Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 169

2017–18 Turkish Cup

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Junk2711 on 17:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:2017-18 Turkish Cup (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Junk2711 (talk · contribs) Akocsg (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is a disagreement on the section explaining why this football game was abandoned. I believe the other editor is giving undue weight (WP:UNDUE) to the claims of the home team. Some of these are not related to the game being abandoned by the referee, and there are sources for this - the referee's report says he was not going to abandon the game until he saw the away team manager get hit. (http://www.fotospor.com/haber-mete-kalkavandan-sok-rapor-285795 (in Turkish) Unbiased, foreign media outlets are also saying the same. Here is literally the first sentence from the Guardian article: "The Turkish Cup semi-final between two of the country’s biggest teams was abandoned after the Besiktas manager was hit on the head by an object thrown by Fenerbahçe fans." (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/apr/19/besiktas-coach-cut-head-tensions-erupt-fenerbahce-cup-derby) One paragraph down: "Tensions increased in Fenerbahçe’s Şükrü Saracoğlu Stadium when fans threw objects at a Besiktas player as a corner was taken." However this editor does not accept this and instead writes "...rescheduled fixture following incidents in the original game, including substitute players of Beşiktaş repeatedly arguing with Fenerbahçe supporters which led to an electrified atmosphere,..." This is objectively false, as can be seen in the second Guardian quote. Every source confirms that tensions first increased with objects being thrown. I disengaged (WP:DISENGAGE) after discussing didn't help and decided to take a break from editing for a few months anyways. I see that the article is still the same so I would like this dispute to be resolved, even though it isn't very important a subject. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion on the talk page, trying different edits to meet in the middle. How do you think we can help? Possibly reverting to this original edit made by another user, then leaving it alone permanently after citing his/her text and making spelling corrections. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017%E2%80%9318_Turkish_Cup&oldid=839502570#Second_leg_4 Summary of dispute by Akocsg Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The user above is cherry-picking quotes from sources and blatantly ignores passages and sources that don't fit his own POV. All points above were addressed in the talk page of the article in question, where the user couldn't argue anymore and just kept insisting on his POV, despite several sources supporting my attempts to fix his one-sided narrative of the incidents. I'll just quote one of the sources, which I've already done in the talk page and is used in the article itself: "Beşiktaş yedek kulübesindeki oyuncuların Fenerbahçe taraftarları ile tartışmaları tribünleri gerdi. Sonrasında gelişen olaylarda tribünlerden atılan yabancı bir cisim..." (in Turkish) Translation: The quarreling of Besiktas reserve players with Fenerbahçe supporters agitated the stands. The incidents happening thereafter... Source: His attempts to crudely push POV and give undue weight even reached the point where the user tried to imply an alleged meddling of the Turkish President! Here's the edit: diff The editor above is also blatantly twisting facts here, showing himself as the side who tried to innocently find a conensus and a fair resolvement, while his edit was the point of giving the section undue wieght and pushing POV, while my edits followed his original one, trying to balance it and fix the POV. Here is his edit in question: diff. I'm highlighting the points in bold where he distorted the original content by adding these points: Although regulations dictated a win by default for visitors Beşiktaş, the TFF ordered the remaining 32 minutes to be played behind closed doors. President Erdoğan had become involved in the debate, calling the events "a conspiracy". The bold parts are either not true at all and/or are giving undue weight and including things which don't belong into the article at all. Now he is accusing me here of having given undue weight to the topic. All of this is coming months after the discussion in the talk page, where he couldn't get his own way with the article. That alone says much I think. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC) References Talk:2017-18 Turkish_Cup discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. There are literally 5 citations there right now showing what the regulations dictated. We changed the word to "suggested" after you opposed. There is also literally a citation showing that the President called the events a conspiracy (without proof) - something that has never happened before. In your Turkish quote with "the incidents happening thereafter", the next words you left out literally say "an object was thrown at the Besiktas manager". This certainly does not support your claim that "substitute players of Beşiktaş repeatedly arguing with Fenerbahçe supporters led to an electrified atmosphere" so I'm not sure why you're sharing this here. If you don't remember that the fans were throwing objects at corner kicks during the first half and you don't believe foreign reporting, then you can watch a full recording of the game to see what "led to an electrified atmosphere". Also, your source is quoting a commentator and is more like an editorial as opposed to an article such as the Guardian's. I am also not cherry-picking. Look at every foreign media outlet reporting on this and the gist is the same. Of course foreign media is more likely to be unbiased than Turkish media so I am basing my argument on them. And what do you mean "get my own way"? You just kept undoing my changes and I decided to be responsible and not edit war with you. I would also like to know whether you are still opposed to reverting the section to its original state (linked above) written by a third-party, and what your reasoning for that is. Junk2711 (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC) The "commentator" is a former veteran referee, and as such a perfectly qualified source. And that source exactly supports what I've written above, it's pretty clear on this. I don't know what there is to twist and deny about it. This discussion exactly took place in the talk page months earlier already. The original state is fine. Since it sums it up in a short and pregnant way without giving undue weight and including stuff like the President's opinions which don't belong there. It wasn't me who changed the original content after all. Akocsg (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC) I've returned it to its original state with citations and corrections. If it's fine for you then I guess this is resolved. Junk2711 (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC) Volunteer Note - This may have been resolved. If there is no more commentary in 24 hours, it will be closed as resolved by discussion by the parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Meltedicecrema#Editing_with_a_Conflict_of_Interest_Conflict_of_Interest

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Meltedicecrema on 20:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:Meltedicecrema#Editing with a Conflict of Interest Conflict of Interest (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Meltedicecrema (talk · contribs) JohninDC (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Hi, the user JohninDC keeps removing my inclusion of Kristen Roupenian in University of Michigan Alumni, despite me citing several sources (links to articles about her in BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian, Forbes, Boston Globe, The Atlantic, etc.) These are major publications, and the articles were strictly about her, not just happening to mention her. I have no conflict of interest. I have never met the author or interacted with her. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I included multiple sources, asked the user to stop. How do you think we can help? Please ask this user to stop and allow inclusion of this notable alum Summary of dispute by JohninDC Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User talk:Meltedicecrema#Editing_with_a_Conflict_of_Interest_Conflict_of_Interest 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:Salt Bae#Alleged_political_displays

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by ZiaLater on 17:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Salt Bae#Alleged political displays (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved ZiaLater (talk · contribs) Blitzcream (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Attempted to place updated information in regards to the article and organize a section devoted to reception of Salt Bae, the topic of the article. Was immediately reverted despite sourced information being provided. I placed the information back with an additional source. This was again reverted by Blitzcream. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Later, I once again attempted to place back the material and changed the wording so it would be more NPOV. Again it was reverted. At this point, I notified the user to make more constructive edits and to discuss the issues. I did not receive an adequate response. How do you think we can help? I have tried multiple options to avoid conflict such as changing edits, though Blitzcream appears to be a WP:SPA that has some previous experience (recommending use of talk page, whitewashing only one article, etc). However, I still believe that the intentions could have been genuine as well and would like to see if the wording or content could be improved upon before placing it back in the article. Thank you for any help! Summary of dispute by Blitzcream Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Salt Bae#Alleged_political_displays 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:Toby Young

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Cleisthenes2 on 11:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Toby Young (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Cleisthenes2 (talk · contribs) Fæ (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I'm not sure if this is the right place to do this, but I'd like to request mediation for a dispute over the language in the opening section of the article on Toby Young. In a nutshell, Fæ wants some controversial tweets by Young to be described as 'homophobic and misogynistic' and I would prefer, in the interests of neutrality, simply to note that the tweets caused controversy without taking sides in that controversy. (I would also be open to including the words Fae has been pushing for, along with a short sentence to the effect that Young has denied that his tweets were prejudiced, e.g. in a piece in Quillette, but Fae has repeatedly refused any such compromises). Finally, I should note that when Fae brought his up on a discussion page, the preferences of the editors who wrote in were 4-1 in favour of more balanced language (including Fae and I in the count). Despite this, Fae's continued to revert any edits to their chosen language. As I indicated above, I'm happy to discuss the exact language we should use, but I'm not sure it's healthy to have one user blocking changes which several others are in favour of. Hence my request for mediation. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I posted this to the administrators' page, but was told to bring it here, so I have. How do you think we can help? My personal view is that Fae should stop obstructing any and all alterations of the relevant language, because the discussion on the talk page makes clear there is some appetite for a more balanced formulation. I would be happy to work with them and others further on exactly what that language should be. Summary of dispute by Fae This is not a two-party dispute, so it is misleading to present it as such. The existing locus presented above is incorrect. The history shows this horse has been flogged by the same person for far too long, and plenty of views from long term editors have established the lede text needs to stay as it is to remain encyclopaedic, and represent what the reliable sources state, rather than being written as a Toby Young support piece which redacts notable facts that Toby Young might not like. Aside - it should be kept in mind that Toby Young (Tyoung8) has been editing his BLP to his benefit for over 10 years, the most recent identifiable edit being in September 2017. The article may well be the target of sustained lobbying, and should be kept under review for COI editing, considering the handful of recent anon and short-term specialised accounts that have edited the article this year. Similarly it is possible that short-term accounts have attempted to game discussion with the objective of introducing bias in any consensus, though no doubt closing administrators will be alert to this possibliity. diff 15 June 2018, the first edit by Cleisthenes2 to Toby Young was to remove the accurate description of "offensive" from the lede text when describing Young's tweets, describing the change as "not a white- or blackwash". For those not familiar with blackwashing, this is a derogatory term often used to deride any allegation of bigotry by portraying the accused as a victim. diff 11 July, the administrator @Black Kite: adds the description of "misogynistic and homophobic" to the lede text as a more precise description of why the tweets were offensive, as supported by the given reliable sources. BLP/N 11 July the consensus was to keep "after homophobic and misogynistic Twitter comments were uncovered" in the lede text. BLP/N thread created because of Cleisthenes2's repeated attempts to censor "homophobic and misogynistic" from the lede. Talk:Toby_Young#Neutrality_issues_in_opening_paragraph created 31 July by Cleisthenes2, again attempting to remove "homophobic and misogynistic" from the lede. BLP/N 31 July created as a second go at satisfying Cleisthenes2, the consensus was to allow Toby Young's self-serving blog (23 July) post in Quillette as a response to the allegations, but in a later section. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_mediation_in_a_dispute_over_the_article_on_Toby_Young (23 Sept) created after again blanking "homophobic and misogynistic" from the lede. The article was protected as Cleisthenes2's edits were considered revert warring, they were warned on their talk page. Some of the other parties directly contributing to restoring the lede and taking part in discussing the appropriateness of "homophobic and misogynistic" both by Cleisthenes2 and an anon IP editor, have been @Black Kite, Nomoskedasticity, Absolutelypuremilk, Grayfell, and Only in death:. Though as I mentioned at ANI, it would be possible to raise a RFC, the overwhelming evidence given by all reliable sources makes this seem pointless. Further, going to yet another noticeboard would be forum shopping, presumably in the hope that if raised often enough, a consensus might run in contradiction to a common sense implementation of WP:RS. --Fæ (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC) Talk:Toby Young discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. This is very much a driveby query, but wouldn't "which many people considered homophobic and misogynistic" or something along those lines suffice, given that it's not in dispute either that (a) there were people who considered the tweets in question offensive, and (b) there were people who considered the tweets in question within the bounds of banter, and both (a) and (b) can be reliably sourced? We run into similar issues all the time on other figures with a history of making statements which many people consider offensive but where there isn't a complete consensus among reasonable and uninvolved observers that the comments were intentionally discriminatory (Donald Trump and Jeremy Corbyn are probably the highest-profile current examples). ‑ Iridescent 11:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC) Although doesn't that then create the perfect opportunity for a fresh argument to erupt over whether "many people" and "some people" considered them such? (...and so it starts all over again!) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC) Volunteer Note - Do we need a moderator? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC) Toby Young is generally accepted to be "inexperienced, crass and seemingly bigoted"[1]. I don't think this is especially controversial. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC) First statement by moderator I am ready to try to moderate this dispute. Will each editor please read the mediation rules and follow them? Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Respond to my questions within 48 hours. Do not argue with the other editor; address your comments to me. I understand that the issue has to do with how to characterize some contentious tweets. Is that correct? If so, will each editor please state, in one paragraph, how they want the tweets characterized and why. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2018 First statements by editors Hi Robert, as highlighted in my summary, this is not a two-party dispute, neither was it myself that added the words to the article that are being lobbied against, so honestly I'm not convinced that DRN is an appropriate process. The logic being that an existing consensus based on several people reviewing reliable sources and expressing their opinions, should require at least an equally consultative process to significantly change or overturn the consensus. If Cleisthenes2 can find any reliable sources to show there is an issue with the current sourced and accurate description, they could have chosen to create a RFC proposal, which would automatically be promoted for consultation, while DRN has none of those benefits. The claim of non-neutrality in the lede text is as originally described at BLP/N and resolved there, with Black Kite adding the description "A controversial appointment, he resigned over a week later after misogynistic and homophobic Twitter comments were uncovered." (diff) to the article as a resolution (again, these were not my words), refer to BLP/N archive. The choice of words are entirely based on the available reliable sources, so far no reliable sources have been provided to show this choice is controversial or factually inaccurate. The water has been repeatedly muddied both in the article discussion and by Toby Young, by claims that Young is not a misogynist or homophobe. However there has never been any allegation that Young is homophobic or a misogynist, instead the article focuses on his tweets, for which there can be no dispute that the apparent intention by Young was to make both misogynistic and homophobic attacks. Young has not denied this fact. Reliable sources which describe the tweets in any detail include: Independent, 2018-01-03 Labour has since demanded that Theresa May reverse his appointment because of what the party said was a history of “homophobia and misogyny” Business Insider, 2018-01-03 However, Labour has urged May to reverse the appointment, citing a series of tweets Young has now deleted which have been described as sexist, homophobic and insulting to a number of groups. The Times, 2018-01-04, His appointment has been heavily criticised, first on the ground that Mr Young is poorly qualified for the job and then on ground that he has poor judgment after a slew of sexually derogatory tweets emerged. Mary Bousted and Kevin Courtney, joint leaders of the new National Education Union, have become the latest to criticise the appointment. In a letter to Ms Greening, they say Mr Young has made "unacceptable comments on disability, students from state schools getting into Oxbridge and children with special education needs. As equalities minister the sexist and homophobic comments Mr Young has made publicly must be as unacceptable to you as they are to the National Education Union." Independent, 2018-01-09 Theresa May has backed Toby Young to continue in his new role with the higher education watchdog, despite mounting pressure to sack him over a series of misogynistic and homophobic tweets. Evening Standard, 2018-01-09 Mr Young had come under increasing scrutiny since his appointment in early January, when posts from his Twitter account were unearthed in which he was alleged to have made sexist and homophobic remarks. Sheffield Telegraph, 2018-01-10 May said she was "not impressed" with his language on Twitter when sexist, homophobic and other offences (sic) posts were revealed. Daily Mail, 2018-01-10 (in a piece defending Young) The Young row erupted after sexist jokes made on Twitter about female celebrities' breasts came to light, as well as controversial statements about working-class and disabled students. Many of these sources quote several tweets, the choice varies because there are hundreds to choose from. Most of the example tweets are explicitly sexual, or appear deliberately bigoted slurs against minority groups. Examples include masturbating over images of starving children during the Comic Relief appeal [2], the joke "Actually mate, I had my dick up her arse"[3] in reference to a photograph of himself posed with Padma Lakshmi on Top Chef, and with reference to openly gay Bruno Tonioli "It's code for "I want to bum you""[4]. Apologies for not sticking to one paragraph, but I thought it was worth listing out some reliable sources which can demonstrate that original text that Cleisthenes2 wishes to blank out. I am not advocating any alternative text. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Deflategate

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 216.240.6.210 on 18:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Deflategate (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Tarl_N. (talk · contribs) Ebw343 (talk · contribs) 331dot (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There are numerous factual omissions, editorializations and slanted/biased opinions in the article that make it heavily biased in favour of one particular side's (i.e. te NFL's) opinion. I have identified and enumerated many of them, and have provided both citations and explanations for my reasoning. Unfortunately, only three other individuals have joined in the discussion, and all of them are steadfastly refusing to engage with me in a dialogue on fixing/improving the neutrality of the article. They are stonewalling, and, as I've mentioned, entirely avoiding addressing my points in any way shape or form, all while committing, virulently, to ensuring that NONE of the changes that I have preliminarily proposed ever make it into the article itself. I have been endeavouring for two months to work on this, and they have done nothing at all whatsoever to participate meaningfully in the process. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've been engaging with these obstructionists for nearly two months, extolling them innumerable times to please just address the points I've raised. I've responded directly to their comments and have endeavoured over and over and over again to initiate a discussion on the merits of my criticisms and suggested fixes. All have been repudiated for basically every / any reason under the sun. I've finally just been told that it's 3:1 against fixing the article and I can go pound sand... How do you think we can help? By getting people to actually engage, intellectually, with the points that have been raised and to commence (and participate usefully in!) a reasoned, emotion-free dialogue on the merits of those arguments, and, hopefully, on ways that the article can then be improved. Which is ALL that I've been trying to accomplish for the past two months! Summary of dispute by Tarl_N. See the talk page. We got nowhere in discussion except angry rants and walls of text. Having the editor in question editing previous remarks after people had responded to them, after being warned that this was a problem, made me simply give up on the discussion. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Ebw343 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 331dot Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There is no dispute here to resolve. The IP user who brought this matter cannot accept that they have not yet obtained consensus for their proposed changes. The IP user wants to turn the currently neutral article into an anti-NFL hit piece loaded with various theories and analysis about the Deflategate matter that are not appropriate for a neutral article. They are not interested in an honest discussion and have turned off other editors with their lengthy rants and battleground attitude. They might get a lot more accomplished if they canned the attitude and honestly engaged other interested editors in good faith. One only needs to examine Talk:Deflategate to see these things. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC) The IP user has posted another angry rant in response to my post above. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC) Talk:Deflategate discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note 1 - The filing party has not notified the other editors on their talk pages. Notification on the article talk page is not a substitute for notification on user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC) Volunteer Note 2 - Two of the three notified editors appear to have declined to take part in moderated dispute resolution. Unless they state otherwise, this dispute will be closed because participation in this dispute resolution process is voluntary. The filing party may choose to accept that consensus is against them, or may use a Request for Comments to formalize consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC) Volunteer Note 3 - The filing party is strongly cautioned to be civil, and is advised that insulting other editors is not a productive way to resolve a content dispute. The filing party is advised that any further violations of civility may result in a block, or in temporary semi-protection of the talk page (which will prevent them from insulting other editors). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Et43

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Willthacheerleader18 on 03:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:Et43 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Willthacheerleader18 (talk · contribs) Et43 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User:Et43 continuously removes information and sources from the articles Rachel Yeoh and Michelle Yeoh (socialite) even after prompting to start a discussion on the articles' talk pages and statements made by me about sourcing and citations. It has become an edit war that I am now engaged in and I ask for help resolving the issue. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Conversation on the user's talk page and an edit war warning (although I am now also guilty of such behavior) How do you think we can help? A third party to bring insight and perhaps better explain how Wikipedia works (information based off references).. Summary of dispute by Et43 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User talk:Et43 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:Calala Island

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by KiteWings on 20:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Calala Island (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved KiteWings (talk · contribs) Jake Brockman (talk · contribs) Dispute overview An article was created about an island in the Caribbean, which hasn’t previously been covered on Wikipedia. On upload, myself and another editor had a lengthy discussion about its name, but have reached a point where we cannot reach consensus. Most of the facts are included on the talk article, but outside assistance I feel is required. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Ongoing discussions for maybe a week How do you think we can help? Clear implementation of the titling rules on Wikipedia Summary of dispute by Jake Brockman Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Procedural notes: (1) The filer did not inform the other party about the DRN, (2) there filer opened a move discussion on the same day. This is ongoing, therefore this may not be eligible for DRN at this point. Summary: the filer created an article in main space that is now at Draft:Calala Island. During NPP I assessed this article as defective, but potentially notable pending further investigation and recommended the AfC process which may help very new editors - especially if the article has promotional concerns. I assisted the filer as my time allowed, however instead of following AfC, the same defective article was re-created in main space and the draft apparently abandoned. I have represented my arguments largely on Talk: Calala Island. My concerns are primarily contents driven due to a large number of promotional, primary and unreliable sources or sources with only secondary relevance for this article in addition to an indication or a recreation of a "feel" of the said promotional sources in the Wikipedia article. It is my opinion that the apparent WP:SPA may have a vested interest. However, I can see how an article about this geographical feature can be notable, given the variety of sources (positive through it's current name Calala Island and the new resort of that name, negative through it's history as Lime Cay), therefore I have worked with the filer to make the article more balanced and neutral, removing text that is largely of a subliminal promotional nature and adding other viewpoints and - potentially - official sources. In combination, the article may stand as opposed to the original version. From my perspective the title is actually not the main concern. WP:COMMONNAME may apply, but I'm also mindful this title may serve purposes similar to WP:NEO, i.e. by substantiating a new name and making it seem official. My main concern is the contents and my recommendation to the filer to use DRN was mainly due to his removal of the balancing additional information I added. In addition, the move request has a slight misrepresentation that arguments are based on "wrong" maps services, such as Google Maps. The main argument for the location name is actually based on data by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency - part of the US Government intelligence services - and their publicly available geographic information, which indicates the name of the geographical feature in Spanish as Cayo Lime, last updated in 2011 and in existence since before 1993.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC) Talk:Calala Island discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not yet notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:The Mind_of_Jake_Paul

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Fandangos121 on 00:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:The Mind of Jake Paul (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Fandangos121 (talk · contribs) Coasterdude1 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have posted a request several times that the article in question either needs to be edited to fit community guidelines or deleted, and the article writer keeps removing said requests/edits. They also keep all-caps screaming at me. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried stating my case, and they continue yelling at me. They have even brought other users into it and they have threatened to make sure I get 'blocked' on my own talk page. How do you think we can help? Step in and ensure that this request is not removed or explain why it should be removed to me. Summary of dispute by Coasterdude1 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:The Mind_of_Jake_Paul discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - This doesn't appear to be a content dispute of the sort that is in the scope of this noticeboard. This appears to be a dispute over whether to delete the article, and over removal of deletion tags. Removal of deletion tags is a conduct issue (because the improper removal of deletion tags is forbidden). This noticeboard does not deal with deletion discussions, which are a separate process, and the filing party can submit a new Articles for Deletion request with a valid deletion rationale. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. This discussion will probably be closed, unless a reason is given to keep it open. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC) Nothing to see. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. SPI Notice - @Robert McClenon: I have reported one of the involved editors (Coasterdude1) at WP:SPI. Should that report be resolved this case should be fairly open-and-shut. Best, ProgrammingGeek talktome 03:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:2018 Bangabandhu Cup

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Anbans 585 on 18:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:2018 Bangabandhu Cup (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Anbans 585 (talk · contribs) FilFootyGuy (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There was a conflict regarding the issue that what should the Philippines be called, should it be called Philippines or Philippines 'B'. FilFootyGuy seems to say that since the team is not the full national team, due to absence of many of the senior players (which is correct), we should call the team Philippines 'B'. I on the other hand argued that regardless of which players are playing the team should be called Philippines as according to all the media sources and sports websites, including the Federation's official website states that the caps and debut goals have been scored etc. That's what I made of this excerpt from this article - "The Philippine Men’s National Team secured the top spot in Group B after a tight 1-0 win over host Bangladesh last Friday 5 October 2018 at the Sylhet District Stadium in Sylhet, Bangladesh." here. FilFootyGuy was eventually suspended for a day for edit warring along with one other user. After coming back online he has since reverted all the edits without completing the discussion. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Initially I started a discussion to stop the edit war between him and the other editors. Later I personally talked to him on his and my talk page about the issue. But his answer usually seems to be very much hostile. How do you think we can help? Reaching the conclusion about what should the team be called, the decision can then help to end the current endless edit war ensuing on the page. Summary of dispute by FilFootyGuy Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:2018 Bangabandhu Cup 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 editor of the filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC) Volunteer note - Two editors have been blocked for edit-warring on this article. I will be closing this request, but it can be re-opened when the blocked editors come off block, because discussion here is much better than edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC) I informed the editor on his talk page, right after filing the requests. The blocks were finished at 11:57 UTC--Anbans 585 (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC) It seems that the other editor just made only 1 edit after his block was finished, since then he has been offline.--Anbans 585 (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC) Well, i think better go to WP:ANI as he haven't write anything here yet (and may be never will). He made two revert after the expiry of the block and may keep coming. Matthew_hk tc 01:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Schools#List_of_administrators_in_school_articles

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Hammersoft on 01:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#List of administrators in school articles (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Hammersoft (talk · contribs) Alansohn (talk · contribs) John from Idegon (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Also see discussion at [User_talk:Alansohn#List_of_administrative_staff_in_school_articles this user's talk page] Beginning mid-September, I began removing Administration sections from school and school district articles (example). User:Alansohn. Alansohn began restoring some of these sections. I advised Alansohn of WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI, and continued with removal. When Alansohn responded, I ceased removing these sections and have not conducted any further removals. Since then, we've engaged in a three week long discussion that has not resolved the issue. A few days into our discussion, I began a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#List_of_administrators_in_school_articles to seek wider input into the issue. That discussion concluded without any support for Alansohn's position, and at least six editors supporting removal. Despite this discussion, Alansohn has remained steadfast in his opinion that the sections should remain. In particular he notes this is properly sourced material and therefore should be included, and WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI and has no bearing of any kind on school articles. Per WP:VNOTSUFF, I've asked Alansohn to please point to the consensus discussion that supports including such sections. So far, he has not produced such a discussion. He remains adamant that the sections should remain. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I began a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#List_of_administrators_in_school_articles to seek wider input into the issue. That discussion has concluded with consensus for removal. How do you think we can help? Other people may help achieve a middle ground in the dispute. Per WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI and the discussion, I don't believe anything more than the principal/head teacher/superintendent of a school/district should be included. Though I disagree, I am willing to let go the idea of "business administrator" as being outside of that (example). Vice principals and others, even if sourced, should be removed. That is the compromise I am hoping to achieve. Summary of dispute by Alansohn Starting with this edit on September 16 at 10:06 to this edit at 10:19, Hammersoft removed details regarding administrators from articles for 25 schools and school districts, in the span of 13 minutes. In each case, Hammersoft left the administrators listed in the infobox, but removed details regarding those administrators, including multiple sources in each article from the school / school district and from the State Department of Education. Hammersoft has had no issue with including the administrators in the article's infobox, and we both agree that the material is encyclopedic. In this comment on my talk page, Hammersoft emphasizes his acknowledgement that details about administrators belong in the article, but feels that "The administrative lists sections you are adding are redundant to the infoboxes in those articles anyway. I've removed the sections". The first sentence in WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the first section of the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, states that "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)." Contrary to Hammersoft's assertion, infoboxes -- and the parameters included in them -- are intended to summarize the body of the article, not to replace or compete with the prose; content is intended to appear in both the infobox *AND* the article. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a fundamental policy that mandates that readers must be able to confirm that article content comes from reliable sources. Hammersoft has left the content in the infobox, but has removed the sources. In articles like these, the ability to allow editors to readily verify content is all the more critical; removing the sources leaves the articles vulnerable to vandalism. Hammersoft has pointed to WP:VNOTSUFF and insisted that verifiability does not mandate inclusion of material in an article. As Hammersoft agrees that the material is encyclopedic and belongs in the article -- but only in the infobox -- WP:VNOTSUFF is not relevant here; what matters here is verifiability and the deletion of the sources, but Hammersoft has removed several dozen sources from these 25 articles. Hammersoft has based his edits on an essay about schools, that is clearly marked as a "WikiProject advice page [that] is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." I encourage further work on this essay and I hope that one day in the future it will be reviewed by the community at large to determine if it merits being turned into a guideline after a cycle of review and revision. The original Wikipedia:Notability (schools) is a failed proposal, and this latest iteration has never been subject to community review. Until such time as it becomes a policy or guideline, the current Wikipedia guideline on infoboxes and the policy on verifiability must take priority. As both Hammersoft and I agree that details about administrators are encyclopedic, the optimal solution appears to be to leave the material in both the infobox and the body of the article (as stated in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes) with the sources included in the body of the article. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Schools#List_of_administrators_in_school_articles discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the project talk page, but not by Alansohn, who is listed by the filing party as the other party. Also, it appears that Alansohn has not been notified of the filing of this case. If an editor has not engaged in discussion on the project talk page, it is unlikely that they will engage in discussion here. In any case, the other editor should be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Volunteer note It appears the user was notified in this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alansohn&diff=863154783&oldid=863138824}, roughly 6 hours before Robert McClenon says he wasn't. Or am I missing something? Jacona (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Filer note Alansohn did not contribute to the project talk page discussion, though I invited him twice. We did have extensive discussion on his talk page, which I referenced above. I invited him to this discussion immediately after filing this request, as Jacona has referenced. I am hopeful he engages here. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Volunteer note - I see that User:Alansohn was notified, although it was done in a less-than-obvious way. (Usually, when a filing party notifies another editor, they do it in an obvious way, with a heading that shows up in the Table of Contents.) The next step is to see whether the user replies, since discussion is voluntary. This isn't the typical content dispute because it doesn't involve one specific article, but it is a content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Procedural objection - if this is about the discussion in the header, there is no dispute. If this is about said discussion, every party in the discussion is party to this. If this is about said discussion, Alansohn is not a party to it. Clearly it isn't about that discussion at all, but about some article(s) the parties to this dispute are at. As Alansohn was invited to the title discussion and refused to participate, I don't see where the subject of that discussion is even on the table here, other than to the extent that the parties in this discussion are bound by the consensus reached there. And I do not see how new content guidelines are on the table here either. This is not the forum for that. Robert McClenon, do you really want everyone at that discussion in the midst of this? The root of this dispute is not new; it's clearly Alansohn's ridiculous argument that article content guidelines are meaningless, when clearly they are not. Local consensus can overrule content guidelines of course, but the burden is on the editor that wants that. They cannot be simply dismissed. John from Idegon (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC) I am not a party to whatever you are discussing here, Robert McClenon, but what you are discussing here is clearly NOT the discussion in the title, which I, and many others were a part of and Alansohn was not. I honestly do not know what you are discussing here, but again, there is no dispute at the location in the title. Do you need me to go request an administrator to close that discussion? Seems a waste of time, as only a blind person would not see the clear consensus there. John from Idegon (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC) User:John from Idegon - I am trying to conduct moderated discussion to resolve a content dispute. I am trying to lead a discussion that may resolve the content dispute. See my comments below. If you want to be a party, you are welcome. If you don't want to be a party, you don't have to. If you want to request administrative action, we both know where WP:ANI is. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC) Again, there is no content dispute at the location named in the title. Just as simple as that. John from Idegon (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC) It is correct that there is no dispute at the location named in the title; there is consensus. There is, however, a dispute which that discussion is directly relevant to; in fact it wouldn't exist without the dispute. There is a dispute, which I am hoping to resolve. That's why I started this request. Alansohn has, by making comments here, appeared to have agreed to participate. I'd prefer to move forward with the DRN. If I were to start an RfC, it would not be to raise the essay to guideline status. It would be to further answer the question of whether administrators below the lead title (principal/superintendent/head teacher/etc.) should be included or not. I believe that question has already been answered by the essay, which I believe does have standing as John has noted, and by the consensus discussion noted here in this DRN. I'm hoping this DRN can help achieve agreement. I don't want to take this to WP:AN/I because it will do little but add heat to the fire. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC) Procedural statement by moderator I am placing the discussion of content on hold to resolve the procedural issue raised by User:John from Idegon. It is correct that User:Alansohn did not take part in "the discussion in the header", meaning the discussion at the Schools project talk page. The basic issue appears to be that this is a one-against-many dispute, in which Alansohn wants to add or retain staff information that other editors consider to be undue detail. Is that correct? It also appears that the procedural issue is a question of whether there is a content guideline at all. Alansohn says that there is not a content guideline, because the page in question is only an essay. Other editors assert that it has a status similar to that of a guideline. The discussion of content is on hold because there is a threshold question of whether the page in question has guideline status. I can see two possible answers. First, it can be treated as a de facto guideline. If so, Alansohn is editing against consensus and editing against a guideline, and this dispute will be closed as disposed of. Second, if the page in question is not a de facto guideline, then, as noted by User:Hammersoft, a Request for Comments may be needed to upgrade it to a guideline. (Alansohn is probably still editing against consensus.) I am waiting for a statement from User:Alansohn, and for further comments from John from Idegon and Hammersoft. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC) The content guidelines for the WikiProjects on US roads, US settlements, and National Register of Historic Places are also essays. Together with schools, that represents well over ¾ of our US social geography content. The content guidelines for military history are also mearly an essay. What these essays represent are a way of presenting similar content in a uniform manner, which makes for a better user experience for the readers. (and isn't that a thing we should be striving for?) I disagree with the notion that they somehow must be formalized by the community as a guideline before they actually represent a consensus that needs to be followed unless supplanted by a local consensus. They represent a widespread practice, which is a better gauge of community consensus than an RfC could ever produce. You doubt that? Just look at how many different formalized standards for notability on schools we've had, even the current one. What happens at AfD, even in the face of the current standard? If it's a terminal school (ie, diploma-granting) and it's proven to exist, it's kept. Even though it doesn't make GNG. Frankly, I think this is an issue for ANI and not here, but I haven't the time to deal with the particulars of this issue there. John from Idegon (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC) Procedural discussion First statement by moderator I will try to conduct moderated discussion, although this is not the typical content dispute because it does not involve one specific article. Please read the ground rules. Since this is not a dispute about one article, but about the content of multiple articles, it may be necessary to propose content guidelines. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think is the issue about what should and should not be included in articles about schools and school systems? 04:48, 11 October 2018. Robert McClenon (talk) First statements by editors From Hammersoft: My opinion is that the article should contain the principal/head teacher/superintendent, and nothing more. Whether it is only in the infobox, the article, or both is immaterial to me. This is per WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI (which I know Alansohn counts as irrelevant), and per the consensus of the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#List_of_administrators_in_school_articles. Alansohn does not appear to accept that consensus. If that is the case, then perhaps the next step is a formal RfC. I was hoping to avoid the time and effort to do so, as it seems obvious to me there is no support for including administrators below principal/etc. --13:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC) @Alansohn: I never said that sourcing is not a requirement Alansohn. This is the second time that I've informed you that this is a red herring. I asked you to stop doing so once [5]. I'm asking again. I've also never changed my position. Explained, clarified, yes. Changed, no. I am not a bully, and I don't appreciate being referred to as one. If I were a bully, I would not have spent the last near month trying to work this out with you. I will ask, again, can you please show where there is a consensus decision to include less senior administrators than principal/superintendent/etc.? WP:VNOTSUFF requires this when content is in dispute. Myself and several other editors agree this content should not be included. Whether you believe that consensus is flawed or not, the content is clearly in dispute. Please point to the consensus decision that informs you that you should be including vice principals, business administrators, etc. If you do not wish to answer that question, then please answer these questions; Do you see any opportunity for us to come to an agreement? If not, I will proceed ahead with an RfC. If that RfC concludes that the less senior administrators you are wanting to include should not be included, will you continue to include them and/or revert those that remove them? Please answer. Please. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: I don't intend on taking this to WP:AN/I. I believe that Alansohn wants to see a wider consensus. Or, at least I hope that is the case. I asked above if he would honor the conclusion of an RfC that weighed against his stance. I don't think he would go against an RfC, but I grant there's a small possibility he would. That said, Alansohn has been on this project for more than ten years without getting himself banned. If he were inclined to act against consensus, he would have been banned a long time ago. We could consider whether there is a conduct dispute or not. I'm not really interested in that. I'm interested in resolving the dispute, not the conduct I've been seeing. I noted before that taking this further into dispute resolution would be a time sink for everyone involved. I had hoped to avoid that, but it seems it may be inevitable. You referenced the boomerang essay. Are you inferring that my conduct was not appropriate in some way? If so, I would be glad to hear of it. I'm not perfect. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC) From Alansohn: Hammersoft has completely changed his stance, arguing that this is about which administrators are included, but not one of his edits to 25 different articles in 13 minutes removed that information; all he did was remove the content and multiple sources from the article and leave all of the administrators in question in the infobox. Hammersoft has repeatedly changed his position and refused to acknowledge that sourcing is a requirement for whatever it is that is in the article. In years past, the schoolyard bullies would steal lunch money from their victims and might face pushback from their victims. Now, after the modern-day gang of schoolyard bullies steal the lunch money from Timmy, they tell Johnny that he is obligated to hand his money over, as do all future victims; after all, now it's consensus. Here too, the same small handful of editors have removed details and sources regarding administrators added by several dozens of editors in hundreds upon hundreds of articles, but each one is told that it must be removed due to an essay; each editor backs off, assumes that the essay cited is a real policy and walks away from the gang. Sadly, we have expanded schoolyard bullying into the Internet era. WP:SCH, the previous version of a proposed school guideline was formally rejected; now, the current essay is being falsely portrayed as being imbued with guideline-like powers based on its mention in a number of quasi-official contexts in which some editors may have been duped into believing that it is genuine guideline. The current version has never been reviewed and never been approved as a guideline. And don't take my word for the bullying; look at how ElKevbo was manhandled here at the essay in question, when the issue of a conflict between the essay and WP:N was raised and turned into a potential incident. I support the development of a meaningful essay and I look forward to it being reviewed, vetted, updated and corrected by the community as a whole, which can decide to make it into an actual guideline -- or not. Until then, the material in the articles in question about administrators should appear in the body of the article (per WP:INFOBOX) and it should have sources (per WP:V); I fail to see how Wikipedia guidelines and policies that have been formally drafted, approved and accepted by the community as a whole are trumped by an ill-conceived essay. To see a statement from the neutral moderator that "Alansohn is probably still editing against consensus" makes it seem rather clear to me that any semblance of neutrality has already been lost. Alansohn (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC) Misrepresentation The discussion which is alluded to above commenced when ElKevbo made edit with the caption "NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT THE DAMN POLICY SAYS; READ IT, PLEASE (but feel free to make suggestions on how to better word these guidelines so they're still useful!)", then immediately engaged in an edit war on the guideline. Other calmer editors took this to the guideline talk page and discussed it. They disagreed, calmly, with ElKevbo. Several editors took part in the discussion. Indeed, the conclusion of the discussion is very similar to many others that have taken place across the encyclopedia in terms of what should be included on lists of notables. Disagreement is not WP:BULLYING, but falsely accusing these editors of doing so is not civil. Jacona (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Agreed: I lost my cool and although I disagree with the policy interpretations held by many editors I don't believe that I was bullied in that discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Request for volunteer moderator User:Alansohn is quite correct that I am no longer neutral, but there are certain matters where the volunteer at this noticeboard are not expected or required to be neutral, and those include consensus. I have tried and failed to moderate this dispute, because I do see a consensus. I am asking whether another volunteer is available to handle this dispute. I do not know whether there will be another moderator; my guess is that there will not be. If no one else agrees to handle this dispute (and another editor, John from Idegon, thinks that it should not be handled here), this case will be closed as failed in 48 hours. At this point this appears to be primarily a conduct dispute, with uncivil discussion. The editors may try to resume discussion on the project talk page, or may wait for a moderator who may or may not appear, or this dispute can be taken to WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Longshot (Marvel_Comics)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 73.152.121.208 on 22:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Longshot (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved BOZ (talk · contribs) anonymous (talk · contribs) gibberish names (talk · contribs) Shellwood (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There seems to be a group "protecting" this page with grossly incorrect data and even quotations from an editor claiming to have created the character to trump any corrections provided. Considering this is a Marvel intellectual property and they've already won more than a few suits against incorrect usage of their characters I felt I should give a heads up. I love and value this site. I've been using it since it launched so I'd hate to see this go way too far. It's almost becoming a war over a Marvel character. To get right to the point Longshot is a "Luck" based hero. That was my first edit as psychometry one of his lesser known abilities is listed as his primary and only real ability. The page also takes away his status as a mutant which has never taken place in any comics up until recently and I think this article may be the reason why since it took away his mutant status in 2006 or so. The comic came out in 2012(the one bringing his mutant status into question). The editor being credited with creating this character Ann Nocenti is an editor who didn't actually write and it seems she edited this page directly with incorrect opinions. She even stated in an interview that she doesn't read comics. There's a laundry list of weaknesses to his power which do not exist on the comic pages. He's known to regenerate from damage faster and has hollow bones these are noted mutations that come with his abilities. He can never actually be anything other than a mutant because of these mutations. Every time I attempt to begin correcting this page which has been incorrect since at least 2006 when someone questioned his power of "attraction"(something at least two other male Marvel mutants have IE: Gambit and Dakan) it gets immediately reverted and there's now an edit lock which wasn't there before. The quotes from an editor are not supported by Marvel and a good deal of incorrect data leads only back to the article itself instead of off-site proven sources. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried giving detailed reasons for editing the page and I have no problem citing my sources other than having to spend money to do so which is why I tried editing first. How do you think we can help? Allow for editing of this page and honestly a complete overhaul as it's poorly written and much of it just has off-topic discussion directly on the article itself. It reads like two kids discussing the character over lunch rather than an introspection into a Marvel character's history. The editor patting herself on the back as the creator of the character and final word on his entire status with Marvel is cringeworthy. The article is honestly powerful enough to keep the character out of the MCU. Summary of dispute by BOZ Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by anonymous Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by gibberish names Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Shellwood Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Longshot (Marvel_Comics) 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.

Kaitlan Collins

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by PaulCHebert on 17:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Kaitlan Collins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved PaulCHebert (talk · contribs) Kmccook (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User:Kmccook keeps inserting what looks like politically motivated attacks on article subject, based on his/her original reading/interpretation of a piece of writing by the subject of the article. This includes inserting what I think is an inappropriate category. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on article talk page. How do you think we can help? Objective finding on the merits of the edits in question. Summary of dispute by Kmccook Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User:PaulCHebert Seems to think it is o.k. a White House journalist with bias against a woman of diminutive stature is not transparent vis-a-vis her biases. The article by Ms. Collins in Daily Caller July 2014 belittled Senator Mikulski based on Senator Mikulski's stature. The body shaming tenor of the article, "Barbara Mikulski’s Hottest Moments " written by Ms. Collins at The Daily Caller juxtaposed with unflattering pictures of Senator Mikulski was mean-spirited. It is part of Ms. Collins' journalistic work. Height discrimination is a true discrimination. The Wikipedia article on height discrimination notes: " In the media, heightism can take the form of making fun of people whose height is out of the normal range in ways that would be unseemly if directed at skin color or weight." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_discrimination O, NEVER MIND. It doesn't make any difference. There are not enough little people to win any fight against Collins' type of belittling. Please feel free to revert the fact that Collins wrote the article, "Barbara Mikulski’s Hottest Moments " which appeared in the Daily Caller from her entry. Kmccook (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Kaitlyn Collins discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party does not appear to have notified the other editor, but the other editor has responded and so is known to be aware of the filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Incorrect. I linked to this discussion on the relevant talk page and his/her own talk page. They, apparently, have decided to simply not engage and revert to the last clean version of the page. PaulCHebert (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Volunteer note - The notification was done in an even-less-obvious way than the case above. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC) Volunteer note - Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC) First statement by moderator I will, at least provisionally, open this case for discussion. Please read and comply with the ground rules. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. Now, will each editor please explain, in one paragraph, what the issue is in terms of article content? Only article content is discussed here, What does each editor want to do to improve the article, or what does each editor think should be preserved against being changed by another editor? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC) First statements by editors Please note that the other editor has stated above that he or she is not interested in pursuing the issue further, thus effectively ending the dispute. I do not know if or how to mark the question as resolved. PaulCHebert (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Aydinyol#Azerbaijani_Language

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Aydinyol on 15:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:Aydinyol#Azerbaijani Language (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Aydinyol (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A user ( Wikiaviani) has put a source about the difference between north and south Azerbaijani language. I have given another two other sources that reject the claim, but he keeps deleting my comment. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I talked to him. He doesn't read my sources and keep deleting my edit How do you think we can help? Just someone needs to read my source and stop him from deleting my content. User talk:Aydinyol#Azerbaijani_Language 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:Raised fist#Unicode_symbol

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Hyperlynx2 on 05:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Raised fist#Unicode symbol (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Hyperlynx2 (talk · contribs) Malik_Shabazz (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The article for Raised Fist discusses its use in communication, to express solidarity and resistance, including written communication. As such, I have attempted to add the Unicode symbol. Despite raising it on the talk page, my edits have been repeatedly reverted. I feel that my points raised on the talk page have not been refuted. Have you tried to resolve this previously? On 11 September 2018 I ceased trying to edit in the change, and attempted to open discussion on the Talk page. I received a reply from Malik that day. I then replied with several supporting arguments, and waited. On 18 October 2018, having received no objections, made my proposed edit, it was reverted the next day, and afterwards Malik explained his reasoning. How do you think we can help? I would like us to agree with each other. I do not agree with Malik's statements and have stated my reasoning, and he's entitled to disagree, but I don't think he should act on that disagreement without exploring and refuting my reasoning. I'd like to figure out who's right. I want either Malik to be convinced that my edit should go in, or that I should be convinced that it should not. I want us both to be satisfied. I think an outside party is best placed to solve this. Summary of dispute by Hyperlynx2 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Malik Shabazz Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This is a simple dispute over whether the opening sentence of Raised fist should include the Unicode symbol for a raised fist (i.e., whether the opening sentence should start "The raised fist, or the clenched fist, is a symbol" or "The raised fist, or the clenched fist, (Unicode symbol: ✊), is a symbol"). Hyperlynx2 and I disagree with one another, none of the other talk page watchers has expressed an opinion, and I would (and I believe Hyperlynx2 would) accept the view of a third party as a "tie-breaker". This probably could have been handled through a "third opinion", but since we're here, I would appreciate if somebody would just take a look and offer an opinion instead of referring us to another form of dispute resolution. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC) Talk:Raised fist#Unicode_symbol discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - This seems like a good candidate for a Third Opinion. Discussion at this noticeboard will be an attempt to find a compromise. To get an outside opinion, try Third Opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC) Volunteer note - The filing party has not notified the other editor. That will not be necessary if they request a Third Opinion instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC) Sorry, I'm new here. I thought raising the request would notify them automatically (evidently not). How do I notify them? I thought of simply getting a third opinion, but I want something stronger. I don't just want to take someone else's opinion, I want to be convinced and change my position, or change their position. Especially since they don't seem to have dealt with all the points I raised. - Hyperlynx2 (talk) Hyperlinx2, copy-paste this on to their talk page: {{subst:drn-notice}} ~~~~ ProgrammingGeek talktome 19:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC) Volunteer note - It still isn't clear that moderated discussion here is "stronger" than a third opinion. Neither the opinion of a moderator nor the result of discussion will necessarily change anyone's opinion. At the same time, editors who request a third opinion should be willing to change their opinions on hearing it (although this is less often true than false). Robert McClenon (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC) First Statement by Moderator On the one hand, I am not sure that moderated discussion will be helpful in resolving the dispute. On the other hand, I will try. Please read the ground rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Now, will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issue is? It should be an issue about article content (not about another editor). Please state your opinion about article content concisely. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:39 23 October 2018 First Statements by Editors Second Statement by Moderator I am willing to offer my own opinion, but only if both editors agree that they want it, and only if both editors understand that it has no more force than a Third Opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC) Second Statements by Editors I'm sorry I haven't responded earlier. It's been a hectic week for me. I will check back more often, as directed. I understand and accept the terms. I believe the article would be improved by the inclusion of the Unicode character in question, for several reasons. As discussed in the article, the raised fist is itself a symbol used to communicate or express resistance and/or solidarity. This is not just a gesture performed in person but includes written communication, posters and the like, which are also featured in the article. I think it is noteworthy that the character exists in the Unicode standard as that suggests the symbol is widespread enough to be codified in that standard. It is also useful in text-based communication, precisely because it succinctly expresses the writer's solidarity with/recognition of the struggles of/support for whatever matter is being discussed in just one character, and I have used it myself many times for that reason. It's not just a picture, but an expression of a concept - indeed if it were not useful for succinctly expressing a concept there would be no reason to write an article about it in the first place. - Hyperlynx2 (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC) I don't understand the rationale for including the Unicode in the opening sentence. Lots of things are represented in Unicode or in emojis, and very few encyclopedia articles mention them at all. ("An umbrella or parasol, U+1F302 🌂 CLOSED UMBRELLA, is a folding canopy supported by wooden or metal ribs") What makes the Unicode significant enough to warrant mentioning it in the opening sentence, as if were a synonym? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 01:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Third Statement by Moderator Well, the comparison to an umbrella or parasol is off the mark. An umbrella or parasol is an object. The symbol merely represents the object. Also, the Unicode symbol is very rarely used as a Unicode symbol. In the case of the raised fist, the raised fist IS the symbol, not merely a representation. It is a symbol even if it is at the end of an extended human arm. The Unicode symbol IS a synonym, which is why it is used as if it were a synonym. However, I agree (not strongly) that we should not use the Unicode symbol in the lede sentence. That is because the Unicode symbol is merely one form of the symbol, and does not define the symbol-thing being described. The Unicode symbol is only a way of rendering the symbol in print. In this way, it is unlike an A or a Γ, which are symbols whose only purpose is to be rendered in a written form. So, the Unicode symbol doesn't define the thing being described. With an A or a Γ, the Unicode symbol defines the thing being described. There. Now I have tried to be a twentieth-century philosopher. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Third Statements by Editors I agree with basically all of that. On reflection, I don't see a pressing need for it to be in the lead of the article. I'm not sure what the most appropriate place to put it would be, though. It's such a small bit of content that I don't know whether it should have a whole section. - Hyperlynx2 (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ashkenazi Jews

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 2605:E000:1703:45A4:B160:C97F:FAFE:BE36 on 06:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Ashkenazi Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Nishidani (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I've tried to edit the following section "The Khazar Hypothesis" I want it to say this: In the late 19th century, it was proposed that the core of today's Ashkenazi Jewry are genetically descended from a hypothetical Khazarian Jewish diaspora who had migrated westward from modern Russia and Ukraine into modern France and Germany (as opposed to the currently held theory that Jews migrated from France and Germany into Eastern Europe). The results of genetic studies conflict on the theory. A 2013 trans-genome study carried out by 30 geneticists, from 13 universities and academies, from 9 countries, assembling the largest data set available to date, for assessment of Ashkenazi Jewish genetic origins found no evidence of Khazar origin among Ashkenazi Jews. "Thus, analysis of Ashkenazi Jews together with a large sample from the region of the Khazar Khaganate corroborates the earlier results that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry primarily from populations of the Middle East and Europe, that they possess considerable shared ancestry with other Jewish populations, and that there is no indication of a significant genetic contribution either from within or from north of the Caucasus region", the authors concluded.[169] Other studies support the theory, for example "A MOSAIC OF PEOPLE: THE JEWISH STORY AND A REASSESSMENT OF THE DNA EVIDENCE" by Ellen Levy-Coffman and "The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses" by Eran Elhaik. There are people who want to discredit the Khazar Hypothesis by associating it with anti-Semitism and keep information supporting it out of the article in furtherance of a political agenda. Have you tried to resolve this previously? In addition to posting to the talk page, I've requested dispute resolution numerous times. How do you think we can help? Edit the article the way I want. Summary of dispute by Nishidani Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Ashkenazi Jews discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Just a procedural question: the edit history for your dynamic IP address has nothing except this DRN case in it. Can you advise what IP address or username you used in this dispute? Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC) Also, the individual with whom you say you have a dispute hasn't edited Wikipedia in two months and has a retired banner across their userpage. Are you certain you're talking about an active dispute? Simonm223 (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:BTS (band)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 36.11.225.5 on 23:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:BTS (band) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Statethefacts86 (talk · contribs) Maproom (talk · contribs) Binksternet (talk · contribs) Carlobunnie (talk · contribs) Angeliniz (talk · contribs) AdultBrat (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Recently this band has been involved in numerous controversies, highly covered in the press. From wearing Nazi insignia, celebrating the atomic bombing of Japan, and posing for promotional photos at the Holocaust Memorial. They've been highly criticized by the Simon Wiesenthal center and numerous media outlets. One editor on the talk page is doing everything he can to prevent that information from being published here, stating that it's all a far-right Japanese conspiracy. His bio makes it clear that he's only here for that reason. Have you tried to resolve this previously? There has been in-depth discussion about it on the talk page, but it seems a small group of fans (or perhaps people working with the band) refuse to budge. How do you think we can help? By providing some more authoritative discussion. Whatever you can do will help. We shouldn't wipe history clean. This controversy has been huge in Japan, and in the West. It should be properly documented here. Summary of dispute by Statethefacts86 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Maproom Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Binksternet Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Carlobunnie Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Angeliniz Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by AdultBrat Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:BTS (band) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - There has been considerable discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editors, and should do so before this case can be taken up. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Mujaddid#Mirza Ghulam_Ahmad

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

Filed by Pepperbeast on 03:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Mujaddid#Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• User_talk:Pepperbeast

Users involved

• Pepperbeast (talk · contribs)
• Batreeq (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Batreeq has inserted commentary as a footnote to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad pointing out that many Muslims don't consider Ahmadiyya to be "real" Muslims. This doesn't reflect a neutral point of view, at least, not in an article that isn't actually about Ahmadiyya as such and singles out one branch of Islam for criticism.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried discussing the issue, and I tried initiating a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard, but didn't generate any real interest.

How do you think we can help?

Not sure.

Summary of dispute by Batreeq

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

I have added a well-sourced footnote note explaining the status of the controversial sect; the majority of Muslims regard the sect he founded as un-Islamic/out of the fold of Islam as the sourced footnote states. Pepperbeast disagrees with this addition, though I have explained why it should remain on the two linked pages under the "Location of dispute" subheading above. Thank you, – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Mujaddid#Mirza Ghulam_Ahmad discussion

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

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editor of the filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Ooh, sorry... I failed to spot the template and wasn't sure if I needed to notify. Fixed now. PepperBeast (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - If you have Twinkle enabled, you can always use the 'tb' tab and select Noticeboard and select DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer note: Because this was initially listed without Batreeq as an opposing party (the listing party added Batreeq only after the request was posted), no summary section was created by the listing bot for Batreeq. Batreeq has been notified, and has even edited this listing to clear up some links, but probably does not realize that we are waiting for a response. I'll drop a note at their talk page. I will not, however, be taking this case as a volunteer. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment - Intriguingly, I'm not able to find any guideline or essay in project space about potentially POV things in footnotes. My instinct is that if there is an NPOV concern, then the cautious route is to address it in the article proper. Any thoughts from the editors? Xavexgoem (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

My feeling is that if it doesn't belong in the article, it doesn't belong in the footnotes, either. Obviously, religion-based opinion about why Mirza Ghulam Ahmad doesn't count isn't NPOV. Making that a footnote doesn't make it any more appropriate. PepperBeast (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Xavexgoem. I disagree with Pepperbeast. The well-cited factual note I added to the article documents a viewpoint held by the majority of Muslims. I believe documenting this is important, because Wikipedia aims to be "the sum of all human knowledge" (from WP:PURPOSE). As such, "Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia" (from WP:UNCENSORED). Thank you, – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer note @DRN volunteers: - Is anyone available to moderate this case, or should the editors be told to use a Request for Comments, or should it be closed for lack of a moderator? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I think an RfC is a better option. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm unlikely to take it any further. I've made multiple attempts to get help with this issue. Nobody seems interested. PepperBeast (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm definitely interested – I wouldn't comment if I weren't! Here are my concerns:

• Binary, either/or disputes (there is a footnote/there isn't a footnote) are incredibly hard to mediate.
• I'm not swayed by the policies currently cited in the dispute. Or rather, I'm not swayed by the way they're being cited.
• Policy is vague on this. An RfC will bring in more outside voices. We only bring in one, and can't really take sides. An RfC might help clear up the matter for the future, too.

I can mediate this, but that will become frustrating slowly. Or I can offer a third opinion, if you want your frustration fast :) Xavexgoem (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The Students%27_Union_at_UWE

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by PompeyTheGreat on 20:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute The Students'_Union_at_UWE  Users involved PompeyTheGreat (talk · contribs) Dispute overview It was agreed by editors not to move this page on the talk page, someone has done so, it was agreed by editors to remove a list of offices and elected reps as it did not meet the requirements for an encyclopedia and they were since readded without anyone commenting on the talk page. I suspect that some of the editing on this page may have been done by the marketing department of this students union as several passages of the article are sourced only from the SU website and appear overly promotional. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Removed content, posted on the talk page How do you think we can help? Help reverse any editing by marketing staff who are not independent and ensure that the decisions agreed by multiple editors on the talk page are kept and not reversed without discussion in contravention of wiki rules. The Students%27_Union_at_UWE 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:LordOfPens

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Lethargilistic on 23:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:LordOfPens (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Lethargilistic (talk · contribs) LordOfPens (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Firstly, there is no singular talk page discussion for this issue because the user in question has resisted talking about it. I linked to LordOfPens' talk page so that you can see that multiple users, including myself, have tried to engage them about this behavior that has been ongoing for at least a year. I'm raising this issue here because they stopped responding on Talk:Free software movement. I checked and found their long history of this behavior and that that they continued moving other pages after I talked to them yesterday. Because of its unusual decentralization, I hope that will be sufficient. Essentially, LordOfPens has spent the past year moving articles to add hyphenation to their names because they believe that there is an objective grammar rule that requires this. They have also been mass-editing article bodies to this effect. I and others have pointed them to WP:COMMONNAME in cases like car part names, to which they say "Tesla has various grammatical errors in its English pages. This does not mean we Wikipedia should propagate Tesla's marketing department's English errors as an encyclopedia." in an edit summary. Obviously, I have an opinion about how the rule should be applied, quite particularly in the cases of free software or public domain equivalent license, but LordOfPens' current strategy seems to be mass editing with minimal communication when questioned before moving on to other disparate articles to do the same there. I hope we can come to a consensus about whether or not this behavior should continue, and decide on an appropriate process to follow if it should. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried engaging them on Talk:Free software movement, but that is only the two of us and would not reach consensus even if they responded again. I found a similar attempt at discussion on Tesla Model 3, but they did not respond to that. Then there are the multiple messages to this effect on LordOfPens' talk page, as linked above and not responded to. How do you think we can help? I think this needs a centralized discussion and resolution as to how LordOfPens should go about this crusade of theirs. Because of the breadth of the articles they are moving, I don't think just doing it and appealing to supposedly objective grammar rules when questioned is appropriate or sustainable for their project, even assuming for the sake of arguments there are articles out there that would benefit from this hyphenation. Summary of dispute by LordOfPens Like the comma, period, and semi-colon, the hyphen has well-defined rules governing its usage in English, which is also explicitly defined in Wikipedia's Manual of Style. I am of the opinion that Wikipedia's English articles' titles should comply with proper English and the Manual of Style, regardless of how a given article was initially titled. There are multiple reasons for this, including: Many people do not understand how to use hyphens, so they avoid using the punctuation character; this has resulted in many articles in Wikipedia being improperly punctuated upon creation I view Wikipedia as a long-term reference of human knowledge, so I consider the titles for any existing article today to not be set in stone (in terms of punctuation) I do not view the editing of punctuation in an article's title to be significantly different than editing punctuation in an article's body, to the point that warrants creating a Wikipedia Talk entry for each article, and waiting for feedback (regarding well-defined punctuation usage) for each article before continuing with the title change Regarding a license for free software (free-software license), "free software" is being used to modify the improper noun "license", hence the compound modifier should contain a hyphen. Note that the usage of "free" in this context refers to freedom, not pricing—this means there exists "free free-software licenses", and "non-free free-software licenses" (not "free free software licenses" and "non free free software licenses"). Regarding the movement on free software (free-software movement), "free software" is being used to modify the improper noun "movement", hence the compound modifier should contain a hyphen. Regarding a license that grants similar rights as licenses in the public domain (public-domain-equivalent license), "public-domain equivalent" is being used to modify the improper noun "license", hence the compound modifier should contain an additional hyphen. User talk:LordOfPens 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 properly notified the other editor. This is not the typical case, because it does not involve a single article. However, if the filing editor and the other editor are willing to engage in moderated discussion understanding that this is a content dispute affecting multiple articles, and that the Manual of Style must either be followed as written or formally modified by a Request for Comments, I am willing to act as the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC) Yes, I am fine with discussing this in terms of the MOS. lethargilistic (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC) I, too, am open to discussing this in terms of Wikipedia's current Manual of Style. LordOfPens (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Volunteer note - Waiting for response from User:LordOfPens. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC) First statement by moderator I am opening this case for discussion, to focus at this time on general principles, not on specific articles. Specific articles can be discussed on their article talk pages. If discussion at an article talk page becomes lengthy and inconclusive, we can move it to this forum. However, do not edit the articles in question for now. You may discuss the articles on the article talk pages, but we should agree that any edits to articles should only take place after consensus on the talk page. Read my rules for moderated discussion and comply with them. Now I will ask each editor to state, in one paragraph, what they think the underlying issues are about hyphenation and article content and titles that are the basis of disagreement. We have already agreed that the Manual of Style governs. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Ready for responses from User:Lethargilistic and User:LordOfPens. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC) First statements by editors I personally believe that many people do not understand how to properly use many punctuation characters—particularly, the hyphen, en dash, and em dash. As such, this segment of people are hostile towards the usage of these punctuation characters, and will actively remove them. I am of the view that the three referenced article titles above are in English, are subject to the grammatical rules of English, and are improper nouns with compound modifiers with well-defined punctuation rules both in English and Wikipedia's English Manual of Style. Therefore, the three articles should contain hyphens in their titles. LordOfPens (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC) Ideally, Wikipeida is descriptive and not prescriptive. That is, it is a reflection of the world as it is, not the world as Wikipedians would like to see it. It is not the place of Wikipedians to tell outside groups that their spelling is incorrect. I think the main source of my contention is that the sorts of names (groups and products) at-issue are treated by their constituents as proper nouns in effect and in all ways aside capitalization. To be abstract, consider something called the "good pens movement" that advocates for "good pens." Because "good pens" is understood to be one important unit by the group in question, I would equate the change of "good pens certificate" to "good-pens certificate" as akin to the MOS's example of an incorrect WP:HYPHEN, "Middle Eastern cuisine" to "Middle-Eastern cuisine." This is not true for somewhat-or-completely synthetic construtions from those names (think "good-pens-certified conference"), and I see significant room for compromise in such cases. lethargilistic (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC) If these three articles' titles are proper nouns, then they should edited to reflect that. LordOfPens (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC) Second statement by moderator User:Lethargilistic writes that Wikipedia should be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Does User:LordOfPens agree or disagree? If disagree, please explain in one paragraph. Do both editors agree that the most commonly used name should be the primary name, and that the most commonly used form of the name should be the primary name? If not, please explain in one paragraph. Do the editors think that renamings of articles (done by moving should be discussed first, or that they can be done boldly followed by discussion? Explain in one paragraph. Do not refer to the bold-revert-discuss cycle, because even a single revert ot a move is a move-war. Is this discussion limited to three articles, or is this a discussion about hyphenating practices in general? Does anyone think that the Manual of Style should be modified, or is there agreement? Please be concise about any changes. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC) Second statements by editors The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Isagenix International

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Zeelyone on 16:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Isagenix International (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Zeelyone (talk · contribs) Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs) Dispute overview New to this - but would like someone who is new to MLM marketing companies to review. The study was sponsored by Isagenix, but they didn't have any control over the results. I think it belongs on the page because the studies are referenced by multiple medical journals, and the underlying bias against MLM pages could be hindering good information being added onto the page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on the talk page. Found multiple sources supporting the results of the study but all were shot down by other users on the page. How do you think we can help? Determine the validity of the study results being on the page in regards to Wikipedia's rules and without an underlying/existing bias against MLM companies. Summary of dispute by Rhode Island Red Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Drive-by comment from JzG Isagenix is one of those MLM pyramid schemes, and there is some effort underway to whitewash the fact that its products are, bluntly, a scam. Unsurprisingly there is some pushback from experienced Wikipedians. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Talk:Isagenix International discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Question - Has there been discussion on an article talk page? I didn't see talk page discussion. This appears to be a request for "someone who is new to MLM marketing companies to review" as a request for review rather than a discussion for content dispute resolution. If that is the request, that isn't what this noticeboard is for. (Also, is it possible that asking for a review by someone who is new to MLM marketing companies is requesting a review by someone who doesn't understand the background?) If there hasn't been talk page discussion, this request will be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Yes there has been discussion on the Isagenix International talk page. Underneath the 'Section proposal' header. The dispute is that the content doesn't belong on the page because Isagenix sponsored the study, but they had no control over the results and the source is a journal. A lot of MLM pages have the same users policing the edits, so I wanted an outside opinion on the addition of the study results. Thanks. Zeelyone (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Volunteer Note - The filing party has not notified the other editor of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Volunteer Note - Is the filing party asking for a moderator to mediate a discussion, or is the filing party asking for a reviewer? This noticeboard is for moderated discussion in order to try to reach a compromise. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Sorry - I am new at this but I believe I'm using the right platform for my issue. I need a moderator to review or mediate the discussion in relation to the study results that were discussed on the talk page.. as referenced above. If this is not where I can receive help with this, could you point me in the right direction? Thanks. Zeelyone (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Volunteer Note - The filing party has not notified the other party of this filing. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

European Graduate School

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Serenest on 04:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute European Graduate School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Jytdog (talk · contribs) Solarmancer (talk · contribs) Bjerrebæk (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The European Graduate School is a graduate school that has philosophers from all over the world who supervise graduate students. The article paints it as a fraudulent and substandard school which change is blocked by one or two editors. Several editors refuse to allow the full faculty to be posted, as in the French Wikipedia page https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Graduate_School (after all it is European). The nature of the school is mis-characterized as the short seminars are emphasized, and not the graduate supervision. There is a group of editors who seem to have holier than thou attitudes, and every one is kind of fed up with each other. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I recently opened a talk discussion page on the issue, and was told everything has been discussed to death, and there was no appetite for discussing it anymore. How do you think we can help? I am hopeful that reasonable people can see clear to update the site with the relevant information and make the article clear and useful to readers as is the French site, not unbalanced with undue weight given to paranoid suspicions. Summary of dispute by Jytdog Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The statement of the dispute in the OP, is vague and simply states a belief or perhaps perception. The issues raised by the OP have been raised a zillion times on the Talk page. For example, there was an RfC in 2016 about the accreditation/Texas thing, and another in 2017 that failed to overturn the first one. That hard won consensus cannot be overturned here. Another key aspect of the history of the page is an extensive history of conflicted and advocacy WP:BOOSTER editing - see the list in the archives here. Finally, Steve, you have more or less blown the "moderator" role here by taking a stance on what you think the content should actually be (without reviewing the history of how it got that way) -- but in any case this is more of a WP:3O approach than one appropriate here. Please recuse yourself from moderating. But better, this should just be closed. Jytdog (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Solarmancer Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Bjerrebæk Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I'm not sure why I was included in this discussion. I haven't paid attention to the strange goings-on on the talk page of this article lately and I'm not party to any dispute related to it. I can, however, offer my perspective here based on my past dealings with the article. My position is as an uninvolved editor who has been editing topics related to higher education across different projects for a decade or so, and who has also removed promotional material from the corresponding article on my "home project" (the Norwegian Wikipedia), including a list of "famous people" claimed to be affiliated with the school. My understanding is that this is a small, somewhat obscure school, that started as a somewhat "alternative" or left-wing project, but that there is no evidence, based on any credible sources, that it is fraudulent or anything of the kind. First: I cannot support the summary by the editor who started this discussion or their proposal to list all faculty members. On the other hand I can understand their frustration with the current non-encyclopedic state of the article. When I first came across this article this summer, it struck me first as poorly written and it had a highly strange focus on Texas(!) and what turned out to be a passing mention in an outdated, low-quality source from some obscure local government authority on the other side of the planet, that is presided over by a climate change denier. No less than 60%(!) of the discussion of the school's "status" in both the lead and body was related to that – for a school located in Switzerland and Malta with no ties to Texas! Imagine if an article about an American university was dominated by the perspective (based on an old passing mention, to boot) of some Maltese authority; to me this is primarily an example of a US bias that we should strive to avoid in any article. It appeared that there was only one editor pushing this weird "Texan bias", and when questioned about the quality and relevance of his source and its clearly WP:UNDUE weight in the lead, he refused to offer any policy-based arguments or engage in constructive discussion. At the time I didn't care enough about the article to pursue the matter further. In my opinion this article has a problem with both some promotional edits, and with biased editing and ownership behaviour by one editor who seems to have some sort of animosity towards the school. My recommendation is that they both stop editing the article, as they are clearly involved in one way or the other and incapable of editing the article in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. Currently it's impossible for us uninvolved editors, with long experience in this particular field, to make any effort to improve the article, given the behaviour of both sides. Additional comment: I find Steven Crossin's comments below very helpful and his proposed wording to be a clear improvement of the article. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Talk:European Graduate_School discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Hi, I'm Steve, a volunteer here at DRN. I'll be helping out with this dispute. I have done some research on this item, and I understand this is the current text that is under dispute: “ EGS is licensed as a university in Malta[8] and is recognized in the Swiss canton where it operates,[9] but is not recognized by the Swiss University Conference, the main regulatory body for universities in Switzerland.[10] In the US, the State of Texas includes the European Graduate School on its published list of institutions that issue "fraudulent or substandard degrees" and notes that it is illegal to use an EGS degree to obtain employment within the state.[11] ” Breaking this down to what is supported and not supported in references: 1. EGS is licensed as a university in Malta... - this statement is supported in the reference provided. In addition, their is a copy of their University License issued by the National Commission for Higher Education Malta, allowing them to operate in Valetta, and Switzerland on their website. 2. and is recognized in the Swiss canton where it operates,[9] but is not recognized by the Swiss University Conference, the main regulatory body for universities in Switzerland.[10] ... - references this page [6], translated here (for my benefit, I don't understand French!). The link that The translated text says: The private law foundation EGS European Graduate School Foundation offers tertiary level training programs in Malta and Valais (summer campus in Saas-Fee) in the following areas: Human Sciences, Health and Society (AHS) and Philosophy, Art & Critical Thinking (PACT). The canton of Valais is a founding member and has a representative sitting on the Board of its foundation. The titles issued by EGS have been accredited since 28 February 2016 by the National Commission for Higher Education of the State of Malta. As this school is not accredited within the meaning of the Federal Law on the Encouragement of Universities of 30 September 2011, the diplomas obtained from EGS do not give free access to the Swiss university system. Breaking down the bolded items in the above, I read these items: "The canton of Valais is a founding member and has a representative sitting on the Board of its foundation." (again, translated). To me, this states that the canton may have a representative on the Board, but that does not explicitly mean it is overall recognised as an institution by the canton, and I don't believe there is sufficient citations to support the text "and is recognized in the Swiss canton where it operates". There are approx 350,000 people in this canton, having a citizen of the canton on the board does not equal recognition. The spreadsheet with the description of EGS as having canton approval by the State of Texas is not sufficient either alone. Regarding this text: but is not recognized by the Swiss University Conference, the main regulatory body for universities in Switzerland. - again, this seems to be based on the fact they are not listed on the a page by the Swiss University Conference, which lists some Swiss universities. I reviewed the law cited in the translated VS page, which is here, and it appears that by description of the text, they have not been accredited by any Swiss accreditation organisation. However, I recommend it would be more appropriate to stick to referencing the actual text, which states "As this school is not accredited within the meaning of the Federal Law on the Encouragement of Universities of 30 September 2011, the diplomas obtained from EGS do not give free access to the Swiss university system." Lastly, the Texas sentence is definitely undue weight and gives the reader the impression that the university is dodgy/fraudulent/illegal, which in reality it hasn't been accredited/their Maltese accreditation isn't recognised in Texas. The source (which is a spreadsheet) referenced explicitly states "Institutions may be authorized in other states or countries. Inclusion on this list should not be interpreted as limiting other jurisdictions' recognition of degrees from an institution. Texas law only applies to activities in Texas." The way the article is written does not make that clear, and for that reason should not be included. I would recommend the paragraph be shortened and replaced to: “ EGS is licensed as a university to operate in Malta and Valais, Switzerland[7], however as it has not been accredited within the meaning of the Federal Law on the Encouragement of Universities in Switzerland, diplomas issued by EGS do not provide free access to the Swiss university system.[8] ” Welcome your thoughts. Steven Crossin 06:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Just a note, I spotted this diff from 26 Oct this year [9]. The text at that time said: “ Founded in Switzerland, the School operates on two locations: Saas-Fee, Switzerland, and Valletta, Malta. It is recognised as a university institute in the Canton of Valais where one of its two campuses is located,[3] but does not hold federal recognition as a university in Switzerland.[4] It is accredited as a university in Malta.[3] ” This is closer to the mark, but still, "It is recognised as a university institute in the Canton of Valais where one of its two campuses is located" - this isn't in the source quoted as per above explanation by me. Let's keep it simple - "Founded in Switzerland, the School operates on two locations: Saas-Fee, Switzerland, and Valletta, Malta. It is accredited as a university, but does not hold federal recognition as a university in Switzerland." Steven Crossin 06:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC) (Jytdog), I'm a mediator, not a moderator. Some volunteers here might just facilitate the discussion without weighing policy and guidelines, and let the people involved try and work it out alone. I've never found that overly successful. Nevertheless, I would appreciate if other volunteers could chime in here on the discussion @TransporterMan:, to see the best way forward for this thread, as it's gone rather quiet. Volunteer note - If editors stop discussing a case, the volunteer can close the case. The editors appear to have stopped discussing this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:MichaelPeiper0331

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by MichaelPeiper0331 on 00:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:MichaelPeiper0331 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved MichaelPeiper0331 (talk · contribs) Dl2000 (talk · contribs) Diannaa (talk · contribs) Vermont (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The subject stems from an edit I performed to the following Wikipedia Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M829 I was prompted by wikipedia, with a general request, to improve the article by citing better references. This I did. And though my article lacks from a technical grade, the actual citations and references are an improvement. I obtained all the information from this website: http://www.dote.osd.mil/ Information was specifically accessed from .pdf articles thereof. Those articles I did manage to add in my last edit to https://en.wikipedi - they are as External Resources 3 and 4. This is the privacy statement: http://www.dote.osd.mil/privacy.html "Privacy & Security Notice This site is provided as a public service by the Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation. Information presented on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." I did cite the website and list it in my references, as well as the specific address to the .pdf articles belonging to that site. However, the literature, photos, and references were dismissed on the basis that they were all violating copyright. As a result, everything was removed entirely by the two users Dl2000 and Diannaa. Dl2000 : The reason provided by this user was that I had violated the copyright of https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m829a1.htm . However, it is the site globalsecurity that is violating the copyright; not only do they copyright the infomation as their own, they they do not cite the reference of the actual true source, which is http://www.dote.osd.mil/privacy.html. Note that Globalsecurity still remains as a provided External Source for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M829 wikipedia article. Diannaa : This user removed the images from my article claiming that they are in violation of copyright; her statements on this, along with mine, can be found on my talk page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I created a talk page, and spoke to both Dl2000 and Diannaa. I visited the chatroom and obtained help from user Vermont. He was able to remove the bulletin notice from the wikipedia article, which was placed by Dl2000. Vermont also spoke on my talk page to inform Dl2000 that I should not be banned, because the information is not violating. However, Dl2000 still has not restored the article. Vermont also spoke to Diannaa on my talk page, but she still disagrees with he and I. How do you think we can help? Please allow the article I wrote to be available in the history, so that I can work on the article and improve it further, as well can others. Please allow the photos, ciations, and references to be accessed for futher editing so that the article may be improved with better sources. Please inform Diannaa and Dl2000 that this is not violating copyright. Summary of dispute by Dl2000 I no longer consider the content in question to be copyright, having initially not found the government source, therefore concur with @Vermont: who justifiably removed the revision deletion request on M829. I do not have the capability to delete or restore the relevant revisions, therefore over to @Diannaa:. Dl2000 (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Diannaa Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. US Government webpages normally are public domain, but the source webpage in question has a copyright notice "Copyright @ 2012" at the bottom, as does every subpage at dote.osd.mil. We have to assume that they mean it. Summary of dispute by Vermont Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The content added to the article doesn't seem to be a copyright violation. Globalsecurity.org had copied it from the OSD document. The OSD site's privacy page states,"Information presented on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied." Vermont (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC) User talk:MichaelPeiper0331 discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Comment by User:FlightTime Phone @MichaelPeiper0331: No amount of reliable sources can override a copyright violation. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 00:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Comment by User:Masem Entities of the US Govt are not able to claim copyright on works unless granted by Congress/limited exception. I doubt that's the case here. As for the copyright message there now, that seems to be coming from "ThemeMakers", a group that makes web page themes. If you check the site via archive.org, they did not have a copyright message then, so I think on their redesign, they inadvertently left the ThemeMakers copyright on that. --Masem (t) 01:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Ranting. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC) Diannaa, your assumptions are what brought us here to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelPeiper0331 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Robert McClenon, how does this require an extensive discussion? It is black and white, and as it stands now, the article is using referenes that violate copyright. You are worthless in this case to work in the best interests of wikipedia, and are dismissing the judgements of 5 of 6 who have investigated this dispute. You are a problem and not a solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelPeiper0331 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've removed the revision deletion after reading Masem's remark. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Schindler's List

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 122.57.49.56 on 01:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Schindler's List#Work of Fiction (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Linguistical (talk · contribs) Crboyer (talk · contribs) Diannaa (talk · contribs) IanDBeacon (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have added the word "fictional" to the description of the film because it is not clear on the article that this film is indeed fictional. There is nothing wrong with adding information to an article that will improve it. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to explain that just because a fictional literary work uses characters that exist in real life it doesn't mean that those charcters don't exist. How do you think we can help? I think that you can help resolve the issue by acertaining whether this film is a fictional account based on the historical fiction "Schindler's Ark" or not. Summary of dispute by Linguistical Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Crboyer Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Diannaa Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by IanDBeacon Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Schindler's List#Work_of_Fiction discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - There has been talk page discussion. It has not been extensive. The editors should continue discussion on the article talk page to see if the issue can be resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Natalie_Glebova

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Voyad M on 20:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Natalie Glebova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Voyad M (talk · contribs) Jjj1238 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User:Jjj1238 did not follow Wikipedia guidelines regarding editing BLP articles. Jjj1238 removed about 25% of the article and published incorrect names. All the edits were unsourced. More information is published on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jjj1238#Natalie_Glebova Have you tried to resolve this previously? I asked Jjj1238 to not edit "Natalie Glebova" until we reach consensus. How do you think we can help? I would like to review by administrators and determine whether Jjj1238 edits were valid or not. Summary of dispute by Jjj1238 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Natalie_Glebova discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - I have changed the title of this thread to Natalie Glebova, the name of the article rather than of the editor. Disputes here are about article content. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Volunteer note - Please take the discussion to the article talk page, Natalie Glebova. While discussion at a user talk page is often useful, the discussion that is required before a case is discussed here should be at the article talk page, which may have other watchers. This case request is neither being closed nor accepted at this time, so as to see whether discussion at the article talk page resolves the issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Volunteer note - The volunteers at this noticeboard are mostly not administrators. This noticeboard is not for an administrative determination but for moderated discussion. Do not edit-war. This noticeboard is intended as an alternative to edit-warring, but requires discussion on the article talk page first. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC) I have moved the discussion to the article talk page, Natalie Glebova, as requested by Robert_McClenon Voyad M (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elizabeth II and Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by RainbowSilver2ndBackup on 21:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Elizabeth II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk · contribs) GoodDay (talk · contribs) Celia Homeford (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Ive added the Olympic additions to Elizabeth II and Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden that they opened up the games and the World Cup but these users named (GoodDay and Celia Homeford) don't believed me. One of the users (Ceclia Homeford) have gong way too far when I'm "lost". The other reason for the addition is that for biography. I don't care if it's premature. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried explaining on their talk pages that everyone know that they opened up the games but they don't believe me as it was "trivial", "silly" and "ridiculous". I added them with good faith. How do you think we can help? This is going to be hard, I'm not sure Summary of dispute by GoodDay Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Bringing this to Dispute Resolution is premature. We've barely starting discussing on the talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC) If this has to be at DR? then it should be re-named, as it covers all the past & present world leaders. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Celia Homeford Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Elizabeth II and Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The editor who's made this DS request, has added opening/closing Olympics material to all the succession boxes of world leader bio articles, without getting a consensus first. All his additions should be reverted. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC) I am genderless. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the talk pages for the two monarchs. Not all of the editors who discussed are listed, and the editors have not been notified. All of the editors who have discussed at either talk page should be listed and notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC) Volunteer Note - Is this case only about the two monarchs, or is it part of a larger issue? If the pages for other world leaders have been edited and there are questions about the edits, a centralized Request for Comments will be a more appropriate way to address the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC) It cover other world leaders, as well. Indeed, an Rfc would be best. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Tucker Carlson#Political_Party

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Proustfala on 19:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Tucker Carlson#Political Party (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Proustfala (talk · contribs) Tigraan (talk · contribs) GB fan (talk · contribs) Fish and karate (talk · contribs) PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Last night I noticed that Tucker Carlson is incorrectly listed as a Republican on Siri Knowledge, which I believe is sourced from Wikipedia. Actually, I couldn't find any statement of Carlson's political party (Democratic Party) on his Wikipedia Page. So I added it into the infobox, as is common practice with public/political figures, and cited a good source of his being a registered Democrat. Users are now accusing me of 'extremely disingenous' and 'awfully misleading' actions in adding this factual information regarding Carlson's political affiliation, to his infobox. One is trying to invent a standard that the infobox doesn't say *why* he's registered as a Democrat, a standard that I think would not hold up across the board, if applied to other public figures. No one requires it be explained *why* Joe Manchin is a Democrat in his infobox, etc. I am simply attempting to add the factual information that Tucker Carlson is a registered member of the Democratic Party to his infobox, as is normal and noncontroversial practice. Several users have taken to removing this, for reasons I feel are being pulled out of thin air. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Debating in a rational manner on talk page, asking for help at Wikipedia Help Desk. How do you think we can help? Allow the information to stand, as it is factual, pertinent information, and warn users engaged in edit warring that they are out of line. Thanks. Summary of dispute by Tigraan Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by GB fan Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Fish and karate Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Tucker Carlson#Political_Party 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:Turco-Albanians#Dubious: %22Albanian_was_and_still_is_a_term_used_as_an_ethnonym%22

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Skylax30 on 21:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Turco-Albanians#Dubious: %22Albanian was and still is a term used as an ethnonym%22 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Skylax30 (talk · contribs) Resnjari (talk · contribs) Calthinus (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In the article Turco-Albanians, one or two users of Albanian background included in the article the claim that "The word Albanian was and still is a term used as an ethnonym". The source is an Albanian author. This claim is not supported by other academic sources, who prove that "Albanian", apart from ethonym, had/have other meanings too, including "Norman", "foreigner", "people of the mountains" etc. User Resnjari and some others, obviously are not happy with this (old) meaning of "Albanian" and they erase it for reasons that are not clear. Also, they claim that the word is/was used only by the Greeks, and when I found 19th c. english books with the variant "Albanian Turk" they erase it as "primary source". Have you tried to resolve this previously? I stated by opinion in the talk page. I restored few times the version that I believe is correct, but not in an aggressive way (few times in a week or so). How do you think we can help? Please see that the article, as it is now, says that "Albanian is and always was an ethnonym", which is not true. There are more academic sources and dictionaries, old and new, with other meanings of "Albanian". If you think that all views should be reflected in the article, let us know if those "non-ethnonym" source should also be included. Alternatively, the claim that "is and was an ethnonyn" should also be deleted as a clear pro-Albanian POV by an Albanian author. Thanks. Summary of dispute by Resnjari Its bad enough that the article pagename is treated in the plural (the only article about slurs treated that way on wiki). Anyway on @Skylax's edits [10] the objections were about the following: one source is an early 19th century travelogue A Journey Through Albania: And Other Provinces of Turkey in Europe [11] by John Cam Hobhouse and the other is The Letters of John B. S. Morritt of Rokeby [12] from the 1790s by John Morritt. @Skylax also insists about adding meanings of the word Albanian that relate to the medieval era, when the word "Turco-Albanian" first originates in the 18th century by outsiders for Muslim Albanians. So apart from wp:synthesis on that front and pushing their POV, I reverted Skylax on wp:primary and WP:AGE MATTERS grounds [13]. This is not the first time the editor has done this with primary sources and has extensively rammed content of the sort on the Souliotes page in the past, even after editors [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] and later even an admin [22] reverted the editor. The connection here is that similar types of sources used at the Souliotes are now being pushed in this article. The continued insistence by @Skylax of these edits for the Turco-Albanian article without taking wp:secondary and wp:reliable into consideration is disruptive editing and a slow moving edit war. @Skylax has been obsessed with the 'Albanian name' matter (or similar things like Albanian identity) for a prolonged period. The editor has continuously pushed their POV for almost a 6 month period until now. @Skylax has attempted this on multiple articles (i.e Origins of the Albanians, Arvanites, Souliotes etc) where possible through disruptive edits or advocating for them (and had run ins with a couple admins over it as well) often via WP:BATTLEGROUND/WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS behavior: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92]. Separate to this, an individual's ancestral origins (whatever they are) should not be involved here as leaves a bad taste for future rapport between editors. @Calthinius has given a detailed overview of @Skylax's problematic editing and the edits to this article are just part of a wider pattern that keeps reappearing time and time again.Resnjari (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Calthinus Hi Robert, I think we've met before, probs on some Celtic page or maybe Egyptians. Anyhow, I am really busy and don't really want to deal with this right now but I'll try to be fast. The page in question covers a known and documented (Islamophobic) racist slur targeting Albanians. Skylax was trying to prove that the racist slur was not a disgusting racist slur, by using sources like a French dictionary from 1821 [[93]]. Resnjari, for his part, as he usually does, was relying on reputable scholarship. Also, you can see Skylax above trying to get you to push his POV that Albanians "did not exist historically" -- this is familiar to anyone who has ever dealt with Serbian and Greek "patriotic" editing (thankfully, these are often cleaned up by reasonable Serbs and Greeks and others nowadays). It is one of those things that cherrypicks the truth -- yes, what it meant to be Albanian has changed over time, but this is true of all Balkan ethnonyms (indeed, the Classical era Greeks would be mortified to learn that "Greek" came to mean Christian for a time, as before the late Roman era they were quite bigoted against Christians). As I will demonstrate below, this is part of a larger pattern that encapsulates all of Skylax's English Wikipedia activity, which has mostly occurred after his ban from Greek Wikipedia. After months of this disruption, I did remark "what the hell"-- aside from Skylax himself having a history of colorful remarks, I do regret if that came off as uncivil but I will also confess I find my patience tested often with this fellow. --Calthinus (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC) Coming back to this after a day, I have decided to reformulate my list of complaints into the following section... Diffs coming soon. --Calthinus (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Summary of larger problematic patterns by Skylax since his ban on Greek wikipedia, for community reference Lengthy account of issues with one editor, which is a conduct dispute. him claiming that Albanians did not historically "exist" before the modern day. He has various angles on this, some of which not being mutually inclusive. Included are the double standards where he talks about how Albanian has been applied in ways that don't work in modern times [[94]] without acknowledging the same is true for other groups, as well as him referencing the Caucasus origin theory for Albanians [95]. This crackpot theory, based one placename whose native name we don't even know, had innocent origins but today is associated with ultranationalists in Greece and Serbia claiming Albanians aren't really European (hence potentially not "white"). Him and his now-banned buddies claiming the father of Albanian national hero Gjergj Kastrioti (as well as other some other Medieval Albanians) did not call themselves by their Albanian names, didn't speak Albanian etc, and attempts to move the page to some Serbian sounding name though they couldn't decide whether he should be Jovan or Ivan... newsflash Serbian and Albanian nationalists don't love each other, and the far-right (Neo-Nazis like Golden Dawn and their "respectable" cousins) of Greece sides with the Serbs. Some highlights in the ensuing headache included him saying their names were "changed" to their Albanian forms because of "American think tanks" [96], a mindboggling conspiracy theory, as well as provocative comments such as "made-in-Albania articles" [97] (i.e. articles made by Albanian editors, reference to "made-in-X" i.e. typically from a third world country), etc... I say they because back then he was teaming up with one of the many socks of a permabanned troll user named Aleksander i Madh eshte Shqipetare, aka AMES (a sarcastic name, meaning Alex the Great is Albanian -- reference to the Macedonia naming dispute). That guy had attempted to rewrite Origin of the Albanians to claim a number of outlandish things using Serbian historiography, including that Albanians came recently from Antalya, Turkey (summarized by me earlier before -- [[98]]). Well there have been all sorts of funny claims including htat Albanians come from Azerbaijan and that they are unevolved and still have tails like monkeys -- the latter being espoused by Serbian diplomats historically, I can cite this if you give me time and a ping, Misha and Schwandner-Sievers wrote about it--- but I have never heard that crap. Keep in mind that denials of Albanian nativeness have historically played a role in attempts to ethnic cleanse them from certain places they live. Like Kosovo. But also, the far right in Serbia and Greece do not acknowledge a right of Albanians to live in Albania because "Albania did not historically exist". Alas... Since AMES was banned Skylax didn't really calm down. He spent a lot of time starting fights, including at Souliotes, where when consensus turned against him, he made his own page that was solely about... what uneducated travelers before the 20th century said about Souliotes, who are an irrelevant historical tribe that doesn't even exist anymore. For those who don't know, it just so happens that Souliotes played a significant role in the Greek struggle for independence -- instead of a thing that Albanians and Greeks can bond over (sharing a lot of history, cross pollination, this included...), this is actually a source of discord, because Greeks who have racist views are horrified that people they consider national heroes could be "insulted" by "nasty rumours" that they could be (gasp!) Albanian. Shocker, the totally non-notable page was deleted. Of course I voted delete (discussion here) I have noticed Skylax also being involved in fights outside his normal topic area with another Greek user named Cinadon36, who is a left-winger and an atheist. Cinadon feels followed around by Skylax. They first interacted afaik when Cinadon took the allegedly "Albanian" side in a dispute on Souliotes -- of course it's only the Albanian if you view Wikipedia as solely tribal warfare; other Greeks have taken similar positions in the past (Macrakis) and I myself am actually an American with no Albanian or Greek roots who is just familiar with the region. Skylax has hurled a lot of colorful garbage at him, including flagrant personal attacks many of which don't even make sense together, such as Cinadon allegedly being both "anti-religious" and "pro-Muslim" [[99]]. Anyhow, it would seem to me that some following is occurring, and might warrant investigation. Some of the fighting is on Greek wiki, where Skylax has been sanctioned [[100]]. His arsenal of national-baiting retorts is not limited to Albanians, see here for ["neoturks"]. Perhaps the most irritating thing are Skylax's retorts which have essentially no constructive purpose. They typically boil down to insinuating identities he disapproves of are shameful (how dare you call so and so an Albanian, etc), or various other things that just seem like provocations (the Muzakas, a medieval Albanian noble family, are possibly actually Greek -- like most Albanians who make history are claimed to be by the predictable types -- to him, in this because their name sounds like "moussaka", a famous Greek dish). Then, there are the patronizing comments that often sound lame in English anyways -- this is the one I snapped at that apparently brought me here -- this diff is easy, as you can see he says to Resnjari, [In case that you didn' know, articles are about words written in texts. Music is about sounds, photos are about views, dreams are about desires etc.] -- what on earth did saying that accomplish? But then, again, if I may -- what does he even aim to accomplish here on Wikipedia? I write pages. Resnjari writes pages. Cinadon improves them. Sometimes -- often in times of heated politics-- all three of us have been involved in "disputes" where we try to make sure policies are followed (I have disagreed with Resnjari too but we respect each other and worked it out every time). On the other hand, literally all I have ever seen Skylax do is provoke either Albanians or left-wingers. And the only page he ever created, afaik, was one to evade a consensus. Now this post has gotten really long, and I would trim it, but I've got to run-- I'll get back to trimming this later I suppose, I figure it's rude to you Robert to leave this hanging for days. Cheers. --Calthinus (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC) Talk:Turco-Albanians#Dubious: %22Albanian_was_and_still_is_a_term_used_as_an_ethnonym%22 discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has listed some of the parties who have taken part in discussion, and has notified some of them. The filing party should list and notify all of the parties to the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC) It was also Othon I, who seems to question (like me) the deletion of the "non-ethnic" meanings of "Albanian". There is one more academic source on the various meanings of "Albanian", that of Oliver Schmitt, which I will add in the talk of the article. --Skylax30 (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC) Since Skylax has taken the liberty to WP:CANVAS Othon I here and failed to notify Resnjari , it seems fair that Ktrimi991 and Cinadon36 get a notification...--Calthinus (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC) Volunteer Note - This appears to be a conduct dispute. Report conduct issues to WP:ANI, after reading the boomerang essay, or to Arbitration Enforcement if the subject area is subject to discretionary sanctions, and Balkan discretionary sanctions apply. Arbitration Enforcement is usually harsher than ANI, and so more effective at controlling disruptive editing. This does not appear to be the sort of dispute that can be solved at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Miss Universe 2018

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Jjj1238 on 18:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Miss Universe 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Jjj1238 (talk · contribs) Art 281 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview On the Miss Universe 2018 page, Slovakia is referred to as "Slovak Republic" and South Korea is referred to as "Korea". I believe that this goes against WP:COMMONNAME, as these are not common names of the countries and they are not being used as proper nouns, so they should be referred to as "Slovakia" and "South Korea", respectively. However, another user disagrees and believes that since their representatives' sashes say "Slovak Republic" and "Korea" it should remain that way, since "WP:COMMONNAME does not apply to beauty pageants". I vehemently disagree with this, as through WP:NOTUSA we refer to the United States as the United States rather than "USA" which is what their sashes say. Additionally, Wikipedia policies do not just "not apply" to certain topics for no reason. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We have tried talking it out, and I have tried educating the other editor on Wikipedia policies (namely WP:COMMONNAME) in addition to giving other examples of why the common name should always be used. This discussion has lead to nowhere. How do you think we can help? I believe that you could give a concise ruling on how WP:COMMONNAME applies to this situation, if it applies to beauty pageant-related articles, and if Slovakia and South Korea are the common names of the respective countries. Summary of dispute by Art 281 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Miss Universe 2018 Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - I have changed the title of this discussion to Miss Universe 2018. The discussion at an editor's talk page has been very brief, and discussion at an article talk page, which may have other watchers, is what is preferred. Please conduct any further discussion at Talk:Miss Universe 2018. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, this case can be opened. If discussion is successful, this case can be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.