template that is primarily focused on animal welfare, which is one of the main topics EA addresses. The list Sir Paul has forcibly switched the template to is heavily focused on artificial intelligence and existential risk, which is just one of several topics addressed by EA. Therefore my opinion is that Jacy Reese should be included in the list, or the list should be cut down substantially to only include the most prominent figures closely associated with EA: Holden Karnofsky, William MacAskill, Dustin Moskovitz, and Peter Singer. Also at the risk of ad hominem I respectfully add that the people who disagree with me here seem to all in a certain EA clique focused on artificial intelligence, which I believe might be contributing to the bias in the new list.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Effective_altruism#Jacy_Reese

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

You may want to revert and lock future edits for now. I'm not sure. It might also be useful to get an RFC. Currently the discussion is very close to an edit war if not already there. Please redirect me to the appropriate forum if this is not the right place to resolve this dispute.

Summary of dispute by David Gerard

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

The area is plagued with editors who openly describe themselves as advocates of Effective Altruism. That's fine - but I think a lot of the perceptions applied to the editing lead to wishing to make EA look good and presentable.

The dispute comes from an EA advocacy editor (characterised as such by his edits this year), User:Sir Paul, removing the name as a "compromise" solution, when it was clearly not a compromise, and was literally the point of dispute.

Jacy Reese's name being removed from the template was supported by various blog posts concerning him to claim he'd left the movement - but all of these posts were strong evidence that, as much as EA and Reese may not want to be associated, he clearly was deep in the heart of the movement, and is absolutely relevant to the movement: diff, diff Further evidence is discussed on the page.

The template has also had a pile of stuff added to it that comes across as an ambit claim - various charitable aims that are attributed as somehow connected to EA-the-movement rather than just charitable causes in general. Editors were then adding this template to all sorts of articles that didn't mention "Effective Altruism" at all, let alone evidencing a link to the movement.

Basically - EA advocates seem to more want a template that advocates what the movement advocates - rather than a navigational aid for uninvolved readers of Wikipedia.

The EA movement per se has strong links to various WP:FRINGE movements - particularly LessWrong and the "rationalist" subculture, and transhumanism more broadly. (Eliezer Yudkowsky of LessWrong is frequently attributed as having coined the name of the movement, "effective altruism". SirPaul's discussion of Yudkowsky should be viewed as an inside-EA argument.) Fringe movements are notoriously bad at separating out advocacy from description of themselves. (As such, I've notified WP:FTN of this discussion.)

So basically, the entire area, including this template, need more eyes, and uninvolved and mainstream editors closely assessing the editing that's going on here.

Summary of dispute by Xodarap00

  1. Jacy Reese has publicly described himself as a "cofounder" of Effective Altruism. Based on this self-description, a previous editor added him to the Effective Altruism navbox.
  2. An article was published showing that it simply isn't possible for Jacy to have been a cofounder (among other things, he was not an adult at the time the movement was founded, and the organizations he says he worked with make no mention of his work). On this basis, I removed him from the list. [A blow-by-blow of these facts can be found in the talk page.]
  3. This triggered an edit war.

To be honest, I struggle to understand the argument for including him. As best I understand it, Jacy represents a faction that Bodole wants to see represented in the navbox (they believe the current list is too focused on "artificial intelligence and existential risk"). I am sympathetic to the desire to represent this faction (animal welfare), but Jacy just is not a notable figure in Effective Altruism. I, as well as Sir Paul, have suggested other people who we feel are notable and would represent this faction, and would be excited if Bodole or others created articles about them.

But the basic fact still remains that Jacy just exaggerated his involvement, and simply is not notable enough to include.

(It may be worth noting that about half of Bodole's edits are about Jacy, Jacy's organization, Jacy's book etc.)

Summary of dispute by Sir Paul

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

The dispute concerns whether Jacy Reese is a Key Figure in the effective altruism movement, understood as belonging to the list of half a dozen or so individuals most important in the movement's history. While (I believe) all parties agree that Reese is a notable person, his intellectual contributions to effective altruism aren't significant enough to merit inclusion in that select group, and are comparable to those of many other effective altruists who have entries on Wikipedia but aren't included in the Infobox (including Oxford professor and Global Priorities Institute director Hilary Greaves and poker player and television presenter Liv Boeree).

The representation of animal welfare in that list is, I believe, entirely congruent with the importance the effective altruism community currently accords to that cause area: the most recent version of the most authoritative survey of EA in existence found that animal welfare is rated as the fifth most important cause among respondents, and two of the nine people included in the current compromise version of the Infobox are noted for their seminal contributions to animal welfare: Peter Singer, widely regarded as the founder of the modern animal welfare movement, and Yew-Kwang Ng, widely regarded as the founder of welfare biology. By comparison, there are also two individuals on that list noted primarily for their contributions to AI safety (Nick Bostrom and Eliezer Yudkowsky), and according to the survey cited, AI safety is the second most important cause area within EA. (For what it's worth, I note that I have been an ethical vegetarian for 20 years, that my only talk at an effective altruism conference has been about animal welfare, and that the charity I have donated the most money to is Animal Charity Evaluators (one of the charities, incidentally, that Reese worked for). I'm also on record as being very critical of Eliezer Yudkowsky and the quality and importance of his writings on AI safety and other topics. So I'm puzzled by the allegation that I'm part of "a certain EA clique focused on artificial intelligence", and I would ask Bodole to either substantiate or retract this accusation.) Pablo Stafforini (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: One more thing. In his initial comment David Gerard writes: "How best to list him, if not in "People"? 'Cos it's obvious he warrants a listing." I agree that Reese warrants a listing somewhere on Wikipedia, so I support RyanCarey1's suggestion of creating a "list of people associated with effective altruism" and listing Reese there, together with all the Key People, Greaves, Boeree and other notable people like Nick Cooney, Dylan Matthews, Ben Dello, Peter Adeney, Cari Tuna, and others. This would exactly parallel the approach with Utilitarianism (a close cousin of EA), which restricts the nav bar to a list of five Key Figures and has a separate list of utilitarians for all the notable individuals associated with that movement. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by RyanCarey1

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

The effective altruism template has a list of "people" consisting of several eminent professors and founders, and one wp-notable but less prominent person (Jacy Reese) who has written one book related to effective altruism. The hope is to agree to a list of people who meet some roughly consistent relevance bar (the dispute is not about wikipedia-notability). The chronology:

  • Jacy was removed from the list
  • Bodole reverted this change
  • I implemented a compromise list of "key figures", to match Template:Liberalism and Template:Utilitarianism, excluding Jacy and a few others, based on the logic that you do not want a template on Christianity to include all adherents of Christianity, just those that readers would reasonably wish to click through to.
  • Bodole reverted this change
  • Bodole proposed a new compromise - a very short list, which I agree to using for the time being, given Toby Ord (a movement founder) is added.
  • Sir Paul reverted Bodole's revert

On the meta-level, I note that half of Bodole's edits are about the same person (Jacy).

I think the best resolutions, in order, are: 1) the original list without Jacy, 2) my compromise, or 3) the modified version of Bodole's compromise.

Summary of dispute by Homo.deus

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

Template:Effective altruism discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Question - Would this content issue better be resolved by moderated discussion, or by a Request for Comments? The usual advantage to moderated discussion is that it permits compromise. If this is a yes-no question, a Request for Comments may work better. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I would be fine with a yes-no on "should Jacy Reese be considered a 'Key Figure' in Effective Altruism?" Xodarap00 (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    • It depends. There are several issues in the discussion and one of my concerns is that people are applying different standards to Reese's inclusion relative to the inclusion of other people. This has already happened on the talk page, where Reese was judged for not having as many Twitter followers as Liv Boeree and not having as many EAG talks as Will MacAskill. All of these figures have different types of involvements in EA and we need consistent standards applied to each. I worry that a yes-no question for Reese's inclusion would lead to exactly this issue. However it might help the discussion be more concrete. Bodole (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm also happy with a yes-or-no question on whether Reese is a Key Figure (understood as a figure at least as central to EA as the other individuals on the nav bar). Note that Reese's number of Twitter followers was mentioned as a response to Bodole's claim that Reese "is the most followed EA on Twitter", and that Reese's number of talks was mentioned as a response to Bodole's claim that Reese "has more talks listed online about effective altruism than anyone else I know of." These were the standards Bodole themself proposed. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
      • That's quite an unfair characterization. You're selectively leaving out key information that is evidence against your viewpoint. I already acknowledged the Twitter claim may be off base, and I qualified the claim when I originally made it because I wasn't sure. I think it is debatable whether Liv Boeree counts as EA given she is much less involved, but I accept that she would probably identify as such. Regarding talks, I was not referring to EAG talks. I was referring to talks "about effective altruism" in general and that claim was also qualified, but I have yet to see reason to think it is incorrect. In both cases, this is not evidence that Reese is not a Key Figure even if you are right. Bodole (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
        • I'm reluctant to start a new thread here, since we have already discussed this in the 'talk' page. I'm happy to continue the discussion there. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I think my proposed Key Figure thing is a step toward compromise, and maybe via RfC an impartial wikipedian could tell us whether Jacy should be such a figure. RyanCarey1 (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • As I note in my response, there's various problematic and advocacy-prone aspects of the topic and present discussion that seriously need more eyes from outside the subculture - a "local consensus" to a given style of advocacy may not be a good outcome. "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." - David Gerard (talk) 09:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree with getting outside eyes. David, you might want to note that you are also an advocate, for the RationalWiki (as one of its trustees), a non-NPOV resource that seeks to counter some semi-mainstream ideologies like effective altruism. I also agree with David's proposal to remove irrelevant links from the template. However, I note the factual inaccuracy of his characterization of the edit that triggered the dispute. Sir Paul's edit _was_ a solution that I put forward as a compromise, because it placed a common standard across names, cutting some names, including those that Sir Paul placed on the template in the first place. I would also note that the aim of my compromise was not to override WP-wide norms with a local consensus, but to conform to WP-wide standards like Wikipedia:Navigation_template "Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?", Template:Utilitarianism "Key proponents", and Template:Liberalism "Key figures" RyanCarey1 (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
      • If you think you can claim a colourable Conflict of Interest based on that, you know where WP:COIN is. The track record of such claims from WP:FRINGE editors is not so great, but knock yourself out. I think the root of your objection is not that I edit at RationalWiki, but that I am not a true believer. This is an example of an advocate not believing that non-advocacy edits to their favoured topic are legitimate. Being an advocate for a particular cluster of fringe movements - as you are - is not symmetrical with not being an advocate for that cluster of fringe movements - as I am not - even as fringe advocates consistently try to paint it as being such - David Gerard (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
        • I'm not trying to escalate the conflict here, or to take concern with any of your beliefs, apart from trying to get them presented more honestly. Being the original author and an ongoing maintainer ([1], [2] [3], [4]) of the snark-article on this topic in a famously non-NPOV wiki makes you an advocate on this topic, and it seems disingenous to pretend otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanCarey1 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
          • Again, you're trying to claim a COI without there being a COI. As I said, take it to WP:COIN if you think you have a substantiable claim of COI editing on my part on Wikipedia. You really don't - because you are literally trying to claim that not being an advocate for your fringe thing constitutes a "conflict of interest." The fringe advocate position and the non-fringe non-advocate position really just aren't symmetrical, even as fringe advocates - across all manner of fringe fields - consistently try to claim such, pretty much exactly in the manner you do here - David Gerard (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
            • Firstly, I'm pointing to Wikipedia:ADVOCACY rather than COI. Secondly, the argument is that effective altruism is fringe because it has some links to people concerned about risk from AI. But concern about AI risk itself is not even pseudoscience, but scientific disagreement: "Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process" and effective altruism itself has significant following within the philosophical community. So the argument is clearly a dead end, and anyway it is quite far removed from who is or isn't significant figure for our purposes. RyanCarey1 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    • To address some of David Gerard's claims:
"The dispute comes from an EA advocacy editor (characterised as such by his edits this year), User:Sir Paul, removing the name as a "compromise" solution, when it was clearly not a compromise, and was literally the point of dispute."
I'm disappointed by this characterization. I have been editing Wikipedia for over 17 years and all my substantive contributions are transparently listed on my user profile. I have interests in effective altruism, as I do in many other topics (like animal rights, philosophy, analytical Marxism, etc.), but I do not "advocate" for any of these topics. More relevantly, the solution proposed by RyanCarey1 was a compromise, because it involved the removal of two additional names besides Reese's: Hilary Greaves and Liv Boeree. I strongly favored keeping Greaves, but agreed to her removal so that we could move forward with this.
"Jacy Reese's name being removed from the template was supported by various blog posts concerning him to claim he'd left the movement - but all of these posts were strong evidence that, as much as EA and Reese may not want to be associated, he clearly was deep in the heart of the movement, and is absolutely relevant to the movement."
These posts are not "strong evidence" that Reese "clearly was deep in the heart of the movement". If David disagrees, perhaps he can point us to the parts of the posts in question establishing that Reese was sufficiently important to the EA movement as to be one of the half-dozen or so most important figures in the movement's history (which is the subject of the present disagreement). Furthermore, these posts were offered as one among several different and independently sufficient arguments for the conclusion that Reese's name should be removed from the list of Key Figures. Please review the discussion threads on the talk page for an expansion of these arguments.
"Eliezer Yudkowsky of LessWrong is frequently attributed as having coined the name of the movement, "effective altruism"."
I think David may be confused here. Years ago someone discovered that there was an isolated occurrence of the expression "effective altruist" (not "effective altruism") on the website Overcoming Bias in a post from 2007. The post was on an unrelated topic (scope insensitivity) and it wasn't connected to the effective altruism movement, which didn't even exist back then. There's widespread agreement that the term "effective altruism" was first used to designate the effective altruism movement only around 2012. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

First Statement by Moderator

The heading said in small type to keep discussion to a minimum before a volunteer opened discussion. That didn't happen. But I might as well open discussion now. Read the rules that I will be using. They are not the only rules, but they are my rules. Be civil and concise. The discussion above has been civil, but it has not been concise. It has been too long, difficult to read, which really stands for "Too long, didn't read", and I didn't read it. I can see that some of the editors want to write at length. I will provide a section for answers to my questions, in which you may not engage in back-and-forth discussion because you are responding only to me, and a section for back-and-forth discussion. I may or may not read the back-and-forth discussion. It appears that the back-and-forth discussion makes the editors feel better, and that is all right. Comment on content, not on contributors. I expect the editors to respond to my questions within 48 hours. Now, here are my questions, and please respond in one paragraph. First, are there any issues about the template other than whether to include Jacy Reese? If there are any other issues, please state them concisely. Second, is the discussion limited to the template, or are there also issues about any articles? If so, please identify the article issues in one paragraph.

Do not edit the template while this discussion is in progress. Any discussion should be here, because any discussion on the template talk page or any article talk page or any user talk page may be missed. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

First Replies by Editors to Moderator

Reply by Sir Paul

First, are there any issues about the template other than whether to include Jacy Reese?

Short answer: No. Slightly longer answer: Hilary Greaves and Liv Boeree would probably need to be included if Jacy Reese is included, since they were excluded as part of RyanCarey1's compromise solution.

Second, is the discussion limited to the template, or are there also issues about any articles?

The discussion is limited to the template.

Reply by Xodarap00

First, are there any issues about the template other than whether to include Jacy Reese?

No, except that people have proposed compromise solutions which are more complicated. (See Sir Paul's answer above as one example of a compromise solution which might include more changes.)

Second, is the discussion limited to the template, or are there also issues about any articles?

The discussion is limited to the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xodarap00 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Reply by Bodole

First, are there any issues about the template other than whether to include Jacy Reese?

I think so. Whether to include Reese depends on where the cutoff is set for inclusion in this Template, which can be decided based on other Templates and Infoboxes on WP. And that cutoff then affects who else is included, such as Eliezer Yudkowsky, a figure who is very active in artificial intelligence and Rationalism but not very active at all in effective altruism. There is also the question of representativeness such as if we want the people listed to represent effective altruism, such as (as I argue) the current list being very focused on AI and existential risk. In short, the inclusion of one individual in this list is intertwined with the inclusion of others. Part of the issue here is that some editors are using unfair criteria for the inclusion of Reese that they do not apply to the people aligned with their own EA faction.

Second, is the discussion limited to the template, or are there also issues about any articles?

Only the template as far as I know. Bodole (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Back-and-Forth Discussion

Second statement by moderator

A Request for Comments will be used. We will ask whether to include Jacy Reese in the template. Is there anyone else who should be included in the question? If so, the RFC will have two parts, Jacy Reese and anyone else. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

Reply by Bodole

What is the list in which the RFC will consider Reese's inclusion? I don't think it should be the one currently in the Template, which is a result of the edit war. Can we just use the one before this discussion began? (i.e.

)

At that stage the title of the list was People, not Key Figures.

If we use the current list instead then I would take issue with the inclusion of Nick Bostrom, Yew-Kwang Ng, Derek Parfit, and Eliezer Yudkowsky Bodole (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC) .

Reply by Sir Paul

Is there anyone else who should be included in the question?

No.

Note that the current list is a compromise solution between the list favored by those who wanted to include Reese (Bodole) and the list favored by those who wanted to include Boeree and Greaves (me) [EDIT: I have slightly edited the preceding sentence to dispel possible misunderstandings]. So it seems natural to use this list, both because it's the one that existed when mediation was requested, and because it's the result of a compromise. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Back-and-Forth Discussion

Contra Sir Paul / Pablo Stafforini, the current list is not a compromise between myself and any other party. I do not endorse it in any way. It is simply the list that he had on the page when I halted the edit war in order to resolve the conflict via this noticeboard. "the one that existed when mediation was requested" is quite the euphemism. I would also note that Pablo is currently in hot water within the EA community for the misleading nature of his work with MacAskill, which also seems like no small conflict of interest in this discussion. MacAskill is also under fire for his use of "cofounder of the effective altruism movement." That bit may be of interest to @Xodarap00:. Bodole (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Please stop spreading misinformation. The inaccuracies in that post have already been addressed, and I hope the author will correct the post accordingly. As the volunteer moderator requested, this thread is for providing succinct answers to his questions, not to resolve our disagreements, let alone to engage in personal vendettas or cheap shots which have no bearing on the present discussion (my work for MacAskill ended a long time ago and I do not currently work for any EA org or am otherwise affiliated with EA in any formal capacity). Pablo Stafforini (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
It is not misinformation. The facts are on that webpage. I am providing back-and-forth feedback on your answer, which I have argued contains misinformation. Additionally I am bringing to other user's attention your conflict of interest. I do not know your current work and I will assume good faith but even prior work so close with a subject of this discussion seems worthy of noting. Lastly the concern with MacAskill's misrepresentation of his involvement is particularly relevant to the dispute. Bodole (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
This is not the first time you make a baseless allegation, from an anonymous account with about 100 edits virtually all of which are about Jacy Reese, that you later refuse to withdraw. Previously you accused me of being part of "a certain EA clique focused on artificial intelligence" without substantiating that accusation, even after I explicitly asked you to do so. I have no interest in reporting you to the admins, because I'm on Wikipedia to add content rather than to fight people, but I want to make it clear that your behavior shows a consistent pattern of battleground editing from a single-purpose account. Remember that "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals." Pablo Stafforini (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
My claims are not baseless. I have backed each one of them up clearly, and your repeatedly claiming otherwise does not change that. I am a small-time editor. I am unable to spend hours and hours of my life on this website, and my time is so tied up in this defense against your edit warring that I have had little time for anything else! I would love to be contributing to other topics! This will be the last comment I make in this particular thread because, as you correctly suggest, it is becoming about persons rather than content, but I see a particularly strong “ideological battle” being waged by your edits on this topic, and I urge you to consider your biases at least the fixedness of your views here. You say you are not here to “fight people” and yet you persist in doing exactly that on this topic. At least I think we agree that an RFC is the appropriate next step per policy. Bodole (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
In a Western movie, occasionally the sheriff says to two or more quarreling men (possibly a cattle baron, a sheep herder, and a railroad agent) as they enter his office, "Gentlemen, leave your guns outside." (The sheriff still has his .45 in its holster.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Robert, and apologies for having contributed to this. Regardless of how the vote goes, I appreciate your invaluable assistance in getting this disagreement resolved. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Third Statement by Moderator

I have composed the RFC and posted it at Template talk:Effective altruism, with a mention at Talk:Effective altruism. Neutral mentions may be also posted on any project talk page that is thought to be appropriate. I would have asked for help in composing the RFC, but there was quarreling, and I had to keep my pen and keyboard and gun in place. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Third Statements by Editors

Reply by Bodole

I appreciate the need to move the discussion forward but do not agree with the wording of the RFC. Namely it includes two entires, Liv Boeree and Hilary Greaves, that were already proposed to be cut in all the attempted compromise solutions. And it does not refer to the general cutoff and standardization of inclusion which is the only way we can fairly assess whether Reese or any other individual should be included because other editors are currently using inconsistent criteria. It is not neutral as an RFC statement should be.

Still, I have entered a reply. Bodole (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Fourth Statement by Moderator

As moderator, I am the judge of what ia a neutral RFC. However, you can express an opinion on the RFC, or can add a question to it, or can even publish another RFC.

What do you mean by cutoff and standardization of inclusion? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Fourth Statements by Editors

.

Nocturnes (Debussy)

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.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by AnUnnamedUser on 17:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

User Chuckstreet has disagreed with another editor and me about the use of boldface and spaces between lines.

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

Talk:Nocturnes (Debussy)#Formatting, Talk:Nocturnes (Debussy), User talk:Chuckstreet

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By clarifying issues regarding the Manual of Style.

Summary of dispute by Gerda Arendt

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

Summary of dispute by Chuckstreet

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

Debussy (Nocturnes) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors of this filing. Also, I see that there has been discussion of the formatting, but I am not sure what the issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • OK. There are three main disputes:
  1. 1 - Should level 2 headers be bolded?
  2. 2 - Should entire paragraphs be indented?
  3. 3 - How many lines should be between paragraphs? One, or three?

The core question is: Should deviations in style be permitted as long as the Manual of Style does not explicitly forbid them? From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 19:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The peculiar level 2 bold heading looks weird and unlike any of the other 75,427 articles on my watch list, not clear why this article should be different from the rest? Theroadislong (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
If you look into the discussion history, you actually see that Chuckstreet has explicitly said that (s)he doesn't want to follow norms and wants to deviate from them. What's strange is that (s)he will deviate from the MoS as long as it doesn't explicitly forbid his/her actions. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 19:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Incivility and personal attacks collapsed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
chuckstreet has reverted the edits on his own user talk page with the edit summary "go away you weirdo" (see this diff). I believe this constitutes a civility violation. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 21:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Voila! He's violated the MoS again and now called me a vandal! See this. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 22:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Personal attack 2.0 on another editor! here. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 22:29, 31 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_181&oldid=924328799"