Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 87

< Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Super Bowl LII

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Presbitow on 04:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC).
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview Dealing with a persistent editor who keeps removing my comments or edits. I've tried creating Super Bowl LIII posting it with experimental data and even removed the score and stuff but the article was written off as a "hoax" when it is clear that the article is about a future event. In addition, a protection bug prevents me from reposting the article and now I have to use a period in the title. The article was proposed for deletion but someone keeps jumping the gun.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've responded on my talk page and tried restoring my comments but the person I am dealing with has reverted.

How do you think we can help?

1. Advise the other user not to take it personally and realize he or she is just one of many people who contribute and may encounter things he or she doesn't agree with.

2. To repair the original title and allow editing in a way that conforms to the rules. It's true the "results" were made-up, but I was in the process of removing them and creating a generic page for the game.

In addition, the article's existence should be discussed as creating and deleting repeatedly is counterproductive. Clearly this is a dispute that needs to be resolved without fighting.

There were previous attempts to create Super Bowl LIII before I created my account, so restricting creation of an article that's going to get created eventually was somewhat odd given that other editors will have to use a different title until the problem is fixed.

Summary of dispute by Zzyzx11

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

Here's a summary of my actions:

  • I reverted Presbitow's comments on Talk:Super Bowl LII because it violated WP:NOT#FORUM[1] and WP:TALK[2] In my judgement, the comments were about the subject of the article itself, not comments about how to improve the encyclopedia.
  • @Wizardman: was the one who salted the Super Bowl LIII page, not me.[3] Presbitow was previously warned by two others about its pending deletion.[4][5]
  • I deleted Presbitow's first version of Super Bowl LIII. (with the period) under WP:G3 because it listed a non-existent game between the Jacksonville Jaguars and the Carolina Panthers (this was similar to the version Wizardman deleted and salted). I then posted the uw-hoax message on the user's talk page.[6] I then deleted Presbitow's second version, which listed three now-deceased TV commentators as its announcers, among others. Presbitow then replied on his talk page that "The results were experimental"[7], to which I responded that he use the sandbox.[8] My response to use the sandbox was about eleven minutes before he initiated this DRN request.[9]
  • I also reverted his edits on Super Bowl LII because it was breaking the link. There was no glitch.[10][11] As you will also note in those edits, he removed the line for the Superdome/New Orleans, which was referenced in his aforementioned comment on the Talk:Super Bowl LII. Again, my actions were before I could have a chance to discuss this extensively on a talk page.

I feel that this user quickly went here to WP:DRN before this issue was "discussed extensively on a talk page". As you can see, one problem is the the creation of Super Bowl LIII. (with the period) which circumvents a salted page (this circumvented page now appears to have been deleted by yet another admin). I am also concerned that he still trying to scrub mention of New Orleans on those articles, and falsifying of title of the reliable source.[12][13] I would have also mentioned that on his talk page (and the reason why articles on future Super Bowl are usually deleted per rule 1 of WP:BALL, or that he should also consult with the admin who salted the Super Bowl LIII), but again he jumped the gun here on DRN before I could catch up -- and further investigate the actual concerns and respond appropriately (like the comments below). Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Super Bowl LII discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • I added two citations from NFL.com directly that verify that New Orleans is in the running for Super Bowl LII.[14] It is not an editor's place to remove cited content solely because they personally believe that it is highly unlikely that New Orleans will get it (and state this opinion on the article's talk page), under WP:No original research. An editor may add a reliable source that gives the city's chances. But they should not scrub it entirely, or falsify the source's title. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Future Super Bowl articles are frequently deleted under rule 1 of WP:BALL. There should be enough verifiable, cited content from reliable sources to warrant a separate article. For Super Bowl articles, this cited content may reference cities who have announced bids, or planning to do so (see 2028 Summer Olympics for example). An editor should not merely create a placeholder if nothing can really be said about them that is verifiable and not original research beyond merely saying one sentence of prose: "Super Bowl XXXX will take place in [year] and be televised by XXX" (like 2032 Summer Olympics). Otherwise, it will either eventually be deleted, or merged and redirected to the main article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • There were previous attempts to replace the deleted article before I joined. If Wikipedia were a "crystal ball", we'd be fortune tellers. It's clear the majority of content doesn't mention future events. --Presbitow 08:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Presbitow (talk • contribs)
    Do you want to debate the rule or the article you want to create? The previous attempts to replace the deleted article, as I mentioned, could be copy-edited to just one sentence of prose and very little or no citations. If you have more to offer to warrant a separate article, I am willing to listen. Otherwise, a placeholder is useless to readers compared to a redirect to an existing page that has the same basic information, like this you made for Super Bowl LIV. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, even if it's 5 years away, I'd be willing to find sources the way you did to support the New Orleans claim, even though it sounds ridiculous that one venue should get priority over 31 other teams (original site mentions a "rotation" where New Orleans get greater priority possibly due the the 2005 hurricane). I understand you get offended with the initial article I posted, but when you persisted in deleting without any data, I figured I need a solution we could agree on without warring. As for the "crystal ball" claim, I assert that would be for articles decades into the future, not a few years. You might think different, but then again WP's rules are not etched in stone. Presbitow (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Zzyzx11 deleted my comment on SB XLII's talk page twice. While his/her assertion that the discussion should focus on improving the article, there is no reason someone can't ask a question about the subject from time to time. Had he/she explained it in response then and there I would have been less inclined to seek a dispute resolution and used our talk pages instead. Presbitow (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Talk pages are for discussing the article. The edit summary given, "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject, only to discuss how to improve this Wikipedia article", linked to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM, is adequate explanation. All Presbitow had to do was click on the link. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2014 (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.

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by PLNR on 13:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC).
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

All editors that have commented in that section have been included, per dlv999 request.

Dispute overview

The topic of the article is tht 'UN Partition Plan of Palestine'(1947). The dispute concerns the background section, which covers several milestones during the British Mandate period(1918-1947), one of the paragraphs within covers one of the commissions, the Peel Commission, notable for being the first to state that the mandate had become unworkable, and suggest Partition for the first time. Its rejection by both parties, led the following Woodhead Commission technical commission, to decide that no partition could be devised without agreement.

User dlv999, have made and or supports several inclusions to that paragraph, which he claim to be significant to the topic( per WP:RS and NPOV). Those inclusions providing detailed perspective of one of the involved parties, describing in details one of the recommendations and the reason for reject the Peel plan.

I became concerned that those inclusion(and their volume) do not contribute to the nominal subject(UN Plan) of the article, instead cover in detail tangentially related subject(Peel Plan) in a biased maner since it only present on side. In violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and possibly a WP:COATRACK.

I have repeatedly asked dlv999, to support his claim that his inclusion is WP:DUE in the context of the UN Plan, he ignored my request or changed the subject. Most recent discussion

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have started several discussion, tried to narrow the topic so we address only one issue at a time, tried to offer compromise by addressing various concerns noted. Nothing productive came out of it, dlv999 ignore my request, change the subject or quote vague regulations to fill his posts.

How do you think we can help?

Address the issue of policy, concerning the inclusion of those details, without substantiating that they are WP:DUE in the context of the UN Plan, NOT Peel Plan.

Summary of dispute by dlv999

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

Personally I think this is premature. There are a large group of active editors interested in the article. I would like to see other editors express an opinion on the talk page to see if there is any consensus behind either PLNR or my proposal, or if some sort of compromise can be agreed. If that is unsuccessful perhaps an RfC to include the views of uninvolved editors. I think the wider group of editors we can involve the better. I think a long drawn out debate between myself and PLNR is not going to be the best way forward. Dlv999 (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by AnonMoos

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

Not sure why I'm significantly involved; haven't edited that section of the article (that I can remember), or expressed an opinion on the specific matter under dispute (I only expressed a general opinion that the 1947 Partition Plan article is probably not the place to go into any great detail on the 1937 Peel Plan, which was a very different plan proposed under very different circumstances). AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Zero0000

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

Summary of dispute by Trahelliven

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

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine 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.

Dzhokhar and_Tamerlan_Tsarnaev

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 128.197.245.3 on 22:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC).
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

This article contains information in the Shared Background section which I can find no substantiation. In April 2002, the Tsarnaev parents and Dzhokhar went to the United States on a 90-day tourist visa, where they founded the company, Credit Collections Bureau, currently located in North and South Dakota. The company was later sold to a private friend of the family.[29][30][31]

The footnotes contain no information about Credit Collections Bureau.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've attempted to talk with the head of Credit Collections Bureau. He hung up on me.

How do you think we can help?

Please provide verifiable information regarding this citation.


Summary of dispute by null

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

Summary of dispute by

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

Dzhokhar and_Tamerlan_Tsarnaev 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.

atlantis

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Earfalus on 22:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC).
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Is the history of Atlantis fiction or Mythology. I changed "fictional " to Mythical" and he changed it back

Have you tried to resolve this previously? 

Discussion,rather one sided

How do you think we can help?

Public input

Summary of dispute by bender235

Wow, didn't expect this to end up here. Anyhow, here's my brief summary. The question is: in the lede of the Atlantis article, do we refer to Atlantis as a "fictional" or "mythical" island? I insisted (and still do) on describing it as "fictional", because "mythical" implies connection to Greek mythology or religion. However, Atlantis, unlike for instance the Fortunate Isles, does not exist in Greek mythology or religion. It only exists in Plato's work, and is therefore as fictional as are Meropis, Panchaea, or Nephelokokkygia. And for the record, one may consult peer-reviewed essays by classicists on the topic ([15], [16], [17]) if one does not believe me. --bender235 (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

atlantis 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.

Highland Clearances

  – Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Richard Keatinge on 09:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC).
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

There is a paragraph in the lede claiming that sectarian (anti-Catholic) motives are suggested by scholars to have been a factor in the Clearances. The reference given does not support this claim, and the IP editor tells us on User talk:94.173.7.13 that it's unverifiable because primary sources do not exist. I feel that the paragraph should be removed until appropriate secondary sources (i.e. the scholars said to be doing the debating) are produced, and should not be in the lede until there is a consensus to that effect. A bold edit has resulted only in a couple of reversions.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on User talk:94.173.7.13 and Talk:Highland_Clearances#Roman_Catholicism:_Reading

How do you think we can help?

Consider this issue in the light of WP:Verifiability, edit if appropriate, recommend or carry out any further action.

Summary of dispute by 94.173.7.13

This is a case of obduracy on the part of those who seek to remove information where there is a clear provision of a source. It can only be taken that there is some emotional investment in the content of the article and that they are unwilling to permit the addition because it reflects badly upon their emotional state. Despite this, I will broaden the source and link it in conjunction with another section in the same book, so that this flippant disregard for a written authority (who is elsewhere given acceptance in the article on other points beyond the point in question) ceases. My addition is not for or against anything. Beyond pages 49-51: pages 325-326 directly and incontrovertibly relate to my addition. I will quote a brief section of it directly:

'Bland and Fletcher also suggested that the Government should buy or sequestrate the lands of the chiefs, and send to the Barbadoes any who objected. Such lands should also be cleared of clansmen who grumbled, and the country settled with decent, law-abiding, God-fearing Protestants from the South. The Highlands should, in fact, be colonized. It was a proposal that created considerable interest, but it was not accepted, at least not in detail.'

This section directly suggests the important point that necessarily deserves the attention it receives in the article as so written. That there is debate amongst historians as to how much the clearances were tacitly anti-Catholic. I am not saying it was, or it wasn't. Merely that there is clear second-hand proof of anti-Catholic sentiment that may or may not be in the spirit of the actions of those who subsequently were responsible for clearing The Highlands of it's native population. As such, there isn't doubt that it is, not only at very least, something of crucial consideration when enlightening those who seek information on the subject of The Highland Clearances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.7.13 (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The only further comment I would make is that the provision of a direct debate between different scholars should not be necessary. Such a debate is in written (paid-for) specialist journals, or between the scholars themselves in lectures, or verbally. If it is necessary that Wikipedia articles require two first-hand opposing viewpoints then the vast majority of Wikipedia could not function. Prebble suggests the debate, and I am not in any doubt about such a debate because why else would be discussing it here: in the Dispute resolution noticeboard.94.173.7.13 (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, in an effort to end this dispute, I made an additional source available that proves the debate was a feature of very recent chronology. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Camerojo

The sources quoted by the editor simply mention in passing a number of examples of where Catholics or Protestants are referred to. While there is no doubt that religion - Catholic vs Protestant - had been the cause of much friction in the past, and undoubtedly was still an issue for many at the time, there is no claim in any of the sources quoted by the editor that religious intolerance was an important factor in the Clearances. Although a complex topic, the main source quoted by the editor (Prebble) and other major works on the Clearances mentioned on the Talk page would probably agree that money was at the root of this particular evil: it was more profitable to run sheep on clan land than to support tenant farmers. The first paragraph of the existing Wikipedia article summarises that nicely. The paragraph in dispute, which follows the first paragraph of the article, has very little to support it. In my personal researches (http://youbelong.info/public/Three_Clearances_and_a_Wedding), I have not encountered any "debate amongst historians" on the claim made by the editor. Therefore I believe that the paragraph should be removed. Camerojo (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sabrebd

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

This is a case of the sources failing verifiability and an editor not accepting the consensus on the article talkpage that arises from that fact.--SabreBD (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Brianann MacAmhlaidh

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

Summary of dispute by Andrew Gray

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

My apologies for not posting here sooner; I stumbled across the talkpage after the DR was opened and had not realised it was here! I have since tried to disengage from an increasingly circular discussion (I should go and do something more productive...) but this is my summary of the dispute, if useful.

I have tried to engage with the IP user here for some days. They appear to have a clear belief - an understandable one, but incorrect - that historians have stated the Highland Clearances were in significant part related to Catholicism, or motivated by sectarian, anti-Catholic beliefs. The original claim is, on the face of it, a plausible argument - we all know Scotland has long been a rather sectarian past - but as far as I can tell, this interpretation is not widely accepted by historians. Having done the reading over the past few days, I am if anything surprised by how little it's been discussed as an issue!

The sources identified to support this are mentions of single incidents or discussions of related topics which seem to have been heavily overinterpreted. It is noticeable that even the author primarily invoked as supporting the thesis, John Prebble, later wrote a book on the Clearances which does not discuss sectarian motives at any kind of broad level - it's mentioned as a contributory factor in a single specific case, and appears twice in his index. More modern historians are similar - I've consulted Tom Devine's two recent books on Scottish history & Scottish emigration, which should be fairly representative, and he does not seem to draw any significant link between sectarianism and the Clearances.

The user builds on the divergence between sources to conclude that there is an ongoing historical debate as to the level of significance. However, I have not been able to find any evidence of an ongoing historical debate touching on the issue, and no convincing evidence for one seems to have been presented other than these original interpretations. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Highland Clearances discussion

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

Camerojo: the source confirms several important points that substantiate my addition. First, that there were was a considerable Catholic population in The Highlands. Second, that the Catholic population was more prone to Jacobitism. Third, that there was unease with these facts amongst the population (Protestant or not) who were loyal to the Hanoverians. The later addition that I made as concilatorystep in ending this dispute, broadens this, as I said it does, to include anti-Catholic sentiment that directly ask for punitive measures to be taken against Catholics that not only resemble the measures that were subsequently put in place, it is precisely what did occur. I am, in light of this, not adding considerable dimension to the article? If there was a historical event that had one cause only (i.e. money) we could safely burn all the history books written on any subject, for being stupendously superfluous.94.173.7.13 (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Would everyone please read the big notice in red when you open to edit and follow the procedure - ie. wait for a volunteer.--SabreBD (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I am. If you read the section in smaller font before my reply, it asks that we keep the quantity of discussion down before a dispassionate observer arrives. I did so. I hope you will engage further with the content when that person does arrive, because the quantity of your discussion was admirably brief. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Please read the information again, particularly: "Do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread. - this is not the article talk page". Basically we need to wait here and not get into a discussion about the content yet.--SabreBD (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
OK. I will read that, again, as I did the first time of your asking, if you read what it says above my initial comment. I would also point out the procedure of other disputes above (on the Dispute resolution noticeboard) where discussions do start before a dispassionate observer steps in. The quantity of the discussion is kept down until after that point. I will observe what it says and not 'continue' this discussion, although I do not believe on the basis of the procedure of other disputes, and being told to minimize the discussion, that I am doing so 'out of turn'... so to speak. I understand that you think otherwise, I wish we could agree, but that's life... as they say. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.--SabreBD (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2014 (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.

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Kswarrior on 19:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC).
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

removal of proper cited content, dispute over some secondary citation sources, addition of improper and controversial content and edit-war threatening, blockage threatening over user pages.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

tried to discuss the issues and had made modifications in edits according to consensus

How do you think we can help?

admin intervention, judging citation sources credibility, user-conduct misbehavior

Summary of dispute by vanamonde93

My side of this case is easy to state. On the 27th of January Kswarrior added a few sentences to the page, concerning supposed RSS volunteer work during the Sino-Indian war, and Nehru's recognition of it. The source used was a right-wing news website. Maunus and myself both reverted it once, telling KSW to find a better source. He returned with 7 sources and several paragraphs of content. Of these 7, one was the website referred to previously. A second was the autobiography of Advani, a lifelong RSS member. Three other sources, which I will describe in detail if needed, were books from obviously RSS affiliated publishers and authors (one of them is a hagiography of Golwalkar). All these sources seemed eminently unsuited to the article, and I removed them, explaining my reasons on the TP. The final two sources were borderline academic works, and I LET THEM REMAIN, a fact KSW continually ignores. I then attempted to reason with KSW on the TP, while reverting his attempted re-additions multiple times. He responded in a remarkably incoherent manner, and also made several ridiculous accusations against DS (who also reverted a couple of times) and myself. After a gap of several days, he reappeared, adding the same content, only this time he also removed some other cited content from elsewhere in the article. He did not engage us on the TP. He was reverted several times, and DS finally reported him to ANEW, and as a result he was blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Darkness Shines

KSW is wrong. Simple as that really. He needs to stop removing stuff he does not like, and that is all I have to say on the matter Darkness Shines (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh discussion

positive cited contents are repeatedly removed from the article, negativity is hyped, forceful addition of controversial stories, making article non neutral and biased towards negativity, for neutrality both type points should be there and must be proved by reliable sources

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here (and the current coordinator). I am not opening this for discussion at this time but wanted to ask the listing editor a couple of questions. @Kswarrior:

  • First, please be aware that of the three things you ask, "admin intervention, judging citation sources credibility, user-conduct misbehavior" this noticeboard can be of no direct assistance with the first and third. The volunteers who work here (including me) are generally not administrators and we do not deal with conduct issues. For those two things you would need to go to Administrator's noticeboard or Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents (but understand further that administrators will not adjudge or intervene in content matters).
  • Second, while we can help with judging citation sources, the folks over at reliable sources noticeboard are the experts at that subject. We'll be glad to help, since we do overlap with them, but you will get more expert advice there.

So, knowing that would you prefer to stay here on just the issue of reliable sources or move over to RSN? If you'd prefer to stay here, would you please restate here what edit you're trying to make and list the sources which you're trying to use to support it? I'm sure they can be dug out of the article history, but it would help the volunteers here if you might restate them. Once you've done that, we'll wait to see if Darkness Shines cares to join in, as there's not much that we can resolve here without his participation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:36, 10 February 2014 (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.

Israel

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Precision123 on 02:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC).
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

There is currently a dispute as to how to describe the geography of Israel in the lead of the article. Originally, the article read that Israel shared borders with the West Bank and Gaza Strip (among other borders). Some editors have insisted on adding "the Palestinian territories (or State of Palestine) comprising the West Bank and Gaza Strip on the east and southwest respectively."

All reliable secondary sources put forward do not refer to the territories of the West Bank and Gaza as Palestine. In addition, encyclopedias and other sources that have country profiles for Israel do not refer to Israel as bordering "Palestine," nor do they have entries on any country called Palestine. (See, e.g., Encyclopedia Britannica;Encyclopedia Columbia; Library of Congress Country Studies, Washington Post Country Profiles; Infoplease).

All sources indicate a Palestinian state is yet to be established. AP, NY Times. The sources likewise never use terms like "president of Palestine," etc. In addition, they identify incidents originating there as from the West Bank or Gaza Strip, never as Palestine.

Indeed, discussion of the prospects of Palestinian statehood is important, and it is included in the following paragraph, where it discusses the status of Israeli–Palestinian negotiations in the lead. Further explanation is included in the body. But the intro describing Israel's geography should be kept neutral and factual. Reliable secondary sources guide us and they are in agreement with their terminology.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Ample discussion on talk

How do you think we can help?

Hopefully point us in the right direction and make sure each editor is making a proper inference from of reliable sources, in line with WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:PSTS.

Summary of dispute by Sean.hoyland

I am unable and unwilling to collaborate with editors whose ability to deal with evidence is handicapped by their beliefs. It is a waste of time, so I will not be able to participate in this process. Editors who are blinded by their beliefs should not be editing Wikipedia, particularly in topic areas covered by discretionary sanctions such as WP:ARBPIA. Furthermore, making false statements about evidence is not okay, ever. Editors who do this should be removed to prevent the kind of disruption and waste of resources that inevitably follows from such things. No one in the WP:ARBPIA topic area should need to deal with nationalist advocates who have the capacity to ignore evidence, just like no one should be wasting their time engaging with editors who deny the facts about evolution or any number of topics that attract denialists. In a minimalist effort to confront the misinformation and misuse of Wikipedia's processes, here are some facts, actual data whose existence cannot be denied by any editor who follows policy. It is no one's fault that there are sources that say these things. It is just how it is.

  • The country whose existence Precision123 denies is described in the Palestine entry in the following source.
    • A Guide to Countries of the World, page 245, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199580729
  • The state that doesn't exist according to Precision123, the state described by the State of Palestine Wikipedia article, apparently does exist according to reliable sources.

There are of course many sources that conflict with the editor's beliefs. I am not a therapist and Wikipedia is not therapy, so there is really nothing that can be done here to help Precision123 overcome whatever it is that drives his denialism. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I am definitely not going to participate here at DRN. This issue cannot, in my view, be resolved here because that requires certain basic behavioral attributes that are apparently absent in this instance. I say this as someone who has edited in this topic area for many years. And to PLNR, you are treating me like a person and when you would be better served treating me more like a bot. I have no opinions on the issue that matter and it is a mistake to assume that I do. There is information in sources and the decision procedures described by policies and guidelines. That's it for me. What I think about a real world issue doesn't matter to Wikipedia or me. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Serialjoepsycho

After reading everything written on this page I am unwilling to take part. I see no possible way for a constructive discussion to take place. Thank you for your time.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sepsis II

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

I won't waste my time here as the only solution is that Precision, like all those whose sole goal is to spread their Palestine denialism, be banned. Sepsis II (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This is funny coming from someone who denies the existence and Judea and Samaria and that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.163.214.54 (talk) 09:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by PLNR

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

Israel discussion

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

I'm sure if you were to read some of the worst media coming out of states which deny Israel's existance you would not find Palestine bordering any state called "Israel". Most of the world recognizes Palestine as a sovereign state, so you found a few articles which further your Palestine denialism, congrats, the mainstream view is that Israel and Palestine touch the green line. Sepsis II (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - @Sepsis II and @Sean.hoyland, might want to review the parameters of the discussion here i.e. stay civil and calm, and instead of long rant about their nationalism, attempt to provide WP:RS that support their position, to facilitate a productive outcome.
Also, I have recently commented on similar topic and from what I see all Sean.hoyland UN related sources are nothing but WP:SYN over superficial similarities and conjuncture, that doesn't support his claim. I suggest WP:RS that directly address the issue, preferably from an official source(so that you don't have to add according to or widely viewed as)--PLNR (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
"from what I see"...exactly my point. What editors can't see really isn't Wikipedia's problem. When things like a secretary general of the UN saying "I am pleased to visit the State of Palestine" and a book published by OUP describing a country called Palestine that explicitly states that it comprises the West Bank and Gaza Strip, can be dismissed, there is really nothing more to be said. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The Dangers of Certainty is that @Precision123 is just as certain as you are. As for the UN, 'State of Palestine' is the designation that the PLO delegation choose to use within the UN System, following the recent 67/something resolution. Which was a political move, to push forward the negotiations, since UN charter doesn't allow more in that regard, which was most adequately described as "seen as de facto recognition of a sovereign state". While in fact it speaks about negotiations to attain the independence that would make it so. I can go on with how the holly see is regard as 'state of' within the UN and play on words. Instead I forgo the little WP:OR and will ask you again to follow the Wikipedia basic test of WP:RS, in which what you claim is directly stated, to back up your certainty.(no need to address it to me I am not side to this, simply source/quote)--PLNR (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Coordinator's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am not "taking" this or opening it for discussion at this time, but merely seeking some clarifications:

  • @Sean.hoyland: You begin above by saying that you're not going to participate here, then you make a long opening statement and and a response to PLNR. Since you are a primary participant in the dispute at the article talk page, I would ordinarily close this request as futile if you are not going to join in here (which is your right, participation in moderated content dispute resolution is not mandatory). But I'm uncertain about your actual intent. Rather than let discussion continue here, rather than at the article talk page where it ought to happen if it's not going to happen here, would you please say definitively whether or not you are going to participate here at DRN?
  • @Sepsis II: and @PLNR: I presume that you are both joining in here as parties, and have added you to the party list in that capacity. If that is incorrect, please let me know.
  • @Everyone: Let's end discussion here until a volunteer takes the case, if it is to move forward after Sean's clarification.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

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.

2011 Turkish sports corruption

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Rivaner on 15:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC).
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

This article lacks a neutral point of view, I have already made my cae to the neutral point of view noticeboard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal_article) 10 days ago but today, things became really frustrating for me. Some IP adressed users are attacking the article using my edits, I know it is not the right way to do things but the reason for that is they finally found a voice in wikipedia. You can see all the reasons for my edits from one of the inolved users talk page;(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LardoBalsamico#2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal_article) which really sumarizes my siutation. I can understand the users attacking but don't accept their ways. As you can see from here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:93.115.94.149#About_2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal_article) I have did the best I can to calm the situation.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have made my case to the articles talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal#A_bit_biased.3F) and also to mentioned users talk pages; (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi#2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal_article), (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LardoBalsamico#2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal_article)

How do you think we can help?

By finalizing this situation and making the article neutral rather then accusatory for one football club.

Summary of dispute by LardoBalsamico

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

Summary of dispute by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi

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

We're all grateful to Rivaner for calling this meeting. We all know him as a man of his word. A modest man who will always listen to reason. Personally, I'm quite interested in the two IPs who have edited it today and yesterday; what do other parties think? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

2011 Turkish sports corruption article discussion

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

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


  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 174.236.68.115 on 07:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I voiced my concern over a user trying to reverse a deletion nomination on article Tommy Oliver. The user removed my comment suspected I was blocked under an account. I reposted the comment but he/she removed it again. It appears this user is being persistent and I need assistance.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

User should be patient with IP users and not revert actions out of plain suspicion. Two other named users whom I mentioned already have a discussion on his talk page on the matter

How do you think we can help?

Remind the user to assume good faith when dealing with new users or comments he might not agree with.

Summary of dispute by Ryulong

174.236.68.115 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who opened this case is suspected of being a sockpuppet of a banned user. His existant knowledge of Wikipedia, expressed in the fact that he knows what a block log is, that he knows what 3RR is (a term no longer officially used by the community), and that he knew where to find this page just shows this clearer. As I suspect that this IP is a user who has harassed me in the past several weeks, I've opened up an SPI.

In short, there is no dispute here. Just me reverting a banned user's sockpuppets.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

What I meant is that a new user would not use "3RR" considering the "three-revert rule" has not been a page unto itself for over 4 years. Also his adept usage of that and other abbreviations is telling.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ansh66

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

Summary of dispute by AndyTheGrump

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This is a complaint about behaviour, not a content dispute - it doesn't belong on this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion 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.

Bartlett High School (Anchorage, Alaska)

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 75.166.131.134 on 17:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC).
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Bartlett High was mired in a huge sex scandal where male teachers were being predators on female students. It was nationwide news, even in the New York Times, and ended with one teacher being convicted of felony sexual assault on a minor and the law being changed and named after another teacher to prevent further sexual assaults on student. Other states adopted the "Satch Carlson Law" as a model for their own laws (Carlson was a popular English teacher and also a local/national columnist). Since at least 2007 an accurate and well-annotated summary of this was included on the Bartlett page. Other editors have looked at it in the past and made minor changes, but it has stayed essentially accurate and intact. Two months ago "John From Idegon" decided it was inaccurate and in violation of terms, so he deleted that section wholesale. I returned it with the notation that it was all accurate and properly sourced. He repeatedly killed it, claiming no one was convicted in the case (completely not true and well-sourced). We took it to a discussion board where he misrepresented what it said, continued to insist a guilty plea was not a conviction and continued to kill the info. Myself and others told him he was wrong. But he finally got a friend of his to lock the thread so that the material could not be returned to print. He has refused to explain further on the discussion board,linked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN#Bartlett_High_School_.28Anchorage.2C_Alaska.29


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Appealed to logic and reason, facts and accuracy, but that hasn't worked.

How do you think we can help?

John may be well-intentioned but he hadn't even googled the case even after being challenged on it. I think someone with higher editing powers than he should look at the disputed info and settle it once and for all. He may be a nice guy but he's clearly in over his head in the areas of legal issues, public records, etc. and can't seem to face the facts.

Summary of dispute by John From Idegon

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

Summary of dispute by Mr. Stradivarius

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

Bartlett High School (Anchorage, Alaska) 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.

My talk page and the page of one particular editor

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Cowhen1966 on 16:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute My talk page and the page of one particular editor

Users involved

Dispute overview

I feel unfairly victimised and attacked by this particular editor. It started off with 2 main editors but I feel that one in particular has been very vindictive towards me even to the extent of putting my hard worked on article up or deletion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have contacted an administrator.

How do you think we can help?

I would like to be given a fair chance to grow on here but I can't do this with this editor harassing me!

Summary of dispute by Siteku

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

My talk page and the page of one particular editor discussion

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

Note to DRN volunteer(s)

This is a duplicate request, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hounding NE Ent 18:41, 16 February 2014 (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.

OMICS Creations

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Movieking007 on 08:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC).
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Existing article OMICS Creations comes under films and movies companies. Frequently redirecting to un-known Scientific Publishing Group by group of WP users.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried from last fifteen days but they are looking like syndicate editors

How do you think we can help?

OMICS Creations should be fully protected from syndicate editors as per talk : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:OMICS_Creations

Summary of dispute by

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

OMICS Creations discussion

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

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 February 12

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Bojyxifer on 16:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC).
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Users have been persistently reverting new editors who comment on deletion review page. Although a couple of edits are from fake user accounts one, this doesn't mean every new comment should be rejected

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted to repost comment but page was made read only and I had to change my username

How do you think we can help?

Remind these users these users to assume good faith and not bite the newcomers

Summary of dispute by Tarc

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

Summary of dispute by JNW

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

Shall we assume good faith regarding the new user filing this report? The description above misrepresents the situation. The blocked new accounts were sockpuppets, and have not added to the conversation; rather, recent edits by the user have been for the purpose of deleting a comment referencing the existence of socking. JNW (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Yunshui

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

Summary of dispute by InstantWikificaton

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

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 February 12 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.

Serbs

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Jingiby on 07:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC).
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I wonder why reliable sources are not used there in order to reach a more realistic estimate on the number of the Serbs worldwide. As it currently stands that article claims a number of 10-12 million Serbs. Aside form their numbers in Serbia as per the 2011 census, which is 6 Million, the remaining data is questionable. Even so the numbers in the table barely add up to 10 million. The 12 million data comes from biased and nationalistic Serbian POV-sources.

PS. If I see Правичност refuses to participate in that duscussion and will not accept its results. Chek here. Jingiby (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have reported User:Правичност for edit-warring, but the topic was locked by an admin.

How do you think we can help?

Using neutral, reliable, actual sources and reaching prevealing consensus.

Summary of dispute by Правичност

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

Summary of dispute by Sokac

Sources of User:Правичност the terrible colored are with nationalism and sensationalism. The current sources are only Serbian.

  • The first sources is tabloid Blic there are mentioned 10.5 Million Serbs in 2002., and 6.2 million Serbs in Serbia, according to the census 2011. in Serbia live 5.98 million of Serbs
  • Dr. Nišić`s book (Nišić`s was communist officer who has nothing to do with demographics, book describes the military operation Storm nationalist books from 2002.)
  • ec.europa.eu No mention of the Serbs!
  • [18] completely unreliable sensationalism source for example, he states that, in Australia living 200,000 Serbs, according to the census 2011. In Australia lives only 69,544 Serbs
  • www.serbianunity.com This is ridiculous, 7.5 million Serbs in Serbia according to the census 2011. in Serbia lives 7,186,862 inhabitants of which 5,988,150 Serbs. Even the 1.5 million less than the is written in the this source.

Jingiby has given reliable and neutral sources (Ethnologue - Languages of the world. and UCLA Center for World Languages - UCLA International Institute, Serbian.). Wikipedia should be based on reliable and neutral sources and not on the sensationalism, nationalism and POV. --Sokac121 (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Serbs discussion

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

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm a regular volunteer and the current coordinator here, but I am not "taking" or opening this for discussion at this time. I just want to note, for the benefit of the other DRN volunteers, that it appears (reason 1 and reason 2) that one of the primary participants in this dispute may not participate here. If that proves to be the case, this listing is futile and will likely be closed for that reason in a couple of days. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Please administrators to remove the protection with article, should be removed nationalistic sources. Please also see two links that given TransporterMan. Thanks! --Sokac121 (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid that most of the volunteers here (including me) are not administrators, so you'll need to make the unprotection request to the sysop who protected the article or at RPP. In the interim, you may request specific edits at the talk page using the method described at EDITREQ. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this case should be opened until the other dispute resolution forum[s] have been closed. There has been no activity on the AN thread for two days but that could change and also the participants have been advised to open a case at WP:AE. If there are behavioral issues then those would take priority in my opinion. The other point is that User:Правичност party has not come to DRN yet and discussion here may have little or not benefit unless that happens. I'll let T-man decide when and if he wants to close this. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:55, 18 February 2014 (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.

Assassins (hardcore band)

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Skrelk on 17:53, 19 February 2014 (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.

Briefly, however page was marked for deletion prior to any user talk or agreement consensus on page improvement. (User:GMoneyWCAR)

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I noticed an article about a Detroit area hardcore band was created. Looking at the article, it did not appear to be notable per WP:BAND , and I submitted to articles for deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Assassins_%28band%29

The consensus was delete, and the page was deleted. It was recreated, with more sources added. The additional sources did not establish notability further, and I applied speedy G4 tag. This was repeatedly removed by the page creator, who posted to my talk page arguing that the page met WP:BAND 7, threatening to report me for my 'benevolent'(?) agenda.

This band does not, as far as I can see meet WP:BAND 7. It is not among the most notable hardcore bands, or the most notable in the Detroit area. I also feel that it seems likely that the page creator has a conflict of interest.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing on user talk pages, articles for deletion

No dialogue was established to resolve this in a proper format. (User:GMoneyWCAR)

How do you think we can help?

Advise of correct WP:BAND interpretation, discuss possible conflict of interest

No conflict of interest exists in this setting. I created the page due to popularity of artist in the hardcore genre. Page meets criteria as established. (User:GMoneyWCAR)

Summary of dispute by GMoneyWCAR

Previous page was deleted prior to artist signing to major music label. Current sources fall with notability guidelines as presented on challenging user's talk page. Further, user being from Michigan does not grant biased reasoning on page deletion. Artist page is the same as many other musical acts and should be granted approval to stay. I do not have any other agenda other than to report factual information and I do not gain anything from this page's creation.

Assassins (hardcore band) 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.

Six Flags Magic Mountain

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


  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Wackyike on 00:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC).


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

A ride called the orient express is gone from the website. While it is still on the park map, being gone from the website is evidence that it's gone. However, another editor wants me to cite that it's gone instead of just removing it from the article. That editor doesn't want to discuss any further, but we have no consensus.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The only thing we've done is try to discuss it.

How do you think we can help?

I am not sure.

Summary of dispute by JlACEer

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

Absence from a park website tells us nothing, particularly since the website has conflicting information. It is listed on the map on the website but it is not listed on the list of rides page. That does not mean it has been removed. On the contrary, I know it is there, I just rode it last week. As I told this editor, he needs to show a bonafide source that indicates the attraction has been removed. If it had been removed — which it has not — there would have been a story about its removal somewhere. Having it disappear from one page of a park website, yet still remain on the park map is not indicative of removal.—JlACEer (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Dom497

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

@Wackyike: "The park website is still considered reliable even if it does have mistakes" - WHHHHHAAAAAATTTTT????? So your pretty much saying that the website can list the ride name as something completely different than its actually name, list a ride being 3000 feet high when it is really 300 feet high, list the duration of the ride as 2 seconds when it is really 2 minutes.....and its still a reliable source? (These aren't examples from the Magic Mountain website; however based on what I quoted you saying, these could be on the website and it wouldn't make a difference). Also, I would like to here your reasoning why the ride would be gone if it was still on the park map (saying that its an error isn't valid because the same point applies to the website).--Dom497 (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Six Flags Magic Mountain discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Hi, Wackyike and JlACEer. I wanted to introduce myself as a volunteer who will---hopefully---help find resolution. -- Sjmoquin

The orient express is a minor attraction at the park. If the park did shut it down(I don't know if it did or not), they may not have announced that. The only real coverage of that ride that I know of is the park's website. Now, if a ride like Viper were to shut down, then that's a different deal, but we're talking about a ride that never has a line. I don't know why it's on the park map, but since it's not considered an attraction per the website, it needs to be presumed defunct.Wackyike (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

"I don't know...." - You are not showing us anything that supports your argument and what I quoted proves that you have nothing to support it as you simply don't know how to prove it. Also, the website is not the bible; and another example to what I said before, if I were to take every single ride of the website are they all considered defunct?--Dom497 (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The orient express isn't on the website, period. If it isn't on the website, then the burden of evidence to prove it's there is on you, not me.Wackyike (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
You need to find a reliable source that says the ride is not there, period. As we have discussed in the past, park websites make mistakes all the time. They are not reliable by any means. Although it is a minor ride, you would see discussion or a story somewhere about it. Rides just not mysteriously leave parks without any attention.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 15:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Orient Express is not a minor attraction, it is a very historic attraction — one if the few rides left from when the park opened. If it were to be removed, people would take notice, there would be articles. As far as your proof goes, it is on the park website — on the map. Show us a citeable source that indicates it is not there. As I have mentioned to you before (do you see a pattern here) SFMM tries to shoehorn rides into thrill or family. Transportation rides are not always listed. It does not mean they are gone.—JlACEer (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
It would still be listed under the all rides though. I told you, transportation rides are included in the ride listings. Keep in mind that if the ride list isn't reliable, the park map isn't either. Also, if there were discussions about the ride leaving the park, chances are those sources are unreliable. There obviously has to be a reason why it's not on the park website. You told me that parks simply record the duration of their rides differently than RCDB(for example, the time until reaching the brake run instead of station), not that the sources are completely unreliable. Park websites are obviously reliable since they are used on Wikipedia.Wackyike (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: I am not taking this case at the moment. Well, your only source contradicts itself, so that's thrown out of the window as unreliable even though it is a WP:PRIMARY source and in some instances in article (such as the rides list!) should be the most reliable. I briefly searched for another source, but turned up empty. This seems best fit for an WP:RfC; I am not sure how this would be resolved with just us involved. Maybe it's best to wait a week or so and see if any news comes out. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 17:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of Magic Mountains website in 2006 and 2001. The ride isn't listed in either archives. I highly doubt the ride was closed 13 years ago and no one would notice. Also, regarding the 2001 link, this archive from the same year tells us that the ride was still open even though it wasn't listed as a "ride". The same thing goes with Metro Monorail which is mentioned in the link.--Dom497 (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Here are some general considerations. I agree with MrScorch6200's assesment of the sources, or lack thereof. Here is something I'd like some clarity on. The attractions section reports "current and former" attractions. Yet, the section does not list any former attractions, only current (please correct me if I'm mistaken). If the Orient Express were closed, would it remain on the page as a former attraction? And, again correct me if I'm wrong, but is everyone agreeing that the official, current status---not the physical location---of the Orient Express is not clearly stated by Six Flags or some other credible source? -- Sjmoquin (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
There should be no question about the status of the ride. Its open...bottom line. We are wasting everyone's time talking about this....--Dom497 (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The "Attractions" section is really just a list of current attractions, despite what the first sentence states. There is another section further down for "Former rides & attractions". As for the park's official site, it appears that Six Flags is not listing the attraction under "Things to Do", likely because it isn't being classified as a ride. The map should be confirmation enough, simply because parks update them once or twice a year and are prompt to remove attractions that have been dismantled or closed indefinitely. It would be a different situation if Wackyike saw it listed under "Things to Do" and later noticed it missing (with archives of the page showing the discrepancy, of course). --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • For all editors: I'd recommend deciding what the contended section establishes. Does the section establish what's currently advertised by Six Flags? Does the section establish the history of each attraction? Does the section establish the physical location of various attractions (without lapsing into original research)? You could establish the attractions' histories and nevermind what's currently opperating. Or, you could establish current advertisement of attractions, and use the Six Flag's website as a primary reference (that is current attractions are all and only the attractions listed on the website). You could organize the listings in any number of ways, as it is your choice. It seems the editors are trying to do at least the first two projects at the same time. -- Sjmoquin (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
So you're saying we should only use the park website? Remember, the park map counts it as an attraction no differently than the other rides yet it isn't on the ride list on the website. Also, the locations of the rides(aside from the park section) usually aren't included on the articles.Wackyike (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
@Wackyike: I can already predict what your gonna say to this but this is an email from an official SFMM rep. I asked why OE isn't on the website and this was the response, "Hello and thank you for your question! We do not necessarily consider Orient Express an actual ride at our park more than a mode of transport and therefore don’t list it on our website, especially as there are no restrictions at all to be on it." Case closed.--Dom497 (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. It's just as I suspected above. Good to know... --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Where's the link to it?Wackyike (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
@Wackyike: As Dom said, it is was an email he received, so there wouldn't be a link. Obviously, we can't take it as a reliable source, but in the scope of this discussion, the explanation does makes sense. So far, the consensus here appears to be that the park's web site never had Orient Express listed as a ride, but it has been and continues to be listed on the park's map. Do you still disagree with the editors that have weighed in above, or can we consider the issue resolved? --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
It is considered original research to simply say that you spoke with them about orient express. Since I don't know of any reliable sources other than the website that can confirm whether it is operating or not, I'm not sure of what to do. But no, this case isn't resolved yet. Sjmoquin, do you have any more opinions?Wackyike (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • @Wackyike:Quoting TransporterMan, "If a secondary reliable source cannot be found, then the reference to the Orient Express ought to eventually be removed from the article altogether even if it is still obviously there from personal inspection because information cannot, per the verifiability policy, cannot be in Wikipedia if it is not verifiable through a reliable source and personal inspection is, like the email, 'unsourced material from your personal experience'. " It seems best to simply leave out the O.E. from the page, given its lack of proper sources. This is the fault of Six Flags, and not any editor. I would encourage good notes in the talk page to shed light on this omission. --Sjmoquin (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I am a regular volunteer here at DRN (and the current coordinator). I do not believe that either the SFMM website or the email from a SFMM rep is an acceptable source for anything involving the presence or absence of the Orient Express. The PRIMARY policy covers both issues. It says, in pertinent part:

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. ... Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. ... Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.

(Emphasis added.) When a website apparently contradicts itself, i.e. in this case the attractions page vs the map, then you must "analyze, ... interpret, or evaluate [that] material" in order to figure out what it means in reference to the absence of the Orient Express on the attractions page. And, indeed, that is what all of you have been doing in the foregoing discussion. That means that the website cannot be used for establishing the absence or presence of the Orient Express. Similarly, an email sent to an individual editor is "unsourced material from your personal experience". Other editors, much less average users of Wikipedia who rely upon sourcing under the verifiability policy to determine the accuracy of Wikipedia, cannot know whether that email is true or false or a fraud. (I'm not making an accusation here, but just speaking in the abstract.) While it may be marginally useful in figuring out why the website omits it from the attractions page, we shouldn't be engaged in figuring that out for the reasons just stated above. The website should be removed as a source for the presence of the Orient Express. If a secondary reliable source cannot be found, then the reference to the Orient Express ought to eventually be removed from the article altogether even if it is still obviously there from personal inspection because information cannot, per the verifiability policy, cannot be in Wikipedia if it is not verifiable through a reliable source and personal inspection is, like the email, "unsourced material from your personal experience". Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone object to what Sjmoquin and TransporterMan say?Wackyike (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Not it all, but everyone seems to be missing the fact that it already has a citation to a reliable secondary source.—JlACEer (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • @JlACEer: Forgive my muddleheadedness if I've missed the obvious, but where is the citation to the reliable secondary source? --Sjmoquin (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments re existing source and 24-hour closing notice: Whether the existing source listed for the Orient Express is or is not reliable and adequate is outside the original scope of this DRN request. Discuss that issue at the article talk page and if you can't come to a conclusion about it, try the reliable sources noticeboard or come back here. Let me just comment, however, that if the current source is not reliable, the best practice here at WP is, first, not to be in too much of a hurry to remove the listing from the article. Instead, remove the source and {{cn}}-tag the listing and leave it there for a month or so to allow others a chance to find a replacement source. If it's not found, then copy the listing over into a collapsed section of the talk page (per the PRESERVE policy) to preserve the material so it can be easily replaced if a source is found. Having said that, I think that we may be done here on the issue that was originally filed. Unless someone objects, I or another DRN volunteer will close this listing as resolved ater 15:00 UTC on 18 February. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The dispute appears to be larger than just the park's website. Potential reliable sources on the Orient Express are from several years ago or further back. Even if these are deemed reliable in another discussion, I don't believe that is going to resolve Wackyike's concern over the attraction's "current" status. So that brings up a good question. If reliable sources verify a structure's existence, then is it reasonable to assume the structure exists until another reliable source emerges with a claim to the contrary? It's my opinion that sources do not become outdated, so if one in 2010 (or 2000 for that matter) talks about the attraction at Six Flags, then we should assume it's still there until something reliable contradicts that notion. Without confirmation on this now, you can bet this will linger and result in another DRN request down the road. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
What I'm about to say here presumes that the current source for the Orient Express is reliable; I express no opinion one way or another about that matter (even though I have one). Having said that, I was hoping to avoid this discussion. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia and the things contained in it ought to be both topics and information of enduring significance. What is currently in a theme park has not yet established itself as being of enduring significance merely because of its existence even if that existence can be supported with a reliable source and even if the theme park is itself a significant or even famous park. (Remember that, per the verifiability policy that verifiability is a threshold requirement to inclusion, not a guarantee of inclusion.) That's the root of the NOTNEWS policy. So in my opinion having a long, detailed current attractions section at all is of doubtful propriety under the undue weight policy. However, I have in many Wikipedia things a kind of laissez-faire attitude: if it's here, and no one challenges it, and it's marginally useful, and it does no particular harm, I'm not going to be likely to challenge it myself or invite challenges of it. But part of the problem with focusing on what's currently there is this very problem: Things often come in with enough of a media bang to be verifiable, but go away with no verifiability at all. That causes current-attractions lists to be vulnerable to being out of date for the very reason you raise: since all challenged edits in WP need to be verifiable things can get stuck in such lists with no real way to remove them, except by falling back to general wiki-principles such as common sense and ignore all rules. And in the combative world of Wikipedia, those general principles carry very little weight as dispute-deciders if anyone objects to the removal. So long as someone objects, the RS which establishes an attraction's existence trumps the no-RS personal observation that it's gone and it cannot be removed until it can be done without objection. (Once that can be done, if the removal isn't challenged for a few weeks consensus-by-silence can be used to prevent its reintroduction.) The best practice would be for theme park articles to limit their attractions list to just those which have proven to be of such major significance that their removal is almost certainly going to be reported in reliable sources. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. I actually agree entirely. Over time, the attractions listed in many amusement park articles have gone from questionable to the point of absurd in some cases. Editors have listed food, beverage, and even merchandise shops in some articles! Often, editors defending the position cite the WikiProject's list of standards. So, it's an issue that will need to be addressed at the WikiProject, no doubt. We need to move away from including content that has no real historical significance or adds any real value to an article. It's possible that the Orient Express is a perfect example, we'll see. As for this discussion, I agree we should close with a word of caution about the risk of making lists that violate WP:NOTGUIDE or lack the significant coverage needed to verify current status. Thanks again. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikiprojects, especially in fannish areas, can also be problematical because they can have a tendency to concentrate editors more interested in their avocation than in the general principles of Wikipedia and who sometimes do not even know that the CONLIMITED policy even exists (which says that standards set at a project cannot override Wikipedia's general policies and guidelines). It has happened that they have spent enormous amounts of time setting up standards for articles in their area of interest only to learn that those standards are meaningless unless incorporated into policy or guidelines and that the general Wikipedia community is not, more often than not, particularly interested in having a special set of standards only for articles about a specific subject area. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Our time for closing has come. Is there an unambiguous resolution? I wanted to give everyone a chance to respond to TransporterMan's excellent comments. From what I see, the editors seem willing to work with one another, but the plan of action is yet to be decided. In that light, I'm inclined to close the case as not resolved. If the case is not resolved, WP:RFC may be a good next step.--Sjmoquin (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2014 (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.

Basic income

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Godspiral on 22:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC).
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Content that is defendable as being high quality has been deleted from the page under accusation that is a blog source. The content included the most important element(s) of the page, and was deleted without replacement, leaving the page in a state of being uninformative, and the remaining content disjointed, and certainly not any higher quality than what was deleted. ...................>>>

There is rudeness towards me in attempting to repair the page. The concerted interest in attacking the page and one particular source would appear to be consistent with a biased agenda, and the core issue is the relative importance and mandate priority for Vandalism vs. Reliability. ...................>>>


The vandalism being alleged is admittedly subtle, but it is still proveable if you use the standard "Is the best improvement I can make to this page, deleting this specific content vs. deleting other content or taking no action". Using this standard leaves no reasonable interpretation that the users are acting in good faith, as is the point that they are not recognizing their mistakes when being informed of their damage. ...................>>>


I can accept their defense that any vandalism is unintentional, but they need to recognize that they have no expertise, or patience, to assess the material, and defer to those who volunteer to improve the page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

nothing, other than being victimized by other attacks.

How do you think we can help?

Clarify policy conflict by prioritizing vandalism over Reliable sources. Recognize common sense need to have a section describing the topic, and why basic income is proposed. Permit me to add the completely uncontroversial list of proposed benefits of basic income to the basic income page, and then let the world improve on its phrasing and references.

Summary of dispute by GliderMaven

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

The user is (still) mischaracterising removal of material that is unreferenced as 'vandalism'. He/she has already been blocked for this once so far.

He/she thinks we should add it even though they can only reference it to a website that is not remotely a reliable source.

He/she firmly believes that anyone that deletes such unreferenced material has an ulterior motive.

He/she apparently can't be bothered to find any reliable sources for any of the deleted material, and instead is trying to forum shop it around Wikipedia in the hopes of finding someone else who also doesn't think that that pesky verifiability is needed.

Please I beg of you, help them WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.GliderMaven (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Dougweller

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

It's a conduct issue by someone who doesn't like our WP:NOR policy and is continuing to label editors as vandals when they continue to remove unsourced or badly sourced material. When blocked for 48 hours "for egregious personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith after warning" he continued the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith in his unblock requests. ANI is a more appropriate venue for this. Dougweller (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bobby Tables

Wrong venue. This is a user conduct issue, not a content dispute. Godspiral is repeatedly characterizing good-faith (and correct) edits as vandalism, ignoring policies such as WP:RS, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF, as well as showing signs of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:COMPETENCE. This should be taken back to the talk page, with appropriate action taken against Godspiral if there is continued disruption. Bobby Tables (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Basic income discussion

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

It should not be permissible to accuse me of bad faith here. We should all be able to agree that the page is in terrible shape. Its a good faith assessment, and in fact obvious, that it is now in worse shape than before the deletions. If these actions are obviously, or at least in good faith assessment, destructive, then bringing up the word vandalism is necessary, though it turns out that [WP:COMPETENCE] is likely the most relevant issue. I've provided evidence of destruction/vandalism, but have not seen any evidence that the content or reference that was there was of poor quality.

Competence and vandalism should be held at a higher priority mandate than subjective and unsupportable claims against verifiability. The distinction between righting great wrongs and basic common sense only become subtle when common sense is greatly abused. Mistaken moderation policies should not be above correctability. The competence issue is extremely important here. It doesn't matter if there are 100 wikipedia style voices against me, if none of them have the competence to understand their actions are destructive, or the competence and patience to assess verifiability on the subject. I created the page about 1 year ago. These were the best references at the time, and it seemed like a considerable effort to produce. To address the statement "I have not even bothered to submit replacement material", the competence and obvious hostility issues do give rise to concerns of bad faith. It requires an extremely high effort to restore the quality that was in the page, compared to the effort to refine what was there. The perspective presented to me by the users involved seems deeply flawed, and you will ideally provide them with guidance to be more cautious in destroying pages for which they are unable to competently challenge the material. Without that caution, they are apparently well aware of the expectations of hostility that arise, and it makes repairing the page virtually impossible. Godspiral (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2014 (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.

List of metro systems

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Massyparcer on 11:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC).
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

As the title of this article says - This is a List of metro systems, not a List of metro operators. Operators and systems aren't the same. This may work to list metros in North America when there's usually only one operator, but in other regions like Asia, there are multiple operators for one system. Editors are currently listing them by operators, which is going against the purpose of this article. For example, the Seoul Metropolitan Subway which is defined by the official operators (which are in Korean, so editors are shunning these based on language barriers) and a reliable secondary source in English to be a single system. The official operators of the system define Seoul Metropolitan Subway as follows on their legal laws:

제3조(정의) Article 3 (Definition)

5. "도시철도"라 함은 도시철도법에 따라 서울메트로구간과 연락운송하는 노선(이하 "도시철도구간"이라 합니다) 및 그 부대설비, 열차 등을 통틀어 말합니다..
Translation: The definition of metro, as constituted by the metro law, refers to the jointly operated lines with Seoul Metro (called "sections of metro" from now) and its supplementary equipments, trains and etc. collectively.
4. "연락운송"이라 함은 도시철도법 제17조에 따라 서울메트로구간과 한국철도광역전철구간, 서울도시철도구간, 인천교통공사구간, 서울시메트로9호선구간, 코레일공항철도 검암~서울역, 신분당선구간을 서로 연속하여 여객을 운송하는 것을 말합니다..

Translation: "Joint operation", as defined by metro law Article 17, refers to the continuous transport of passengers by the sections of Seoul Metro, Korail Metropolitan Subway, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Incheon Transit, Seoul Metro Line 9, Korail Airport Railroad Geomam~Seoul Station and Sinbundang Line.

Source: General rules, Terms of Passenger Transport, Seoul Metro.

제3조(정의) 이 약관에서 사용하는 용어의 정의는 다음 각 호와 같습니다.
Translation: Article 3 (Definition) The definition of the term used in this clause is as follows.

1. “수도권 도시철도”란 인천교통공사, 서울메트로, 서울특별시도시철도공사, 서울시메트로9호선(주), 코레일공항철도(주), 신분당선(주)가 운영하는 구간 및 한국철도공사가 운영하는 광역전철 구간을 말합니다.
Translation: "Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit" refers to the sections of metropolitan subways operated by Incheon Transit, Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Seoul Metro Line 9, Korail Airport Railroad Geomam~Seoul Station, Sinbundang Line and Korail.

〈 개정 (Amended) 2009. 8. 20, 2009. 10. 5, 2011. 7. 15, 2011. 12. 23, 2012. 2. 21 〉

Source: Terms of Passenger Transport, Incheon Transit.

I also brought this reliable secondary source to them, which is from Railwaytechnology.com, a "global procurement and reference resource providing a one-stop-shop for professionals and decision makers within the railway and rail transport industries" as quoted from their website:

Seoul subway serving the Seoul Metropolitan Area is the longest subway system in the world. The total route length of the system extended as far as 940km as of 2013. The first line of the subway was opened in 1974 and the system presently incorporates 17 lines (excluding the Uijeongbu LRT and the recently opened Yongin Ever Line). The subway system is operated by multiple operators including the state-owned Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Korail, Incheon Transit Corporation, and other private rapid transit operators. Many extension projects are under construction on the already extensive subway network.

Source: Railwaytechnology.com I have highlighted system in bold.

The other editors' claim that it is a "tradition" and "custom" to list them by operators is clearly wrong and can't override the purpose of this article, which is to list metro by systems, not operators.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Lengthy discussions for weeks, but only ignorance and personal attacks in return.

How do you think we can help?

Just like the name of this article says, we must sort it by List of metro systems, not by List of metro operators.

Summary of dispute by BsBsBs

This is an egregious case of Forum Shopping.

  • An ANI proceeding, brought by User:Massyparcer on 15 January 2014, two weeks after the account was created, was closed with a “Please hash this out some more at the article talk page.”

The obnoxious behavior forces editors to spend days of their time and research answering frivolous allegations, time that no longer is spent on productive work. User:Massyparcer's rich knowledge of Wikipedia procedural matters does not suggest that seven weeks is all the experience behind this account. There is an overbearing smell of a sock.

I had not edited this topic for years before returning two weeks ago to mediate in an edit war that was about to go nuclear. I regret very much that I did.

On 14 February 2014, admin Ymblanter had warned Massyparcer: "You likely will be community banned." I respectfully suggest to the panel to consider measures that will protect Wikipedia and its editors from abusive behavior. Barring this, the editor should be made to understand that Wikipedia edits require sources. BsBsBs (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by IJBall

In brief, this is nothing more than a content dispute that has been resolved by consensus on the List of metro systems Talk page against the complainant, Massyparcer, who is now attempting to reverse the verdict by calling in the administrators. The situation is well summarized by BsBsBs above, and I agree with pretty much everything BsBsBs has written above. At the least, Massyparcer's editing can only be categorized as "disruptive". At worst, his occasionally threatening or insulting behavior is something more. I second BsBsBs in suggesting that it's possible that a "time out" is warranted for User:Massyparcer. Mscho527

Summary of dispute by Mscho527

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

List of metro systems 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.

Saint Francis High School (La Cañada Flintridge)

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Evrik on 22:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC).
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Whether or not 1) two entries were referenced 2) whether the references were appropriate.

After the initial removal of the information, I found two references. Those were deemed to be not sufficient, so I have now been reverted 2 x. One reference was from the school's facebook page, and the second was from the Congressional record. Those two references should be enough for those small entries.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing it on my talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Convince JFI to stop Wikipedia:MOLEHILL. These are small points on the page and the references are good.

Summary of dispute by John from Idegon

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

Saint Francis High School (La Cañada Flintridge) 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:Azerbaijan

  Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Interfase on 18:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC).
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

In my opinion, the map "Russia at the Caucasus" of 1847 year with the term "Azerbaijan" could be used in the article as it describes the using of this term in history. But user Divot is against of it. He thinks that there is some error on the map, but there are no sources claiming that. It is just Divot's own opinion. There are enough sources saying that the term "Azerbaijan" was used for the lands on the north of Araks river as it's shown on the map.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I'd like an outsider to judge matters from the viewpoint of Wikipedia policies and conventions: are separate articles warranted, or not? The conclusion of mediator will stop edit warring on this issue.

Summary of dispute by Divot

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The map is wrong, Details on TP
Moreover, I asked a well-known historian Bournoutian, his answer: "The map is wrong. The word Azerbijan is written in another font and script--compare it to Georgia. It is impossible to put Erevan and Lake Sevan in the so-called Azerbijan in 1847-- since it was until 1840 the Armenian Province and after that the Erevan Guberniia.". Divot (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Moderator removed the map from the Russian Wikipedia
User Kreodonta three times returns the map ([19], [20], [21]) without a word on a talk page. Divot (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Kreodonta

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

Summary of dispute by Taron Saharyan

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

Summary of dispute by Grandmaster

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

I believe the map is a historical source, and such could be used in the article to illustrate the relevant chapter. Grandmaster 18:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Hablabar

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
  • Arguments by User:Divot are sound and solid, nearly perfect. Interfase, please avoid POV pushing. Hablabar (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Under a closer inspection I came to the opinion that this "map" is a Photoshop-ed fabrication: different fonts, etc. Hablabar (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Azerbaijan discussion

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

Coordinator's note: This case has been relisted due to its premature archiving due to having been originally manually listed on February 12. I've readjusted the "do not archive until" date to reflect the original listing date, plus a day or two to allow for it having been off the list. I had added Kreodonta and Taron Saharyan to the original listing because at the time this was first listed they had not been involved in the discussion but had been very active in the edit war at the archive page; they've not edited since February 12, however, so it may be possible for a DRN volunteer to achieve a mediated result without their participation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I put notices and reminders on the talk pages of all participants. Let's see who comes to the negotiation table :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
24 hour closing notice: The dispute on this has apparently died away at the article for the moment, but it's also a perennial dispute which keeps coming back up and then dying out. Frankly, I rather suspect that this will continue until there is a RFC at the article talk page which successfully attracts enough editors to create a clear consensus one way or the other. If no such RFC is filed or if it ends in a weak or no consensus, this will probably just keep recycling in and out. If most everyone who is currently involved in the dispute does not show up here by 17:00 UTC on 20 February 2014, I'm going to close this as futile. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC) I'm withdrawing the 24-hour closing notice now that Grandmaster has joined here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't changed my mind. Divot's arguments are not reliable. He claims that the map is wrong. But it is just his own opinion. There are a lot of sources saying that the term "Azerbaijan" was used also for the lands on the northern part of Araks river. In the map we can see it clearly. Divot refers to Bournoutians words, but they are not published in reliable sources. The arguments of Bournoutian are not logical and not reliable. So there are no any proofs that the map is wrong. Divot and other users want to remove this map just because they don't like it. This issue needs solution. --Interfase (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Three points:
  • I don't think the other three editors are essential to this discussion and am opening it for discussion.
  • I have to say, however, that I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out either the benefit of or the objections to this map. It's being inserted as part of the Etymology section of the article. Pursuant to the Pertinence and encyclopedic nature section of Wikipedia's images rule:

    Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. ... Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information. Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images.

    So that sets the ground rules for the use of this image. Divot objects to the image on the basis that it's inaccurate, but that objection is only meaningful under that rule if the image is inaccurate for the purpose that it is "significantly and directly related" to in the content of the Etymology section (unless, of course, it's just being used as a general image for the article and just happens to be in the Etymology section, but I don't believe that to be the case). And I'll be darned if I can figure out what significant and direct relation it has to the Etymology material. Can someone enlighten me?
  • The fact that the image has been used or not used on any language Wikipedia other than en-Wikipedia is irrelevant. Every Wikipedia sets its own standards for the exclusion and inclusion of material and interprets and applies them differently, so decisions made at a different WP have no bearing here.
Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
For the "Etymology" section this map is more relevant. Divot (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I think to show the "Azerbaijan" at the period when the name "Atropathena" was transformed to "Azerbaijan", this map is a good example. The borders of Atropathena (Azerbaijan) are also shown. --Interfase (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Since both of you seem to agree that there are better maps than the one in dispute in this DRN listing, can the two of you go back to the article talk page for a discussion of which of those might be a better map for that section and we can close this dispute? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the first map could also be used in the article. It shows that in the history the term "Azerbaijan" was used also for the lands on the north bank of Araks. Because most readers can think that the term was used for the territory of Azerbaijan Republic only in 1918. But this is a myth. As we can see the term "Azerbaijan" was used for this territory in the begginings of the 19th century as well. And the discussed map is the best example, which shows this. --Interfase (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this (first) map. As I wrote at the TP, the map contains factual errors. In addition, Bournoutian says that the map is wrong.
There are a lot of maps of the region. I don't understand why we need to use obviously wrong map. Divot (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Cannot agree more with Divot. This particular map is nonsense. Should be publish "maps" where medieval sailors designate places with dragons and mermaids? Hablabar (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Do you want to say "Again agree with Divot"? )) Divot (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Of course. LOL - "Cannot agree more with *someone*" Это такой речевой оборот в английском. Именно это и означает. Hablabar (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. By "first map" are we talking about "Russia at the Caucasus" or about "Ancient countries of Transcaucasia"? If we've gone back to talking about Caucasus, I presume that Interfase's comment, above at 21:34, 21 February 2014, is in response to my second bullet point, above, but I don't see what that argument has to do with the meaning of the word "Azerbaijan" which is all that the Etymology section is about. It's not about what territory the term includes, it's only about how the word originated. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I wrote new section about the name of Azerbaijan, were I showed how this term was used in different periods of history. As you can see there are a lot of sources showing that the term "Azerbaijan" was used and for the lands on the north of Aras River. I think we can add the map "Russia at the Caucasus" into this section. --Interfase (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2014 (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.

Assassination threats against Barack Obama

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 68.53.216.160 on 03:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC).
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I am tired of going over a half-truth with user Scjessey. He insists on calling Obama an African-American, which is half the truth, as any geneticist will tell you.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The user will not listen to what I say. He feels as if he is right, no matter what. He refuses to accept the science involved.

How do you think we can help?

Either make him leave me alone, or assign him to other articles. He watches the article like a hawk.

Summary of dispute by Scjessey

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

Assassination Attempts Against Barack Obama 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.

Egypt at the 2012 Summer Olympics

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Filed by Canadian Paul on 18:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC).


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

User:Raymarcbadz has a history of content blanking Country at XXXX Season Olympics articles (not enough room to paste diffs here, but they can be provided upon request) and refuses to accept content in these articles unless they are structured his way. He has been reverted for these actions in the past, but continues to ignore the consensus, claiming that similar articles don't look that way. Now, at Egypt at the 2012 Summer Olympics, he is removing content and restructuring the article in ways that are contrary to WP:MOS (such as having material in the lead that is not in the body, a violation of WP:LEAD, see [22]) We wouldn't have good articles like Great Britain at the 2010 Winter Olympics or 1346 without people going above and beyond to create in-depth articles that standout from the usual content production of similar articles.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion has thus far been ignored, so aside from reverting (which I don't want to do), this has been the first step.

How do you think we can help?

Since I am heavily involved in Egypt in the 2012 Olympics, I am requesting some additional help in discussing this issue to maintain a cool head and prevent myself from aggravating the dispute (or someone to tell me that I'm flat out wrong, so I can move on). I'm aware that this isn't a perfect case for dispute resolution, but it's also sort of inappropriate for WP:ANI, so if there's a better place to take this, please let me know.

Hi User:Canadian Paul: DRN requires prior discussion and the talk page for this article is blank. Can you please provide a link to prior discussion or at least attempted discussion? Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

We've talked on the user's talk page, but someone has alerted me privately that there might be better avenues for this dispute, such as WP:3PO or WP:RFC, that might be more productive, as this seems more involved than the casual input/consensus that I am looking for. I think it would be best to close or delete this thread (whatever procedure might be). Sorry to have wasted everyone's time! Canadian Paul 03:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
It's OK, glad you two are making some progress. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Raymarcbadz

Okay. Here's my problem. At first, I didn't expect the article to be filled out with larger content, until I decided to revert back to the previous edits that I made before. Assumingly, you might have placed the article in your watchlist and then alerted me on my talk page about your problem simply because I may have a disruptive behavior by lessening the content in the article. Facing another dilemma on me (the other is related to the Winter Olympics), I might rather give up my plan. Was DRN a necessary tool to discuss this? It's a waste of time for me. I can't handle a situation anymore.

Instead of removing the contents, I'll just simplify the sections he made before in the article, and/or proofread them to make it polished and concise. Raymarcbadz (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Raymarcbadz, since both of you are in agreement that a DRN case is not needed, I'm going to close it. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Egypt at the 2012 Summer Olympics 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.

Artpop

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Filed by Reece Leonard on 19:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC).


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Various users engaged in a debate on what the critical consensus should be listed as as much as four months ago, but in the past month the disagreement was brought up again with three main contributors. I've cited two sources that claim the consensus is generally positive, and STATicVapor has consistently refused to discuss them in lieu of his own research and interpretation of what the critical consensus is and will cite certain parts of a source that I have cited myself (Metacritic) and ignore others that contradict his viewpoint, namely the consensus that is stated on this source's page that aligns with my claim. IndianBio initially sided with STATicVapor, but after I spoke with him on his talk page and presented my analysis, we both agreed that a larger viewpoint was needed on the discussion as he agreed my analysis was factual and necessary the conversation. STATic has been adament in his adherence to his own WP:ORin the past (converting the Venus (Lady Gaga song) page to one of a promotional single was a chore that he opposed for quite a while based purely on his own conjecture). The consensus listed on the ARTPOP page is factually inaccurate; Metacritic is the only source that those who argue for the "mixed to positive" consensus are willing to cite, even though Metacritic forms a conglomerate of reviews for the sole purpose of using them to form a weighted, calculated score and consensus. In the matter of this album, the consensus is "generally favorable". There are more mixed reviews listed on the cite, but I'd like to combat that statement with multiple points: 1) Focusing on the number of categorical reviews is overly simplistic; It doesn't tell the whole story. It's also not the approach that Metacritic, the source where this information is coming from, adheres to. Picking and choosing information from a source and ignoring others doesn't make any sense. 2) Even if you were to go by the standard of focusing on the number of reviews in each category (again, an act that Metacritic, the source being cited, does not practice), twelve of the reviews that are listed as "mixed" are literally one percentage point below being listed as entirely positive and cannot simply be passed off as mixed. They consist mostly of 3/5 star or 3 and a half/5 star reviews, otherwise known as positive reviews with reservations. If those reviews are discounted, the vast majority that STATic has been claiming to exist in the mixed section evaporates. 3) I realize that gossip sites and the blogosphere has had a field day with the dip in critical acclaim for the artist at hand, but you can't go by what gossip sites say (most of the sources STATic has listed are either gossip blogs or small journals); yes, the acclaim is less than her previous works, but the trend is still generally positive, as proven by the consensus listed on Metacritic and the consensus reported by an actually credible journal (the Huffington Post source I listed on the ARTPOP talk page that states that the consensus was positive from the multitude of critics that they sourced and linked to, something none of his sources did). As dealers of fact, it is our job to ignore the noise of the blogosphere and report on what is sourced and provable; in this case, the critical consensus is generally positive. I recognize that the reaction has been more ambivilant than her previous works, and have advocated for a disclaimer being listed after the (sourced and factual) consensus of "generally positive". The reception page should read that the album "recieved generally positive reviews, although the response was much more ambivalent in comparison to Gaga's previous work", as this addresses the obvious issues that users have raised as well as reports the consensus as it truly is according to sourced fact. Reece Leonard (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've approached both parties individually to discuss the issue but agreement has not been achieved.

How do you think we can help?

Provide an outlet for more input and mediate between the three users.

Summary of dispute by STATicVapor

Clearly unnecessary, a local consensus would be best for this. Please comment on content not contributors, you seriously have a problem with that Reece. My name has to always be thrown into your responses at least five times. Anyways, Metacritic indicates that the album received 21 mixed reviews and 9 positive reviews, now why in the world would we say it received generally positive reviews, when over twice as many were mixed. I never had a problem with listing it as mixed to positive, but listing it as generally positive is just ridiculous and not adhering to a WP:NPOV. The other source brang up by the Reece, was a cherry picked source that states only 10 of the album's reviews, some of which were positive. But the source did not say it received generally positive reviews, so more WP:OR on his/her part. As I said earlier in that thread on Talk: Artpop; it is not hard to find multiple reliable sources saying it received mixed, mixed, mixed, and mixed reviews that also summarize the album's critical reception. STATic message me! 19:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by IndianBio

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

Here I am. The thing is that I am myself confused as to why and where this blew up to the epic proportions. Was DRN really necessary? I see that the discussion and the rage is still continuing in the talk page. The thing is that Reece Leonard has some good points, which are being dismised by Static Vapor instead of acknowledging them in a civilized manner and then come into a consensus. Little bit of dirt throwing is going on which needs to stop and for this neither party is ready to give it up. I guess that may be the reason DRN was needed. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for joining us! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Reminder to all involved parties

We understand that content disputes can be frustrating and can create intense feelings about other editors however, WP:DRN is a content only forum and does not deal with or consider behavioral issues. For this reason we ask DRN participants to avoid references to other editor's actions or behavior and just stick to the merits of the content under discussion. Please keep this in mind as the case proceeds and thanks for your participation at DRN! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

24 HOUR CLOSING NOTICE: Hi User:Reece Leonard and User:STATicVapor, if User:IndianBio does not show up ASAP then this case will need to be closed due to non-participation of a key member of the dispute. (Note: participation is voluntary and not required) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
IndianBio has posted above so I am going to open this case for discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Artpop discussion

The case is now open. The locust of the dispute seems to be how to characterize a work by Lady Gaga. Some editors have characterized the work as receiving "generally positive" reviews while others characterize it as "mixed". Is this the dispute in a nutshell? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The debate is between "mixed to positive" and "generally positive", not "mixed". Other than that, yes. That is correct. Reece Leonard (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
No it is "mixed" and "generally positive", you were right Keithbob. STATic message me! 23:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Let the record show that STATic has now changed his stance purely because I've repeatedly discredited his arguments and he now operates on a personal vendetta against the sourced consensus I'm arguing for. Reece Leonard (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The debate indeed started between "mixed to positive" (which is listed) and generally positive (which is what Reece is advocating). —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Not true, it used to just say mixed, I do not know where it changed within the last four months. STATic message me! 05:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
As IndianBio just stated, the argument was originally between "Mixed to positive" and positive". STATic has recently changed his stance. Reece Leonard (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

(→) The situation is getting too dirty at Talk:Artpop#Critical_Reception. If this continues very soon administrators need to intervene. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that I've repeatedly tried to keep it clean and professional and always cited sources and argued based on fact, as shown on the talk page. Reece Leonard (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks like it died down, rather then mediate the discussion, I would like an admin to close it so we can get over this already. And Reece that is the funniest thing all day, you are the only one the has consistently resorted to harassing and attacking everyone that disagreed with you. STATic message me! 05:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Disputing content and pointing out that stating you don't like the artist who's page you're editing is obviously an example of bias does not constitute harassment and you know that. You're the one who has called myself and IndianBio children in addition to accusing me of being illiterate, as well as outright refusing to read my arguments because you don't feel like it. You've literally come out and admitted that you didn't read my arguments early on in the debate. Reece Leonard (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Just to make my argument clear, here is the consensus that I feel the page should state: "ARTPOP recieved generally positive reviews from music critics, although responses were much more ambivalent in comparison to Gaga's previous works". Here are my sources that support this consensus: DigitalSpy, Metacritic's weighted consensus of generally favorable, The Huffington Post, Entertainmentwise. Reece Leonard (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that a consensus for the "mixed" option was actually reached on this issue by 5 of the 6 editors involved (the other being Reece) by 00:11 on 21 November 2013. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That's... not even remotely true? As IndianBio just said, the dispute was always between "mixed to positive" and "generally positive"? What do you have to say about the sources listed that disprove the "mixed to positive" camp? Reece Leonard (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Says the person that 97% of the things they state are not remotely true. The commentors at the beginning of the discussion were in consensus of listing it as mixed, and somewhere, someone sneak changed it to mixed to positive. Sources were already provided that support that it received mixed reviews. Not to mention as can be seen by the Metacritic link, it received twice as many mixed reviews as positive reviews. Listing it as positive is just bias and illogical. STATic message me! 01:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
What happened to commenting on content and not contributors? It's okay for you to insult me and not for me to point out that you admitted that you didn't like Lady Gaga, which obviously constitutes bias? Here is a direct quote from yourself from the ARTPOP talk page in which you agreed to the page listing mixed to positive: "I tried to make a compromise, agreeing to listing it as "mixed to positive..."" This was posted on 00:02, 24 February 2014. Please comment on the sources I've provided above that back up the consensus I'm advocating for. Reece Leonard (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I have not insulted you at all, stop making wild accusations. Since when do you have to like the subject of every article you edit? I am only going by what the most reliable sources including The Guardian say, which you called a "small publication." That was months later, I did try to make the compromise recently, but of course you rejected it, so why not go with what the original consensus said and list it as mixed. The HuffPost source does not say the album received positive reviews, that is you synthesizing the source and the Metacritic source supports that the album received twice as much mixed reviews. STATic message me! 03:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Accusing me of lying 97% of the time is absolutely an insult. And do I really need to answer that? If you have a negative view of an artist, that's going to carry over into your edits and it violates the WP:Bias guidelines. When I brought up that glaring issue, you accused me of making "personal attacks" on you. Pointing out bias is not a personal attack. You can't synthesize a single review. Synthesizing is the process of "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (from the page you just linked to). Once again, you're misrepresenting wikipedia guidelines. The page originally read as mixed to positive and it has read as such for months. That's not a recent development. Focusing on the number of categorical reviews for Metacritic is overly simplistic; It doesn't tell the whole story. It's also not the approach that Metacritic, the source where this information is coming from, adheres to. Picking and choosing information from a source and ignoring the consensus that it has listed for the album (generally favorable reviews, exactly what I'm arguing for) doesn't make any sense. Even if you were to go by the standard of focusing on the number of reviews in each category (again, an act that Metacritic, the source being cited, does not practice), twelve of the reviews that are listed as "mixed" are literally one percentage point below being listed as entirely positive and cannot simply be passed off as mixed. They consist mostly of 3/5 star or 3 and a half/5 star reviews, otherwise known as positive reviews with reservations. The Huffington Post article says that the album "pretty much had the thumbs up from music critics around the globe", so... ? Again: Comment on the fact that I have sourced multiple publications that state exactly what I'm arguing for. What about the other two? Those say, point blank, that the album received generally positive reviews. You have one source on your side (The Guardian). I have DigitalSpy, Metacritic's weighted consensus of generally favorable, The Huffington Post, Entertainmentwise. I've also just found yet another source from YahooMusic that supports what I'm saying ("Most mainstream reviews are at least somewhat positive."). In addition to your very limited amount of sources, you just admitted, for the second time, that you dislike the artist who's page you're attempting to edit. This is an open-shut case of bias. Reece Leonard (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Core of the dispute

Please STOP the personal attacks! We are not here to discuss behavior or motivations. We are discussing content only. If the personal comments continue I will simply close this case. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Regarding the content:

  • Current sentence in the article lead: Artpop received generally mixed to positive reviews from music critics
  • Proposal by Reece Leonard: Artpop received generally positive reviews from music critics

Is this an accurate summation of the core of the dispute? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is the dispute, though I'd like to have the disclaimer "although the responses were much more ambivalent than those for Gaga's previous works" as this addresses the qualms other users have raised about the nature of reviews. Reece Leonard (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Reece. Let's discuss this proposed change first, [ "generally mixed to positive reviews" vs. "generally positive reviews"] then we can see about amending the qualifying phrases that come after. In my experience there is a higher chance of resolution when the items in dispute are broken down into small segments.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Reece cites:

If we're going to start citing small publications, then here: The Southern Digest, Pride Publishing Group, Off the Shelf, Street Insider

STATicVapor says:

What do others think?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@IndianBio:? Reece Leonard (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Any Decent Music? (basically the same thing as Metacritic), lists the album with a 6.0, based on 28 reviews. I'd add that to the "mixed" sources. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
A consensus of mixed is neither stated nor suggested on that page and therefore it does not qualify as a source for the mixed argument. Reece Leonard (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
A 6.0 out of 10 result is most definitely Mixed on Any Decent Music. See the "About" page I linked. You can't keep synthesizing sources, Reece. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Please point out exactly where that's stated because I just reviewed that entire about page and it says nothing about a score of 60 being mixed. And by the way, Metacritic is a much more widely cited review-conglomerate site that states that it received generally favorable reviews. Are you supporting the use of weighted averages now? Synthesizing is the process of" combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", which is not what I've done. Metacritic says exactly what I'm arguing for, as do all of my other sources. Reece Leonard (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Yet Metacritic clearly indicates that it received 21 mixed reviews, and 9 positive reviews, so there has been generally mixed or mixed to positive reviews. Their color coating does not matter when over double more reviews have been mixed. STATic message me! 17:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
This is the argument you keep repeating over and over again, ignoring the fact that you're sourcing Metacritic who came up with a consensus through those compiled reviews of "generally favorable". Metacritic doesn't adhere to your style of interpretation (and... color coating? What?). You can't pick and choose information from one source as that would be synthesizing and is against wikipedia guidelines. They compiled that list and came up with a consensus of generally favorable reviews. Furthermore, 12 of those reviews in the mixed category are literally one percentage point from being listed in the positive category as entirely positive reviews. The reviews have been more ambivalent, but the consensus still came out to generally favorable, exactly what I'm arguing should be listed on the ARTPOP page. Reece Leonard (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments on early closing of this case

Hi folks, I'm sorry but you are mis-using this volunteer forum whose purpose is to moderate content disputes between editors who are willing and able to communicate in a civil manner. In addition to the admonishment below from our DRN coordinator, Transporter Man, I have also issued two prior warnings that personalizing the discussion and behaving in an incivil way would not be tolerated and that a speedy closure would be the result. After consulting with Transporter Man I am now closing this case. You may continue on the talk page or if you feel that an editor has been engaging in personal attacks or chronic incivility than you may want to file a case at the Administrator's noticeboard (WP:ANI). Good Luck.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Collapsing improper discussion of conduct at DRN. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

STATic, you've wrongfully accused me in the past of citing blogs as sources and that's exactly what you just did. SFGate is found at "http://blog.sfgate.com/dailydish/2014/01/13/lady-gaga-blasts-artpop-critics/" and therefore qualifies as a blog and cannot be cited. The News is a local journal for a small college in Kentucky and can hardly be cited alongside major publications like The Huffington Post. Your "more recent" Huffington Post source was posted only five days after mine and does not cite any sources that allowed it to achieve that consensus, like mind does. I'd also just like to point out that STATic has previously misrepresented sources in the ARTPOP talk page, as he tried to pass off a review of the song "Aura" as a review of the album. Reece Leonard (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrongful accusations? Sounds like every single post of yours to me. As for the source, itt is the online version of the 150 years old San Francisco Chronicle, not some blog. The Huffington Post darn near contradicted itself, so it cannot be used. You still have explain why you are citing them in the first place, when it does not even say that the album received positive reviews. And the "Aura" source was a mistake, get over it. STATic message me! 00:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
No, it was originally posted by The Daily Dish, a celebrity gossip blog. At this point, I'd love for administrators to get involved. You've come out and admitted twice that you dislike Lady Gaga which discredits your edits on her pages as that obviously constitutes WP:Bias. You're citing extremely small, local publications and gossip blogs and misrepresenting sources (Don't even try to claim that that was a mistake. That was an obvious misrepresentation of a source and violated wikipedia guidelines) in an attempt to back up your BIASED opinion. I've given you nine sources (including the most important one, Metacritic, that lists a weighted score of generally favorable) and I've had enough. Reece Leonard (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm getting pretty sick of your arguments about 'bias', Reece. I've looked at your edit history here Wikipedia. You edited a few articles about 30 Rock, then you've stuck solely to a bunch of Lady Gaga articles. You've been removing things from Lady Gaga articles that paint her in mixed light - which is one thing - but you've also been removing positive information from Lana Del Ray, Katy Perry and Britney Spears articles to boot. It's clear you yourself are full of bias for Lady Gaga (to the point where you've repeatedly violated 3RR and been given several different warnings regarding your demeanour on several of her articles, and you've been negatively editing articles about her contemporaries). It's clear you're Wikipedia:NOTHERE. I've noted all this (and more) and would suggest that @Keithbob: actually close this discussion. I'll be reporting this user to ANI within the coming days. We could then take it from there. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
You've just recounted small edits from years ago (where I removed obvious instances of ridiculously biased and unsourced information) and attempted to synthesize them into a narrative about myself when the user above has admitted twice to disliking the artist who's page he's attempting to edit, an obvious case of bias. Just to clarify, all of those warnings have come from STATic himself after I repeatedly debunked his arguments on the Artpop talk page. You have never adhered to argument at hand in terms of content and have repeatedly accused me of being biased when you have no proof to back that claim up. You also removed multiple pieces of positive information from the critical reception section on the Artpop page without consulting the talk page and without explaining why, instead calling that I be banned for calling you out on it. You yourself have admitted to being accused multiple times of bias against the artist in question as well and have reverted numerous edits by numerous users who added anything remotely positive on the Artpop page. As shown by my sources listed above, I'm adhering to sourced fact. You're now attempting to close this page because that would mean that the article stays as it is, aka the position you want the page in. Again: I have give nine sources that concur with the consensus I'm arguing for. Please attempt to argue the content on here. Reece Leonard (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
It's a shame you don't hold yourself to the same standards you hold Lana Del Ray, Katy Perry and Britney fans. If you did, it wouldn't have caused a 4-month argument on the ARTPOP page. Prism has less Mixed reviews than ARTPOP, but you have no problem adding "mixed" to Prism's page. Your intention on Wikipedia is obvious and hypocritical, and a violation of NOTHERE. Homeostasis07 (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
As you can see from the ARTPOP talk page, I later changed my mind on the issue of the Prism page and then posted it's consensus of "generally positive" as an example for the ARTPOP page to go off of. So... ? What are you talking about? The Lana Del Rey and Britney situations weren't similar to this discussion at all and were unsourced and inaccurate, so I have absolutely no idea why you're bringing them up. Reece Leonard (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, for the second time, what do you have to say about the fact that I have nine sources that state that the album received generally positive reviews? Reece Leonard (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Again, please do not carry off these arguments from the talk page here. Enough! The way I see it both parties have crossed the limits of being biased in order to get their point across! Yes, ARTPOP the album barely passes positive so "mixed to positive" is a good bargain and I also believe that we have to note the fact that it was a clear decline in general reception from her previous studio albums. It is just plain obvious. And no, ambivalent is not the word here, the word we are looking here for is "decline". —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
@IndianBio: When did I ever "cross the line of being biased in order to get [my] point across"? What? Ambivalent is a word that, in this situation, would mean that the response was more mixed than her previous work. That perfectly describes the situation here? I've agreed that the critical reception has declined multiple times. That's never, ever been the argument here. The response has still been generally positive. I have nine sources that state that as such. Reece Leonard (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
You "crossed the line" of being biased with your user page, for one. You're here to correct any "bias" you come across on Lady Gaga articles, and this "bias" so happens to be anyone who dares suggest that she isn't universally adored, and that she isn't held up to the same standards her contemporaries should be. And can you stop editing your comments over and over again? This is about the fourth time you've made it difficult for me to respond to one of your comments. (I had to try posting this three times). Homeostasis07 (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
My page states that I'm here to combat bias IN GENERAL. It doesn't say anything about Lady Gaga. I NEVER stated that she was universally adored and made a point to make it clear that I wanted a disclaimer after the sourced and factual consensus listing of "generally positive" that stated that reviews for this album were more ambivalent than her previous works, because it's true. The reviews for this work haven't been AS positive as her previous works. I've stated that over and over again. I honestly can't understand what you're trying to say with the "she isn't held up to the same standards her contemporaries should be." comment, but I can assure you, I am not acting in a biased way. I'm trying to adhere to the nine sources I've listed above. (Also, I had to try posting THIS twice because you edited your last comment, so...) Reece Leonard (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
And by the way, if you're so passionate about weeding out and eradicating bias, why on earth are you defending the user who came out and admitted that he doesn't like Lady Gaga? How can you defend that as a neutral point of view and then attack me for being biased without any evidence other than a hunch because I'm arguing for a marginally more positive consensus to be listed? It's not like I'm arguing without any sources or attempting to remove all negativity from her page; I've given nine sources that support the consensus of "generally positive". Why are you so passionately defending a user who's admitted to being biased and attacking one who's listed numerous sources? Reece Leonard (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Not relevant to this discussion at all, but since when do you have to be obsessed and in love with the subjects you edit? If you know how to edit with a WP:NPOV (which you do not know how to), then you can edit any topic properly. I have no damn bias against her or any other article topic, so quit the malarky, you are just making yourself to continuously look foolish. The only one that has attacked anyone has been you. I clearly provided more than enough sources that state the album received mixed reviews, but you are too busy letting your bias get in the way. Not to mention zero of the new sources you added are reliable in the slightest. STATic message me! 05:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean it's not relevant to this discussion? You've come out and admitted that you dislike this artist and have supported edits that removed multiple positive quotes from reviews purely because they were positive. I can't think of a more obvious physical manifestation of bias. And are you serious?! NONE of my sources are reliable?! You're allowed to source a local journal for a tiny college in Kentucky and I'm not allowed to source DigitalSpy, Metacritic's weighted consensus of generally favorable, The Huffington Post, Entertainmentwise, YahooMusic, The Southern Digest, Pride Publishing Group, Off the Shelf, Street Insider?! And you're attempting to claim that I'M not editing with a WP:NPOV?! Are you serious?! Reece Leonard (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Fine. Forget the fact that you've admitted that you don't like Lady Gaga (and made fun of her and her fan base) which obviously constitutes bias against her for a second. How on earth can you argue against the sources I've listed? Again: You're allowed to source a local journal for a tiny college in Kentucky and I'm not allowed to source DigitalSpy and Entertainmentwise? How on earth does that make any sense? Reece Leonard (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
@Keithbob: can we please ask for administrative actions? None of them, I repeat, none of them are fit to even remotely discuss like normal human beings. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
@IndianBio: Look, I have no argument with you, but attempting to condemn everyone here would be ridiculous. I've asked them to address my sources above at least five times and they refuse to do it. Trying to paint ALL of us as biased when one has admitted to disliking the artist here and the other has admitted to being accused of bias multiple times in the past (and has removed multiple sourced quotes from the critical reception section of the ARTPOP page because he personally thought that they were "too positive") wouldn't make any sense. I've consistently tried to adhere to sourced fact, but as STATic just stated, he doesn't care about sourced fact. Apparently none of my sources are acceptable to him, when I've consistently recognized his as factual. Does that really qualify as a situation where both parties refuse to cooperate?Reece Leonard (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

DRN coordinator's note: Okay, this is enough of this. Here at DRN we do not discuss editors, only edits. Please wholly refrain from discussing one another. Do not discuss, mention, or complain about one another's POV, biases, likes, dislikes, conduct, motives, characteristics, editing patterns or practices, or anything else about one another. If you believe that you have legitimate complaints about another editor's conduct, take them to RFC/U or ANI, but do not discuss them here at all. I'm invoking Wikipedia:MEDIATION#Control of mediation to collapse the foregoing discussion. Further discussion of such matters will be deleted without notice. Please feel free to continue the discussion, but limit it to content, not one another. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_87&oldid=1161578171"