Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 127

List of awards and nominations received by Madonna
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

An edit regarding whether or not an award for Madonna's albums, Ray of Light and Music, should be included. The Grammy was awarded to the art designer for the albums, but isn't it still important that these awards are mentioned in the article? I know Madonna personally didn't receive the award, but her music still received it. These awards are included on Wikipedia articles for Frank Sinatra, Carly Simon, Bjork, etc., so why can't it be included here? The other user involved has reverted my edits and accused me of vandalizing the mentioned page without a valid explanation. At worst, this was a good faith edit, not vandalism. IndianBio does not understand that I understand what he is saying, but I really think it's important that his note be displayed on her awards page. I added the other users mentioned on the article's talk page; I didn't know it was necessary to add them when they only joined the conversation several minutes before this DRN was filed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have brought this to the attention of the user mentioned, the talk page for the article, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The latter of the three mentioned suggested that I do what was mentioned before that. IndianBio has been extremely rude during this ordeal, and will not agree to talk civilized with me.

How do you think we can help?

I believe that you guys can help resolve this dispute by helping us come to a common consensus, or at least compromise somehow. IndianBio has made it clear that he no longer wants to communicate with me. Any help is appreciated, thanks.

Summary of dispute by IndianBio
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Carbrera just now has changed his/her stance on the issue altogether. The user has been pushing some idea of artists receiving certain awards, which sources completely contradict. "The Grammy was awarded to the art designer for the albums, but isn't it still important that these awards are mentioned in the article?" No definitely not. An album is not just the singer's own work and the award in question, Grammy Award for Best Recording Package, makes it very clear: "It is presented to the art director of the winning album, not to the performer(s), except if the performer is also the art director". It is not associated to the artist in any shape or form. Adding them to the particular album's article is fine, adding them to said artist's page is pure fluffery, which Carbrera vehemently pushed. Anyways, this is already being discussed in talk page with other editors, I have no clue why DRN was approached. — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat  ] 08:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Madonna discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

- Filing editor has not listed all editors involved in this dispute as laid out on the article's talkpage. I would recommend "procedural close" without prejudice with possible refiling if all involved editors are notified of, and allowed to be a part of, the DRN case. However, there does seem to be a clear consensus on the talk page in question, though DRN is a place to allow moderated discussion between users if needed. I am neither accepting not rejecting the case, though I do recommend a procedural close with a potential refiling that includes all involved editors, preferably after a bit more talkpage discussion though it is not necessarily required but strongly suggested. However, if the filing party is willing to amend the case structure to also list the other involved editors, notify them and provide them with the space to write their summary of the dispute, then I would withdraw my recommendation of closure. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Greater Rayalaseema
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

Article 'Greater Rayalaseema' should not be on Wikipedia since it is just based on some politicians' demand. If this is ignored then someone might create articles raising demand to merge other region's areas in their region to make it Greater. In fact, the districts 'prakasam or nellore' are part of costal Andhra Pradesh but not part of rayalaseema. Such demand for greater rayalaseema is just a word from the mouth of few politicians from rayalaseema region. People like me who are from praksam or Nellore districts are strictly opposing this concept of merging andshowing our areas in rayalaseema region. It is hurting our sentiments and we never agree to such an idea of showing us in rayalaseema map.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

posted on talk page

How do you think we can help?

Please delete this article as soon as possible keeping our sentiments in mind

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

Talk:Greater Rayalaseema discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. There doesn't seem to be a dispute in this instance. This notice board is for content disputes between multiple editors. You may recommend the article for deletion, although I don't think that would be a good idea. Continue to discuss the issue on the talk page. I am declining this case. JQTriple7 (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_education
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Not I haven't discussed this issue on a talk page, but I read all the comments

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Lot of back and forth about the articles content. The article seems to be outdated. The sources are outdated as some of the institutions now have accreditation. The title and Description of the article is not clear and is confusing. A lot of Biased one-sided statements. The article should be deleted re-edited for updated new sources and new information as there is a lot of inaccuracies. No original research hardly. Some institutions should be removed from the list based on new accreditation.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Not me personally, but I read the talk page

How do you think we can help?

By deleting the Article or re-editing the article with accurate information or allowing edits to add correct accurate information without any issues.

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

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

Talk:List of_military_occupations
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

For this instance, I assert that East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights should not be included in this list of Military Occupations. This is based on the lead of this article itself, which states that only military occupations, not annexations. EJ and GH are annexed, and if you go to the annexed article, it even includes EJ and GH. Regardless if the annexation is legal or not, the full lead of the List of Military Occupation excludes the criteria for including EJ and the GH. In addition, I, and other editors, have argued that Gaza Strip should not be included because there is no military occupation. If there is an occupation because of a blockade, then Egypt should also be listed because Egypt also has an effective blockade on Gaza. It can't be one or the other, for both disputes.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried talk page. RFC, etc.

How do you think we can help?

A third set of eyes would be helpful.

Summary of dispute by Serialjoepsycho
There is currently an active RFC and thus you can not accept this case.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Franp9am
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Zntrip
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:List of_military_occupations discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. There is already a Request for Comment active. This supersedes DRN. Thank you. JQTriple7 (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Eagles of_Death_Metal#Threats_to_bataclan_wording
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

==RfC: Is the conflict between Eagles and Death Metal and and the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) activists (eg Roger Waters) over their performances in Israel, and the band's strong public confrontational statements against BDS and support for Israel relevant to the history section?

The specific edits which are under consideration:

Performances in Israel and anti-BDS Statements
The band performed at the Barby Club in Tel Aviv, Israel, in spite of pressure from anti-Israeli Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) activists. Roger Waters sent a letter tot the band which reportedly demanded that they boycott Israel. Hughes publicly commented on Waters' letter at the Tel Aviv concert, saying "I would never boycott a place like this ... You know what I wrote back? Two words ... Never waste your time worrying about what an asshole thinks about you.” Hughes repeated the obvious two-word profanity to the cheering crowd. During the show he said “I’ve never felt more at home in my life”

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The dispute has been discussed on the talk page, without establishing a clear consensus, so we're filing an RfC to involve more editors and invite more opinions.

How do you think we can help?

Reach consensus on the relevance of the the proposed edits the history of the band Eagles of Death Metal and whether this content should be included in the article.

Summary of dispute by DD2K
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Poliocretes
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Tigercompanion25
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Moxy
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Eagles of_Death_Metal#Threats_to_bataclan_wording discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Jack Mulcahy_(actor)#.23
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

Why is any of this in dispute? None of what I entered is subjective. It's all fact. I lived it. I should know.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None. I don't have a clue as to why it's in dispute in the first place. Is it because fans of mine want MORE information? If that is the case, it's a bit silly to tag this bio as 'In Dispute', wouldn't you agree??

How do you think we can help?

Remove the Stub Class classification and

Summary of dispute by GingerStokes (?)
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Jack Mulcahy_(actor)#.23 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Foundation for_Economic_Education#Hillside_doesnt_matter
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The footnote does not show the house name is important for FEE, a think tank and publisher. The other editor refused to show why this house name matters enough to be in this article. It sounds like a promo from the FEE website to make it hype. The house name is in the other article about its town Irvington only because the same editor put it there and kept putting it back in 2012. The FEE article has plenty of problems but I am trying to work one at a time.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I wrote my reasons on the article talk but he just mocks and changes the subject.

How do you think we can help?

Please he needs to respect my idea so he will answer and show ref that says the house name matters for this article.

Summary of dispute by Id4abel
After repeatedly using the undo feature to wipe out a long string of edits by multiple editors in order to "fix" what this group or individual called, "Conflict of interest editer blanking and fanboy" and "Put back the story from before fanboy list. Why keep erasing the story?" which lead to being threatened with blocking by an administrator, the complainant decided that the location known as Hillside does not deserve the name Hillside and that all mentions of the name Hillside must be removed from Wikipedia. The article in question cites a book that uses the name Hillside for the place in question more than once. The article also links to the Irvington, New York article that gives the entire history of the Hillside estate. None of that is good enough for this person or group. Abel (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Foundation for_Economic_Education#Hillside_doesnt_matter discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Greetings. I am JQTriple7, and I will be taking this case today. Before we begin, I will lay down some ground rules on conduct during this case. First of all, I will be checking this case frequently and I expect both involved parties will do the same. Second, you MUST focus on the content that is being disputed, not the conduct of other editors. The dispute summaries provided are too focused on conduct. Please refrain from editing the article on these areas until we are complete here, and carry out all discussion here so we can reach a resolution sooner. When posting, please be clear and concise. JQTriple7 (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page, and the other editor has been notified. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but it appears to be ready to be accepted.  Please be civil and concise, both on the talk page and here, both before and after discussion is opened.  Comment on content, not on contributors.   Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

First statement by moderator:
Greetings everyone. This isn't entirely clear to me, but it seems that the dispute in question is on whether the name of the organizations headquarters belongs in the article. Firstly, why? Why not? Please outline your reasons clearly and concisely without focusing on conduct. Thanks, JQTriple7 (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by 107.107.61.170:
Hello. I would like to go to the top of the DR triangle. The ref for the name of the building is a book, maybe not a very important book or maybe more like a tourist book or local community guide. This ref doesnt say that the name has anyt hing to do with classes publications seminars etc. The ref might be ok for an article about that building or that street of village, but that doesnt mean Hillside is a name that matters for a think tank institute. It is one irrelevant detail, like sayingwhat kind of car Ted Cruz drove before he moved to Washington. This article cant have every detail but it should give only important ones for a think tank not just a place. They moved out of this building, so that shows the think tank doesnt depend on one building with a name from long time ago. This name might be important for some other topic, like the first resident who named it. Maybe. But the ref doesnt say why this was related to how a publisher-thinktank works. I hope this is clear reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.56.16 (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * While I do not know what the "top of the DR triangle" is, the argument that the citation that is currently attached to Hillside once being the location of FEE's headquarters is insuficient is a valid point. I dug through the history and put back the citation that addresses exactly that point. You could have just said this at the beginning. Abel (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The new book does not prove that the name of the building matters to the thinktank activity. Also the new book added is published by the subject FEE itself! So, this is not an arm's length fact instead it is more promotion by FEE itself. Therefore the top of the triangle is not met. The new book doesnt satisfy the major problem. No ref indepentently shows the name Hillside matters for seminars, books, etc the FEE activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.186.174 (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what all this triangle business is supposed to be getting at. What exactly would you like a source to say? "X organization was at location Y called Z?" At this point, it seems like no source will ever be good enough for whatever this triangle standard requires. Abel (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * From what you are calling the first book: "Hillside was sold in 1922 to Gordon Harris, a son of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad president. ... was purchased in 1946 by Leonard Read and remains the headquarters of Read's Foundation for Economic Education." How on Earth is that not enough to establish that the Foundation for Economic Education had a headquarters at Hillside? The entire "second book" is all about the Foundation for Economic Education at Hillside. Would three sources that all agree be enough? Four? Abel (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The triangle is on the dr talk page. The central point is the house "name" doesnt matter. It is not important to the FEE teaching and publishing, etc. There is no ref that believes the name has anything to do with 'economic education' i.e. it is 'undue' per wikpedia. It is like if the —article for Picasso said he wore sandals and ref to a book about shoes. Maybe true but not important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.58.94 (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * According to that logic, we should immediately delete all mentions of organization locations, because where they are located can never be relevant to the history of the organization. The fact that the Great Pyramid was at Giza does not matter. The fact that the Hanging Gardens were at Babylon does not matter. The fact that a lighthouse and library were at Alexandria makes no difference to the mission of the lighthouse and library. I see your point, but there is no way that you will ever make this make any sense. Abel (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not quit sure I understand. Are you saying the name of the house deserves no mention at all in the article, or just doesn't deserve undue weight? JQTriple7 (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Really do not see how "Next the organization moved to Hillside in Irvington, New York." could possibly be giving anything undue weight. Abel (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Abel:
Hillside was built in 1889 for medical doctor Carroll Dunham. The Colonial Revival mansion house was designed for 34 rooms with 16 fireplaces, gables and bay windows, a large staircase, walls of mahogany panelling, and glass designed by Irvington resident Louis Comfort Tiffany. The grounds were designed by Charles Eliot, who also planned the Boston park system with later alterations by Frederick Law Olmsted, the co-creator of New York City's Central Park. The estate was sold shortly after Dunham's death in 1923 to Gordon Harris, the son of American Tobacco Company founder William R. Harris. Gordon Harris, then Vice President of the United States Lines shipping company, and his family lived on the estate until 1946 A caretaker maintained the estate until it was sold to Leonard Read. Reed used the estate to house his Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). FEE spent something like 50 years at Hillside.

At this point you might think that "Hillside doesnt matter," "Buildings dont need names?," and "Who says hillside name is imortant?" have all been more than answered. Apparently not as, "Names of a building are not important so there is no reason to say the name" followed. Along with, "Your book does not say it is important." Considering that the only books that I have written were an insignificant manual on bookkeeping and another on Linux use clearly "my book" says nothing about Hillside. I think "Your book" is a reference to "Spikes, Judith D.; Leone, Anne M. (2009). Irvington. Charleston, SC: Arcadia. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-7385-6519-4. OCLC 317925879." which uses the name Hillside for the location in question multiple times. That book, as well as the history of the location, all seem to be meaningless as we keep hearing "Hillside doesnt matter." Abel (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by volunteer moderator:
I'm not quite sure I understand the points made by the IP user, could you please explain? Are you arguing about a mention in the article that FEE used a building as headquarters for some time? I don't see why that doesn't deserve a mention in a history section, provided the building is at least somewhat notable. IP user, you are saying this isn't relevant? Why not? Please explain your reasoning. Thank you, JQTriple7 (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by 107.107.61.170:
First, I hope the other editor will stop putting straw men in my mouth that I did not say The editor who wants to put it in the article is the one who needs to prove it is with good refs, etc. This name of the house is not notable. It doesn't have its own article. It is only in the'Irvington' article because the same editor here put it in the article. The other editors at Irvington told him to stop edit warring that name into 'Irvington.' The 2 refs are not strong. One is Self Published by FEE for promotion. That's exactly my point this name is a fanboy type thing to make FEE sound very important, but really this name has nothing to do with think tank activities. It is just promo PR. The other ref is a picture book and the pubisher specializes in finding old pictures, but is no expert on 'economic education' That bookis just saying who uses the house, not anythig about why it matters for the subject of this article. If it is important for FEE operations there would be a ref that show why the name matters for FEE's program and research. The top of the DR PYRAMID says 'show the central point'. Also that second book, the picture book, does not even know that the house style isnt 'colonial revival' at all so that book is not good research even when Abe4 put it in the Irvington article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.187.96 (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC) The location of FEE is Irvington but without a ref that proves the'name Hillside' matters to the thinktank activity that 'name' (hillside) should not be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.56.224 (talk) 3:50 pm, Today (UTC−8)

Mr./Ms Triple, there is no valid ref for putting this name in the FEE article. Abe does not address my Central Point, only making personal remarks about me ad homo. Now he is also back putting the same no-good self-published ref in the Irvington article too and arguing with the other editors at that article, like before. You might think the name w/o ref is a small problem, but there are 20+ others too, however Neil told me on the Talk at FEE to do one at a time w/o breaking the strange ref code to red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.58.27 (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do apologise for his focusing on conduct. I have collapsed the comment. I'm not sure of the points you make, however, are you saying you are dubious of the fact that Hillside was their headquarters? Or is there something I've missed? JQTriple7 (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You apologize for focus on conduct and collapse one comment yet you say nothing about "he just mocks and changes the subject," "he needs to respect my idea," "will stop putting straw men in my mouth," "The other editors at," removing letters from my name, using the slur "homo," "arguing with the other editors." Abel (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, his statement 'ad homo' wasn't used as a slur. I thought it was at first, but I did some research, and it's short for Ad Hominem, meaning to focus on a person rather than the issue in question. JQTriple7 (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Possible, even likely. Point is "focus on content, not conduct" has been selectively enforced. Abel (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Putting a name on FEE's building makes the founation sound very special for promo and PR value. But there is no 'RS' ref to back it up. I checked the ref rules here and the 2 refs are not 'rs'... One is self-published by FEE and the other is just showing an old photo from 100 years back when a quack Dr. Lived there. The homeopath doc is not notable and neither is the house or its name. The picture book editor isn't saying it matters today or saying the name matters to economic education. That ref is just saying what's in the old photo. And anyway that editor does not even know it's not 'colonial revival' style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.63.69 (talk) 03:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Re "self-published by FEE", if you review the rules for self-published sources WP:SELFPUB, you might be surprised to learn that there is not a blanket restriction on their use. Indeed, WP:SELFSOURCE says "Self-published and questionable sources may be used [emph. added -jeh] as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as [...]" and lists six requirements, all of which are met here. Re the house's notability, read the WP:N notability guidelines here: "Notability" is a requirement for article topics, not for content within articles. So the argument that the "house name is not notable" is irrelevant; the house name doesn't have to be notable by itself to be included. Jeh (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jeh. 1-The only reason I said 'notable' is because Moderator 777 said it here. What I have proved is that the name Hillside is not important and only the self-published aggrandizing ref has used it. The other ref is a picture book from a publisher that finds old photos and captions. They are not a RS REF for telling that anybody still knows where Hillside is or even what style it is since they stated it's colonial revival (false). 2-SELFPUB is for info about the author/publisher, e.g. Fee's mission is education, or FEE is a free market thinktank. But FEE isnt RS to selfpub agrandizing statements that try to claim their building name is important. Maybe the name was known in small-town 1880 Irvington, but IF it was important today, there would be lots of independent refs with a reputation for fact checking about building names and styles, also we need a ref that shows the name matters for thinktank activities. The article should say 'FEE moved to Irvington, NY' So I dont agree it is ok as selfpub per your link. Please read the talk page for the article FEE and article 'Irvington' and editor Abe4's talk. Hillside is undue in Irvington with the same bad sources and 2 edit wars. Also, on the FEE's own website in 2014 when FEE moved to Atlanta, they do not even call the old bldg 'Hillside' they just say it is a rundown old building. Wikipedia should not be corrupted for promotion and self-sourced 'facts'. Real important facts have indpendent fact-checked refs. FEE is not an expert on landmarks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.57.16 (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Important" is on the same plane as "notable", i.e. the building name doesn't have to be "proven" to be "important" to FEE with a RS. "Self-aggrandizing" is also your interpretation. (If anything, I think the fact that the org operated out of a house originally owned by its head for 50 years indicates that it was rather stagnant.) You've also mentioned "undue". WP:UNDUE does not apply here. WP:UNDUE applies to alternative views that are being over-represented in an article vs. mainstream views, like mentioning the theory that the earth is flat in the Earth article. That is not the case here. There is no widely held "mainstream opinion" that holds that FEE wasn't in a house called Hillside or that the name is unimportant to the org or to the area. In other words you're simply using "due" as yet another synonym for "notable", and I say again: Per WP:N, notability is not required for inclusion of points in an article. RSs are about establishing truthfulness of claims, like "FEE was located in a house called Hillside", and we have sufficient RS for that. Anyway, you're not denying that FEE was in a building called Hillside, you're just claiming we need a better RS that the building name is "important" to FEE according to your personal evaluation. We don't. There is no WP policy or guideline that backs your requirement, or, for that matter, your "not important" evaluation. Meanwhile, the fact that it was included in a book about Irvington does argue that the name has some significance in the area. If the point was something like "the building was painted blue in 1970", that, I would agree, would be too unimportant to include. As it is though the building name is a further bit of detail or "granularity" on the location - like saying "in Baldwin Park" as additional detail about a location in the Los Angeles area - and there's nothing wrong with that. Maybe you're thinking "it's trivia"? Well, there is no blanket restriction on including WP:TRIVIA (or what one editor declares is trivia) either. Jeh (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeh, Baldwin Park is a public known location on thousands of maps, etc. But 'Hillside' was just what one guy called his house 130 years ago, when most big houses had names. Try to google 'Hillside Irvington' do you see anything to tell you that name points to this old bldg in the last 75 years? Abe4 says it's like the White House. You say it is like Baldwin Park and 777 says it is Notable. SIR, All those are false. Bad analogy is very weak logic. I read the Graham's DR pyramid onthe DR talk page and I have written the central point. Nobody except FEE promoters called this 'Hillside' and there is zero independent RS that can verify using it. I hope you compare this article and Irvington article with how it was written last August. There is a blizzard of bad-ref promotion added, refs that dont verify the article's statements, and deleted history and events about FEE. I am starting with this one detail, but there are 20 more problems. Also, did you write on the article talk page, or is that cut and paste of your sig? Basically Wikipedia is supposed to be Npov, not fanboy-type cherrypicking of 'facts' out of conext. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.63.57 (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "What one guy called his house 130 years ago" is nevertheless in a RS about the town, and contradicts your claim that "nobody except FEE promoters called this 'Hillside'" since the org is less than 100 years old. Google search does not find it? So what? Not everything in WP has to be referenced to a Google-searachable source. Your "central point" is that you don't think the name of the house is worthy of mention and there is no RS that establishes its importance. Ok, that's been heard. But, "importance" is not a criterion, since even WP:TRIVIA can be included in WP articles. So even the moderator here can't figure out why you're so upset about it, within our P&G. You have nothing but your own opinions that this mention is "self-aggrandizing" or whatever. n.b.: Starting "at the top of the pyramid" does not mean you automatically win your point. My opinion is that your point here is just silly. If there are "20 more problems", why don't you start with what you think is the most serious instead of continuing to pick at this nit? Have a sense of perspective! (Alternatively: if you think this is the most serious, then I would say the article is in fine shape...) No, I didn't edit the article talk pagge (as the page history there would have told you) - someone C&P'd from here, sig included. They probably should have ref'd it back to here. Jeh (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I copy and pasted it as that comment had very important links to policy that I did not know about. Had I linked to your comment here, that link would be broken as soon as this nonsense ends and the complaint is archived. I included your signature as I did not want to plagiarize and in any way take credit for your ideas. In the history it is labeled "important policy references from the dispute resolution noticeboard" as I did not know any better way to have those important policy links saved in an easy to get to location. Just hoping to reduce the chance of this kind of completely unnecessary complaint from occurring yet again. Abel (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Id4abel:
What person is going to spend this much time and effort reverting invalid edits and writing essays to defend every word in the article from this delete campaign? Even my insanity has limits. Abel (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well quite frankly I don't see the point of this whole dispute. I don't see why it doesn't deserve a mention. It should be fine to mention Hillside in my opinion, but, IP User, why are you so against it? JQTriple7 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Repeatedly abused the undo feature, is now abusing the dispute resolution noticeboard, and will likely begin abusing some other administrative process as soon as this gets closed. All because saying "fanboy" over and over again (here, also, as well, more here) must somehow be enjoyable for some people. Abel (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * How long is this ridiculousness going to continue? Abel (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand everyone is a little frustrated at this stage, but all personal remarks, insults, and anything about conduct needs to cease now, or we won't be able to continue this case. We all need to discuss calmly. I would like the IP user to clearly present his arguments in list format with a short explanation for each. Thank you. JQTriple7 (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Unfortunately I will be closing this case as 'failed' at this stage due to some parties not addressing reasonable questions put forward to them. Opinions are unclear, feel free to seek other dispute resolution venues and please note that disruptive editing can be put forward to WP:ANEW and WP:ANI. Thanks, JQTriple7 (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of_Karameh#Jordanian_jets
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

Out of the tens of thousands of soldiers engaged in the battle and out of the hundreds of sources on this battle, there is only one source claiming Israel shot down two Jordanian aircrafts, the same source whose author is an Israeli. The claim is followed by two inline citations on sources, of which neither support the claim! Not only has no one mentioned anything about bringing down two airplanes, but no one mentioned anything about any Jordanian participation in aerial combat. Not to mention the fact that one of the two sources following the claim, is a 1984 publication by the Israeli army that explicitly says that the Israeli aircrafts met no aerial opposition!!

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion, but Bad Dryer keeps bringing up invalid points and the discussion seems to be turning into an illogical loop.

How do you think we can help?

Prevent the addition of false and baseless information

Summary of dispute by Bad Dryer
The material is sourced to an academic expert - a Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Davis, who is the former head of the Graduate School of Government and Policy and of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, as well as the former academic director of the M.A. Program at the Israeli Defense Forces' National Defense College. It was published by an impeccable academic publisher - the University of Michigan Press, which has performed peer review and fact checking on it. It is used in multiple places in the article in question for other facts that are not in dispute. One can't simply remove materials sourced to such a clear Reliable Source based only on the fact that it is the only source in which the claim is made.

Summary of dispute by Poliocretes
I have said all I have to say on the matter on the article talk page. I was asked for an opinion and gave it. I have nothing further to say. Poliocretes (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of_Karameh#Jordanian_jets discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. I'll be taking this case for moderated discussion once all the participants have made their dispute summary. I'm now waiting for 's summary. Although encouraged, participation here is purely voluntary. If the one editor doesn't wish and (or) not making their statement in 24 hours, this case will be opened for discussion without them. Regards— UY Scuti Talk  14:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC) Hello and welcome to DRN. I'm taking this case for moderated discussion and will be your moderator till the end of the case, unless otherwise stated. Other editors who don't have their names in the list, may chime in at any given time if they are interested. Before going into our discussions, let me point out some basic rules to make this discussion as friction-less as possible. 1)Please check the discussion at least once in every 48 hours. (failing to do so, may get this case closed as stale) 2)Comment only on the content and not on the contributor. Personal attacks/Harassment are not tolerated and will have this case closed. 3)Try not to edit the disputed area of the article until the case here is closed. 4)Discuss the issue here, so that we'll have better chances of solving this dispute 5)And last but not the least, please be civil and concise. Regards— UY Scuti Talk  17:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - There has been considerable discussion on the talk page, and the filing editor has notified the other editors. I am not opening the case for discussion at this time, but it appears that the case is ready to be opened by a volunteer moderator.  Please keep discussion, except for a statement by the one editor who has not yet commented, to a minimum until the case is opened.  All comments, both before and after opening, should be civil and concise and should comment on content only, not on contributors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Moderator:
Based on what I've seen, looks like the point of dispute is whether or not two Jordanian aircraft were shot down by Israel. We have one source from Zeev Maoz verifying that. And since that has been challenged on the grounds of conflict of interests, do we have any other reliable sources stating so? If there is none and there are sources stating otherwise, we'll attribute that statement to Maoz. Please keep your statements concise. Regards— UY Scuti Talk  18:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Makeandtoss:
There are zero other reliable and unreliable sources stating that Israel shot down two Jordanian planes. Not only do other reliable sources not mention anything about downed Jordanian planes, no one even hints or mentions any Jordanian aerial participation. Even Israel explicitly refuted the claim! Assuming, this dubious claim gets a place in the article, this claim should at least not be placed in the infobox. Rather, should be placed at the casualties section where we can clearly say that this claim is dubious.--Makeandtoss (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bad Dryer:
I don't think the claim was disputed on the ground of conflict of interest. It was disputed on the grounds that no other sources make that claim. I am not familiar with any Wikipedia policy that says that if we only have one source- but it is a reliable source (here: academic historian, published by an academic press) it needs to be attributed. That source is used in multiple places in the article, without in-text attribution. Bad Dryer (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000:
I added myself because I just did some study of the problem. To summarize: this is an example where a normally-reliable historian made a simple mistake. I submit that this explanation is certain beyond reasonable doubt and so the claim should be omitted.

In more detail: Moaz wrote that two Jordanian planes were shot down and gave two sources (one in English and one in Hebrew). No hint is given that the claim is not supported by the sources, which a professional historian like Moaz would have added if he intended to claim that the sources are wrong. In fact both sources refer to two Israeli planes and do not mention any Jordanian planes. One of the sources (an official magazine of the Israeli military) even states that there were no Jordanian planes. The only reasonable explanation for this is that Moaz wrote "Jordanian" by mistake. It doesn't need to have been more than a typo. The information should be omitted as suggested in this essay, with the policy WP:IAR in support. See the talk page for citations and extra explanation. Zerotalk 08:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Follow-on statements:
I do accept that is a reliable source. But reliable sources are not always non-biased (Bias in sources). Per WP:ONUS, Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Second, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.[11] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: *surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;. So, we need more than that one source to verify that claim. Regards— UY Scuti Talk  06:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I did my research and found literally zero sources making that claim.--Makeandtoss (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

This case will be closed in 24 hours if doesn't make his point within that interval. Regards— UY Scuti Talk  09:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bangladesh#Lede
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

For this change to the Bangladesh article, I'm being accused by User:বব২৬ of vandalism and destruction. He's waging an WP:EDITWAR despite requests to discuss. I changed the lede because the previous version had instances of poorly referenced content.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I started a section on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Help secure a concrete discussion and consensus

Summary of dispute by BB26
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Bangladesh#Lead discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Comment: There is not much discussion on article's talk page. You are expected to discuss your content dispute at article's talk page in detail and if still your dispute don't get resolved then you can come to this board. Akbar the Great did started the discussion at article's talk page to which BB26 replied, so it will be better to discuss matter at article's talk page first. If dispute still don't get resolved then you can come to this board. Thank you. -- Human 3015   TALK   21:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And 2nd thing is that did not notify BB26 on their talk page that DRN discussion has been started. And I'm sorry I notified both of you to edit warring board. I am not volunteer here, but I know volunteers here don't accept cases when some matter is pending on some other board, like in this case it is pending on edit warring board. I think page will get protected. I hope you both will not get blocked, so that you both can continue your discussion in peaceful manner. Thank you. -- Human 3015   TALK    21:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Human3015, it would have helped if you actually mediated in a very simple and unnecessary dispute.--Akbar the Great (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I will comment on talk page of article instead of here. If dispute don't get resolved after our discussion then we can come here to discuss further. -- Human 3015   TALK   21:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

UFC 193
TeeVeeed (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2015 (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

This article is nominated to be In the News. Somehow, users who frequently specialized on UFC pages keep removing content to be consistent with other articles about UFC events, like UFC 155 and UFC 175. I invited those who constantly removed content for talk. Somehow, only one did not respond but instead started another thread of same issue. I want this article to be featured in the Main Page, but only several of us added descriptions of events.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I made replies in user pages and invited users for talk. This has been discussed in the article talk page also. Also, I requested full protection at WP:RPP. I haven't reported a violation of 3RR because no one has yet violated the rule. I discussed a minor issue&mdash;bolding awards&mdash;at Project talk page, but no one responded there, so I moved it to article talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I want a lot of volunteers, novice and experienced alike. Also, I don't want anyone blocked for this matter. Also, people should be encouraged to discuss anything they want. Also, people should learn to accept and appreciate good (if not best) quality.

Summary of dispute by Muboshgu
Guess I should have watchlisted this article. It was posted at WP:ITN but pulled erroneously, IMO. These MMA editors keeping valid material off the page isn't helping get it reposted. Keeping it off because it's not uniform with the past UFC event pages is not acceptable. If anything, it suggests the first 192 pages are incomplete and should be expanded. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Udar55
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Hahnchen
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Ppt1973
I don't have much of an opinion either way on the expansion of the article. As InedibleHulk has stated, there just needs to be consistency. Some of the content that has been added seems to be relevant, while other not so much. Several users have contributed to WikiProject Mixed martial arts, which can always be improved. Ppt1973 (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Gsfelipe94
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Andise1
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I'm not going to make this a most asking for pity or anything like that. However, I spent quite a bit of time adding information on the actual fights to the article, making the wording better, adding a reaction section (per suggestion at ITN/C), yet other editors who are not involved at ITN want to revert this beneficial, sourced information. I knew this was going to have a tough time getting posted. That's why I spent quite a bit of time updating the article to the best I could get it to. I wouldn't have spent time adding this information had I known these UFC editors would revert everything I added. One of the editors (who was against the sections I added) said the article was about the event, not the fights. Well, without the fights there would be no event. How can an article about an event exist without any information about what went on in the event? It truly disappoints me that editors would revert sourced information that I (and others) spent time adding. These UFC editors seem to think they own the UFC articles, which is obviously not true. Such a shame, this had/has a chance at being on the main page. Andise1 (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Athomeinkobe
I was the editor who requested pending changes protection of the article last week because IPs kept changing the date (it was held on the 15th in Australia, which was the night of the 14th in the US). I have also done some tweaking of other wording throughout the article, but have not significantly contributed to the text. To that extent, I do not consider myself "invovled" in this dispute, but I will give my thoughts on the issue. It has caught my attention that at least one editor does not want this article to stray from the format which is used in other UFC articles. Looking at the articles for UFC 192, 191, etc., it is clear that the pattern is to describe in great detail the "background" of who was meant to be fighting and why they didn't, but then a simple table of the results with no further mention of what actually happened on the night. Compare that to the recap section of the article about the recent Mayweather vs. Pacquiao boxing match. That article was approved for the In The News section of the main page back in May. The analysis of the actual event is the clear difference between the two. It goes without saying that for this or any sports article to be of real benefit to a reader weeks or years after the event, then it needs to have a description of the action. The fans of UFC who spend a lot of time cultivating the Background section of the article are surely the most knowledgable about the sport, so they would be in a great position to help write a good decription (with reference to reliable sources of course). In this instance, it would have the extra benefit of perhaps seeing the article appear on the main page of Wikipedia, giving greater exposure to their favourite sport. The alternative is that it remains a bare list that fans will only ever spend 5 seconds looking at before moving on. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Imhungry4444
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Lukejordan02
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Hasteur
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. While I have not participated in this specific article I would note that the format of MMA event articles has come about through several rounds of negotiation and consensus building and strongly suggest that the current format remains. I would also suggest that this be sent back to the Article's talk page as the filer of this DRN post has yet to make a post challanging the removal of content. Furthermore it seems like there is already a reasoned consensus (as represented in Marc Kupper's 20:41, 16 November 2015 post). I recuse myself from acting in any DRN Volunteer role with respect to this as I have a well appreciated COI with respect to MMA articles. Hasteur (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by InedibleHulk
I don't really have an opinion on whether we should detail the main and co-main fights. On one hand, it's far more informative. On the other, it's far more work. As long as there's consistency, and we're not just doing it to pander.

Regardless of whether ITN ever considers a major sporting event with massive coverage like this more signfificant than MotoGP races, rowing and the like, I think we should consistently use lowercase for common nouns (i.e., weight classes). It's just proper English, even if non-fans aren't looking. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

UFC 193 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. ✅ There has been significant prior discussion on the article talk page. JQTriple7 (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC) ✅ All parties have been notified. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC) DRN volunteer observation. The list of participants is incomplete and does not include the DRN volunteer, User:Hasteur. If Hasteur has not participated in the dispute, should their observation be changed to a DRN volunteer note? Perhaps this still works if the editor is recusing for COI and involvement in the general area. Please see this as a simple note and technical question and does not involve the dispute.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps discuss on talkpage for the time and post consensus if reached in timely manner then ? For now, I have added them to the list since they have recused their rights as a volunteer to participate in discussion as an editor, but happy to be reverted on the listing aspect of this edit if inappropriate (just don't catch my comment in the revert if anyone does so). Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an open ended question. We really don't have any guideline for when a volunteer adds themselves to a discussion in this manner and then recuses themselves, so this isn't about anything more than whether that should have been added as a volunteer note and not about adding them to the DRN that they have admitted to not being involved in. That can be reverted. Sorry for the distraction but the way that looked I thought the volunteer was involved in the DRN. This is not the case and is only that the volunteer is involved in the general subject and is recusing themselves as a volunteer for this reason. The editor in question is highly experienced and this is unique only in that a volunteer has made a note in a manner that made it look as if they were a participant and it seems that in some ways they are. I see this as nothing more than taking note of the editor's involvement in both DRN and the general subject but accept their recusal and contribution as noted. It may be that I am being too technical for newcomers here. Sorry if this was a disruption. Carry on and happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mark. Volunteers here always have the choice of either participating here as a volunteer or joining the dispute as a participant (even if they have not done so before the filing here). If they join as a participant they are, of course, conflicted out of participating here as a volunteer, but there's no reason they cannot participate as a party to the dispute. The only problem that causes is that there may not be another volunteer who can satisfy our rule (at the top of this page) that, "Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute." But that can be dealt with on a case by case basis. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 06:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh, no worries for me, I think I am getting your "too technical" point now, as I must have missed it by a few ballparks. You're saying that should have possibly used a V note to let others know that Hasteur was not involved as a "Volunteer" but as a "Typical Editor" instead of adding the note in their 'Summary of dispute'? I suppose it is merely a technical question, but probably important to mention somewhere for future cases to avoid confusion. Anyway, I've hatted the conversation to reduce "distraction". Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not hat or collapse a volunteer's note to the DRN. My contribution related only to the manner in which a volunteer of this board added comment and recusal and was technical but relevant and has precendent.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * . Sorry Mark, the collapse was only meant to reduce distraction to the UFC case discussion, not to imply it wasn't relevant or anything. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Before you go off running and screaming abuse, you might want to consider my statement itself I recuse myself from acting in any DRN Volunteer role with respect to this as I have a well appreciated COI with respect to MMA articles. I would also note that just before I posted my statement, I removed myself from the list of DRN volunteers that the bot checks for updating the DRN case template. I was previously heavily involved in the MMA space in upholding the policies for standards and therefore can't claim that I'm impartial with respect to this content space. Per my own declaration of COI on my use page from the previous involvement (see the MMA wars of 2012/2013 up to WP:GS/MMA) I am self restricted from participating as a DR volunteer, however this sub-local consensus form on one page is not appropriate.  If you can't secure consensus (and as I indicated above from the article talk page) at the article talk page, you appeal to the governing wikiproject, if you can't secure the consensus there, you bring it for RFC to secure consensus.  Not having this in ITN is not going to be the downfall of the wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hasteur. This wasn't about abuse. Just noting that you were a volunteer. The list I checked still showed your bio. As I said, you are an experienced editor and volunteer and I was sure there was a reason, but as a long term volunteer here myself I was not aware you removed yourself from the list for this DRN. As I understand it then, you are still a volunteer here, but since you are self restricted from participation as a "DRN Volunteer", you have temporarily removed yourself from the bot recognition list to add comment. I understand. Feel free to add comment when you feel inclined as a participant of the DRN. Thanks for explaining.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

volunteer hereTeeVeeed (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC) give me some time to catch-up with the problem please. How are these cases usually handled if that has not already been addressed? I guess what I am thinking is why not just go ahead and submit the article in the state that you like, and then just keep doing what you have been doing? Surely articles submitted and even accepted articles change all the time? With that being said, I understand that there are contentions here, so let me get up to speed.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by volunteer moderatorTeeVeeed Well, we should let this simmer a bit, and I have not looked-at and considered everything here yet, but here are my opinions (which could change)--and first impressions; A-it is too late now for this article to be In The News, right? So that is moot at this point. On the problem of "consistency", we only need to be consistent with Wikipedia policy and MOS. This sounds like a discussion or debate about whether or not to maintain articles in "stubby"-condition, just because a group of editors have decided that they want it that way? Why do we not want it both ways here? Have your templeted info, follow the MOS, and edit which versions how you want. As far as sanctioning anyone, as was pointed-out, there are no actual problems yet. BUT. Asking that an article be locked-down to prevent other editors from making valid edits does not apply here for a good reason either. My current recommendation is to continue using the talk page, and carry-on editing as usual. Maybe even work it out between yourselves to let one version prevail at certain times? There is no "final" version due to the nature of this encyclopedia. If there are developing problems or behavior complaints, take this problem there but this just appears to be a difference in opinion of styles, which can be changed often. TeeVeeed (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

 3rd Statement by volunteer moderatorTeeVeeed I have added a banner notice to the top of the article talk page. In my opinion, there is even still more room for content about the main event, and as was noted on the talk page discussion, further details about worldwide reaction to the main event. With that being said, as also was suggested already, it would be appropriate to create a new article on the Rousey vs. Holm fight, with the standard format of putting in italics IE--(I know it is not a UFC example!) the Larry Holmes article where in the section, Larry Holmes there is an italics beneath the section header which links to the other article. So under the current UFC 193 article section UFC 193 an italics would appear As far as the rest of the dispute, about conforming all UFC articles to a certain format. My current thinking is that there are many instances where Wikipedia would guide us to say that article expansion is the way to go, and nothing that I can think of, aside from using template and infobox for uniformity in certain topics, BUTif anyone has any specific Wikipedia policy guidance that would allow for those type of article sanctions, post them here please. With that being said I do think that we must serve our readers, and a tradition of certain formatting in UFC articles is probably expected by some of them. So what do you guys think about taking the UFC 193 to another article? , Personally, I did a little WP:OR on the topic, and the most interesting thing that I learned was about how the outcome of the main event affected betting payouts, and how pre-fight, bettors had to put up $2000 to win a hundred on the favorite Rousey, and some other interesting stuff there from sports handicapping and gaming POV, so there is room for content/facts/references.....especially again worldwide reaction TeeVeeed (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I posit that really this DRN thread should have not ever been accepted and instead should have been sent back to the article talk page or to the governing project's talk page for further discussion and or consensus building. Hasteur (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. From the filing editor's own words to his expectations here: "I want a lot of volunteers, novice and experienced alike." This sounds more like the dispute needs further discussion and is not stuck as much as, perhaps, some may be unhappy of the direction the article has taken since it became nominated for WP:ITN. My opinion is, that this should be kicked back to the article talk page and a recommendation for a formal RFC.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 *  4th Statement by volunteer moderatorTeeVeeed As long as there are no good reasons posted here shortly, I agree and will close this DRN with the recommendation that this discussion go to governing project's talk page, as suggested by Hasteur, with the further suggestion that starting a new article on the , is also a valid option.TeeVeeed (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:David L. Jones
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There are very few available sources about Jones, and none in depth about him, though we have established notability. Of what sources we have available editors disagree on their quality and how they may be used within our policies. Editors disagree on how to apply relevant policies (especially BLP and NOT). More recently, editors are concerned that the editing environment is no longer collaborative or otherwise conducive to editing.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Suggestions for: looking at similar GA articles Talk:David_L._Jones, starting a BLPN discussion (@ 17:35, 26 October 2015), starting some clear RfCs (@ 17:13, 4 November 2015), taking a break from the article (@ 23:56, 5 November 2015). I've taken a break from the article since.

How do you think we can help?

I'm hoping at this will get editors to agree to disagree, follow WP:DR, and get on track to working collaboratively.

Summary of dispute by Jeh
I agree with the broad outlines of the "dispute overview" as described above by Ronz.

And apologies to the moderator's request, but this dispute is about editor behavior. And since the opening "overview" by Ronz mentions the "editing environment" as an issue, such discussion is completely in-bounds.

The disagreements are largely over interpretation of P&G such as BLP, NPOV, UNDUE, SOAP, and PROMO. My impression is that every attempt to add referenced material to the article is met with a barrage of such acronyms, which in almost all cases are being applied far too broadly.

BLP for example is repeatedly cited to support removal of completely non-contentious material. Primary sources are simply deleted even though there is no blanket ban, not even at BLP, on their use, only requiring that they be used carefully (avoiding OR, etc.). Any mention of Jones that is not openly negative is challenged as "non-neutral", "promotional" or "soapboxing" and just about everything about him is branded as "undue".

In many cases I have quoted the relevant P&G and asked specifically how the article text violates them. I have not received satisfactory replies, only generalities.

For example, by my reading, WP:DUE is about inclusion, or not, of differing opinions about a contested point; non-mainstream views should not be given "undue" weight - I have no disagreement there. But I have yet to see a reasonable explanation of how this applies to anything added to the article, except that some seem to consider just about anything written about Jones to be "undue". Similarly, direct quotes are challenged as requiring secondary sources even though the proposed article text is not doing anything but citing what the source said. A "neutrality" tag was recently slapped on the entire article, but despite requests, it remains unclear just what points of contention exist (other than that Jones deserves an article at all), i.e. exactly what the article is accused of being non-neutral about. And no sources (or even credible but unsourced claims) have been provided for material that would argue against the article's anything the article says. ゼーロ for example once made a vague reference to "negative aspects of Jones' work" but provided no details. In my book that is nothing but rock-throwing.

It is worth noting that ゼーロ was the proposer of the second deletion attempt. Ronz is hardly a neutral party regarding this article either, having voted for the article's deletion in both deletion discussions and also arguing against several "keep" voters' points. Following the first failure-to-delete Ronz took it upon himself to stub the article, removing many of the references that were cited in the deletion discussion to support the subject's notability. Again, no specific reasons, just "BLP violations" - i.e. throwing rocks with "BLP" painted on them.

Since then Ronz has generally assumed the role of article WP:OWNer and gatekeeper, responding to objections and requests for specifics with e.g. "sorry you don't like it".

Then Ronz opens a DRN case and mentions the "editing environment" as a problem! Yes, it's a problem.

Summary of dispute by ゼーロ
Note that I have some health issues so it might take me some time to complete this or respond.

The article has many, many issues. It was a reasonable stub, but Tsavage has been adding a great deal of very poor material to it. When this material is questioned he frankly seems obtuse. I can't really believe that anyone could so consistently misunderstand clearly stated points. If you read the discussion Tsavage twists and stretches the guidelines beyond reason to justify the inclusion of material that is single sourced, often from primary sources, and which is both biased and overly detailed. This person has been asked to discuss the material before adding it to the article, but they do not and revert any edits that improve or remove problematic parts. Essentially, Tsavage has made any kind of discussion or consensus impossible to reach.

Examples of specific issues include the entire Batteriser controversy section, which is a poor summary of the single source on which it is based, followed by some original research to build a case that Jones was the victim of a cyberattack. The sources are rather weak anyway - Jones' own claim, a blog post by a Dell security researcher who does not appear to have done much research, and an IBT article which doesn't actually confirm what Tsavage's text claims (it merely states that this may have happened but no-one knows, not that it did happen as the text implies). Please see the talk page for a more complete list of the problems with this and other sections.

It appears that Tsavage has drawn a conclusion from the single source, and is determined to include a paragraph that leads the reader to it. Any attempt to even fix the language used is reverted if it doesn't support this conclusion, e.g. the use of the weasel word "claimed" for statements that are not disputed. The article isn't even about Batteriser, but Tsavage seems determined to portray Jones as having "taken them down".

It's doubtful if the whole thing is even notable, and we must be aware that Jones publishes these videos for commercial gain.

The uWatch section is an example of how Tsavage is unable to distinguish puffery from useful encyclopaedic information. More over, it is typical of his attempts to show Jones' in a positive light.

The whole article needs major revisions. For example, it states that "EEVBlog was launched as a YouTube channel". That is clearly incorrect - it's a blog, it wasn't launched as there was no announcement or event at the time of the first video. It was just a hobby project, a series of occasional videos. This is followed up with some out of date and unimportant stats that only serve to talk Jones up. Attempts to improve this part have all been reverted by Tsavage.

Considering that this is a BLP article and much of the material is disputed, it is clear to me that it should be edited down considerably and new additions carefully discussed. The article has a severe lack of secondary sources which makes including material difficult.

Summary of dispute by Tsavage
I broadly agree with the "Dispute overview," with additional detail:


 * My original involvement with article and subject, David L. Jones, occurred with random participation in AfD David_L._Jones_(2nd_nomination) keep, 2 October 2015. I voted "keep" and stayed to help improve it to a minimum post-stub state.


 * Since the AfD, the majority of edits to add content have been challenged by Ronz or ゼーロ, usually with reference to one or more of WP:PRIMARY, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, and WP:SOAP. Content is aggressively deleted, and umbrella and inline tags liberally and frequently applied.


 * I have consistently disagreed with 's application of policies and guidelines, as too broadly referenced and therefore unclear (e.g. linking to WP:BLP with no further detail), or too narrowly interpreted or entirely unreasonable, and lacking in further discussion. That said, some issues we seem to have resolved (e.g., , )


 * I have consistently disagreed with, who from editing activity, appears primarily committed to removing as much content as possible for whatever reason may fit, with claims including BLP violations, advertising, unsupported, and not noteworthy.


 * I have had no disagreement with (and have agreed with Jeh's PAG counterarguments).


 * I have attempted at length to discuss all issues on the Talk page, and have so far avoided noticeboards and RfCs, as in this particular situation, I believe they would likely squander the time of additional editors by perhaps resolving relatively minor individual issues, while not resolving the problem with the overall editing environment. All of this has been stated in Talk.

--Tsavage (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:David L. Jones discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.


 * Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion, most of it recent, at the article talk page. The filing party refers to starting some clear RFCs.  However, it appears that the filing party merely proposed starting some clear RFCs.  If there were an open RFC at the article talk page, it would preclude discussion here, but, since there isn't a current RFC, this dispute is ready for acceptance here, except that the filing party has not notified the other editors on their talk pages.  I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but leaving it open for the filing party to notify the other editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - Other editors notified. Waiting on replies by other editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator
Three of the four editors have submitted statements. Since participation is voluntary, the silence of a fourth editor does not prevent three editors from engaging in moderated discussion, and the fourth editor may also join. I am opening this case for moderated discussion. I expect every editor to comment at least every 48 hours, and I will check on the discussion every 24 hours. Please be civil and concise, and comment on content, not contributors. (There is too much commenting on contributors above). Do not reply to the statements of other editors; that is, do not engage in threaded discussion. Address your comments to me. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears that some editors want to insert certain material into the article that other editors consider poorly sourced or undue weight. Will each editor please state concisely (some of the above statements are not concise) what they think the issues are, without commenting on other editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

First statements by editors

 * A central issue is that what may be noteworthy—important, of central relevance and interest—within an article is entirely different from what may be considered to be notable or noteworthy or non-trivial elsewhere. For example, if Jones is involved in a controversy that is significant to him and his work, that should be covered in appropriate detail in the article, regardless of how high that controversy may rank in importance against all other controversies that exist.


 * There's been detailed discussion on the Talk page. I'm not sure of how much of that should be repeated here. --Tsavage (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The uWatch section contains a lot of puffery and the sources are of dubious quality, not appearing to be serious reviews of the work, rather little more than repeats of a press release. They don't appear to have used the watch themselves. There are many, many, many similar electronics projects on the internet and it isn't clear that this one is notable.

The Batteriser main section is not an accurate summary of the single source. A single source is not really enough to warrant inclusion anyway. The second part about the YouTube dislikes is based on blog posts that are given undue weight, and the main reason for including this material appears to be to cast Batteroo in a bad light.

Since this article is not about Batteriser, the amount of detail is unwarranted.

The EEVBlog section uses puffery ("launched") and is nothing more than trivia and already out of date statistics, and there is no value in gathering them here.

Attempts to repeatedly add a section about Jones' April fools jokes are based on single primary sources, not notable, trivia and impossible to properly verify in terms of notability or impact.

Sorry I can't be any more concise, but there are a lot of issues with this page. I've omitted some and concentrated on the worst. ゼーロ (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator
One editor says that, contrary to my instructions, it is necessary to discuss editor conduct. It isn't necessary or appropriate to discuss editor conduct at this noticeboard. This noticeboard is for the discussion of content. Very often, conduct issues develop because of contention about content issues, and often resolving the content issues can make the source of the conduct issues go away. If anyone doesn't want to talk about content, they don't have to participate here, but I would urge them to participate, because resolving content issues often solves the problem. If anyone is insistent on addressing conduct issues, such as tendentious editing, disruptive editing, article ownership, or incivility, they may open a threat at WP:ANI, but then I will find it necessary to fail this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that the editors are willing to work on content, I will ask two specific questions, as well as asking the other editors whether any other questions should be asked. First, should the Batteriser controversy be mentioned, and why or why not? Second, should the uWatch be mentioned, and why or why not? Is there any other content that should be added to the article. One editor says that the article has many problems, but they don't specify how a short article can have so many problems. Are there any other specific problems with the article?

Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Second statements by editors
In answer to your questions, I think the Batteriser section should be removed. The first paragraph is based on a single source, and not even a particularly good one as it's basically a "he said/she said" mud throwing competition between the two sides. Editors appear unable to agree on a neutral, accurate summary either. This section has more detail than the actual Batteriser article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batteriser) which is where this material should be, if anywhere. It is only included here as part of an on-going effort to make Jones look important, after the "April fools" blog nonsense was rejected.

The second paragraph is again suffering from poor sources. The main one seems to be Jones himself, and the other two blogs don't seem to have looked into the issue at all and merely pointed to his claims and his own minimal investigation as their sources. It fails to meet WP standards, and isn't even really related to Jones directly.

The uWtach should be included, but only as a single sentence as part of the main body text, rather than as a section. Most of that section is just puffery based on articles written by people who appear to have read Jones' press release and web site, but not actually used the uWatch themselves. One is based on a prototype, not even the final version, and it was only ever available in kit form. Even a single sentence is pushing it for me due to the lack of good non-primary sources, but I realize other editors feel strongly that it should be mentioned.

Other issues include the low number of good, non-primary sources and the amount of trivia/raw stats without context in the article. Is 290,000 subscribers particularly interesting for some reason? Why mention it at all? Seems like an editor decided it was impressive by YouTube vblogger standards, which goes against guidelines and border on original research. I'd also suggesting changing "EEVBlog was launched as a YouTube channel" to "The EEBlog account was created on YouTube" since there was no "launch" as such, no event surrounding the first video that was just Jones' in his garage. "Channel" is YouTube nomenclature, but seems to rather exaggerate what it was back then. Are a couple of 5 minute amateur videos filmed in a garage a "channel"? ゼーロ (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to add, the "industry reaction" section should not be restored. It's all primary sources, most of them are just press releases and commercial blog posts intended to promote the company in question. It's laughable to suggest that there even was a reaction in most cases, beyond the standard ham-fisted social media interaction regularly done by marketing departments. The only exception is Microchip, which may possibly warrant a mention but certainly not a section. Again, it's a one line thing, and totally reliant on primary/low quality sources. ゼーロ (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by Tsavage:

In answer to the moderator's questions:

Why Batteriser?: The series of events that we have labeled the "Batteriser controversy" describes a media-reported extended reaction to Jones' work on EEVBlog. Jones and EEVBlog are known for in-depth, uncompromising product reviews; the Batteriser content records the significant impact of one such review, and as such, it is noteworthy for this article.

Why µWatch?: This is an electronic device (a scientific calculator watch) designed by Jones, made available as project plans and open source software, and as an assemble-it-yourself kit. It received significant coverage in electronics media. As such, it is noteworthy for this article.

What other content should be included?: On 23 October 2015, I posted to the article Talk page a list of items I believe could and should be included, given the available sources at the time:


 * who Jones is - electronics engineer and problogger from Australia
 * description of his vehicles, EEVBlog and Amp Hour
 * stats for his products: archives, subscribers, views, etc
 * general breakdown of his content, e.g. episode titles and content summaries to illustrate types of content (reviews, instructional, etc)
 * description of his style (outspoken, in-depth, at-length...) and his transition to full-time blogger (we can carefully use his quotes in this, per WP:SELFPUB)
 * industry reaction to his work (we have various sources, like Microchip, Tektronix, etc that could form an "Industry reaction" segment)
 * a controversial situation with Batteriser (beyond being a single incident, it speaks to his overall outspoken style and willingness to critique and offer negative views, i.e. it's not padding)

Some of these are in the article now, other items are pending. An "Industry reaction" section was published and deleted for relying on primary sources, and is under discussion. Since then, based on new sources, additional items have been added to the article:


 * μCurrent, an electronics testing device designed by Jones, currently available as a commercial product, and well-covered in electronics media.
 * µWatch, as above.

Questions that should be asked:
 * How should noteworthiness be determined for this article, what is the practical test for what merits inclusion?
 * How should we determine weight within the article, what is the practical test to determine how much detail to include for each item covered?

--Tsavage (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator
Two of the editors have replied, one opposing inclusion of the Batteriser and the µWatch, one in support of their inclusion. The one other section that has now been proposed for inclusion is µCurrent. Please state why it should or should not be described. Do the other two editors want to comment on the inclusion or exclusion of these three inventions? Also, I have a question for those editors who oppose the inclusion of any of the specific sections about Jones: What should be included, since it has been agreed that the article should be kept? Also, is each of the editors willing to agree to rely on Requests for Comments on the inclusion or exclusion of the questioned material? What else does any editor want to discuss? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Third statements by editors
Tsavage replies to moderator's latest questions:

Point of clarification: The moderator's third statement noted in part: "The one other section that has now been proposed for inclusion is µCurrent." In fact, as listed in my second statement, there are several content items that have been put forth and are pending: Industry reaction, general description of EEVBlog content, and description of Jones' transition to full-time blogger.
 * Include μCurrent?: μCurrent is already in the article, as a brief mention, unchallenged so far. Reason for inclusion is the same as for µWatch: a product designed by Jones, covered in reliable sources.
 * Rely on RfCs for determining content inclusion?: This doesn't seem practical. It would involve multiple RfCs, uninvolved editor participation would likely be extremely low, fake editors would likely be involved (see last AfD, where several accounts were discounted), and discussion extremely drawn out and unlikely to arrive at consensus (if the Talk discussion to date is any indication). If this DR process fails, why would multiple RfCs be likely to succeed?
 * Other matters to discuss?: Strictly concerning content, no (apart from the previously asked: "how should noteworthiness and weight be determined for this article, what are the practical tests?").

In addition, for my part, my editing is not complete on Batteriser or µCurrent, where noteworthy details are still absent, so any discussion of inclusion should at the same time consider what details of each content item are acceptable, else new disputes are likely to spring up over each new detail (as has already happened in-article, and is evident in discussion here). --Tsavage (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ゼーロ replies to moderator's latest questions:

The current brief mention of the uCurrent is reasonable. Like the uWatch section, there are few good sources so it is hard to see how it could reasonably be expanded.

Given the available sources, I think that the main header section is fine, and should be expanded to include a sentence about each of the uWatch and uCurrent, and to incorporate the EEVBlog section with the stats cut down to facts about the start date and maybe the odd milestone (so they don't become out of date immediately like the current content). YouTube has the stats, a link is all that is required, no need to copy/paste them here.

The Batteriser section should stay but be heavily cut down. I propose:


 * Batteriser is a product designed to increase battery life. Without having the product physically on hand, Jones published a video blog discussion of Batteroo's claims, concluding that it was unlikely to meet the advertised 8x increase in most common use cases. Batteroo, the San Jose tech startup behind the Batteriser, published a series of videos refuting Jones' claims.

In light of jeh's comments, I have revised:


 * Batteriser is an as yet unreleased product designed to increase battery life. Jones published a video blog discussion of Batteroo's claims about it, concluding that it was unlikely to meet the advertised 8x increase in most common use cases. Batteroo, the San Jose tech startup behind the Batteriser, published a series of videos refuting Jones' claims, to which Jones responded with further videos of his own.

I was considering keeping the "down vote" bit, but Jones has since contradicted himself in a forum post where he claims that even down-votes benefit a channel as they count as "interaction". I can't find the link right now but I'll try to dig it out. In any case, it's all primary sources, he said/she said and not really fair on Batteroo who have denied involvement.

While I'd support RfCs in principal, I too am concerned that the discussion would be flooded with "fake editors", for want of a better term. The nomination for deletion was a debacle, with reasonable comments discounted and many editors prompted by discussion on the EEVBlog forum piling in to vote "keep" without having engaged in or read the discussion. Afterwards they made no attempt to improve the article or participate further. Furthermore the two other editors who have been working on this article aren't even participating here. Still, if you think it could be made to work then I'd support it.

--ゼーロ (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply by jeh to moderator's latest questions:

First, I apologize for a) my first remarks; I did not understand the process here (that we can only discuss specific items of content) and b) not participating further. I've been swamped by "real-world" work and this sort of took off without me.

ゼーロ's proposed "Batteriser section" is unacceptable on several counts. First, the device is not even an obtainable product yet; it is only promised. The phrasing gives no hint that it's not yet shipping. This in turn makes Jones look foolish for doing his analyses "without having the product physically on hand", when of course to have the product on hand would be impossible; the phrasing also completely ignores that analysis according to well-accepted theory is standard engineering practice and completely defensible. (If someone claims to have a bucket into which I can pour a liter of water, and then pour out two liters, I don't need to have the bucket in my hand to know that the claim is absurd.) The phrasing "designed to increase" also will lead the reader to assume that there's nothing wrong with the device and Jones must therefore be mistaken. Furthermore, this article is about David L. Jones and a section on something he said about Batteriser should not begin with a sentence describing the product as if it a) is shipping and b) works; the latter is yet to be demonstrated. Jones has posted at least one video refuting Batteroo's responses; the reader should not be left to assume that Batteroo refuted Jones and Jones just folded his cards and went home as a result. Mention should also be made of other sources that support Jones' analyses. A complaint will no doubt be made about "a said/b said"-style writing, but if that's what happened, what else are we supposed to write?

The plethora of "Improvement" tags: If we come to an agreement here on a "Batteriser section", a "uWatch section", and a "uCurrent" section, are we thereby agreeing that the various tags that have been added to these sections (disputed-section, advert, unreliable source, undue) will be removed and will stay removed?

What else does any editor want to discuss? I want to discuss the neutrality tag that's at the top of the article. I would like to hear exactly what claims made in the article are accused of being "non-neutral", or of failing to adequately represent any contrary point of view. Any such contrary view must, of course, be not WP:UNDUE (e.g. the opinions of one person who doesn't like Jones would be WP:UNDUE) and must have good references (because, as the article is now overall positive toward Jones, contrary claims would be negative and per WP:BLP must be exceptionally well referenced). Vague claims on the talk page were made about the article not representing ~"negative aspects of Jones' work" but no details, let alone references, were ever supplied. In the absence of any such well-referenced details and claims this tag must be removed. You shouldn't be able to slap a "non-neutral" tag on an article just because nobody can find anything bad to say about the subject or any of his works. And as far as I can see that's what it amounts to now.

Admin trivia: Shouldn't this entire section be labeled "David L. Jones" and not "talk:David L. Jones"? The dispute is about the content of the article, not its talk page. Jeh (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * At the time when it was discussed (quite a long time ago), the sourcing and encyclopedic value of mentioning uCurrent seemed very good. It still appears worth inclusion, though I think it worth building on the old discussions and looking for more sources.
 * Batteriser has similar sources, though it's of less value in it being speculation based upon the product announcements and associated publicity. Still, there appears to be enough to for mention.
 * The uWatch sources are far worse, but they appear to be enough to keep it from exclusion. Still, a good argument could be made that the sources don't get us past WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SOAP concerns. I don't see how the sources justify an entire section about uWatch by any means. I don't think the pre-release sources should be used at all per NOTNEWS and SOAP.
 * RfCs are standard dispute resolution tools, and I cannot imagine why RfCs shouldn't be used. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator
To summarize, it appears that we have issues about certain sections, and issues about the neutrality tag. The sections that are at issue include the Batteriser, the μCurrent device, the μWatch, and the Industry Reaction section and a section on EEVBlog content. There are also issues about the neutrality tag. Some editors are willing to agree to Requests for Comments, and one is not. Speaking as moderator, I will say that all issues that any editor thinks should be resolved by RFC will be resolved by RFC. The RFC process, unlike the DRN process, is binding on the community. So please do not discount the idea of RFC. Also, I do not intend to moderate the issue of whether there should be a neutrality tag, because there should not be. We have to get the neutrality issue resolved. Who applied the tag? Please state exactly why you think that the article is non-neutral and how it should be made neutral. Please state how it is neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

We will have an RFC. We will have an RFC. The question is what should be in it. We will discuss whether to include the Batteriser, the μCurrent device, the μWatch, and Industry Reception. What is the neutrality issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

We need to define what the positions are on the multiple RFCs. That is, what do you want to include, or what do you want to exclude? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

State what the issues are, in detail, but be concise. (If the statements are too long, I will try to read them, but no one else will, and even I might give up. See too long, didn't read, which applies to most but not all of this discussion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Are the parties willing to agree to any compromise on content, or do we have to use RFC? Also, what is the argument for and against the neutrality tag? The issue should not be whether to leave the tag in place, but how to remove the tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note - Please do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Please discuss proposed changes to the article here rather than on the article talk page, so that discussion can be centralized.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Fourth-round statements by editors
Statement by ゼーロ:

I'm happy to reach consensus if it is based on policy. I have already responded to comments by other editors, it's up to them to find a way forward now.

If there are to be RfCs they should cover the Batteriser, the μCurrent device, the μWatch, EEVBlog and the Industry Reaction sections. However, I am deeply concerned that fans of Jones will pile in to the RfCs (a link will be posted on his forum), like they did with the AfD discussion, and that IP addresses will be discounted. To anyone who commented from an IP address, please consider making an account NOW because if you do just for the RfC you will be accused of being a sock-puppet.

I added the neutrality tag. The main issues are the uWatch section (fan boy puffery) and the Batteriser section (which tries hard to make Jones look good, and was much worse before previously). IMHO those sections need revision before it is removed, particularly Batteriser. ゼーロ (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Additional: Now I'm very concerned about any kind of RfC, because of this: http://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/dave-needs-help-to-stay-on-wiki-a-general-call-for-help/90/

I'm not entirely sure who they are talking about, but they do mention Ronz by name. ゼーロ (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage's fourth statement:


 * (External note: Reading some of the comments and the external link provided in the previous statement, I'm not sure whether this is actually a content dispute, or should be treated, at least in part, as an administrative issue regarding edit warring and generally disruptive behavior? I'm not familiar with the protocol involved in information from outside of Wikipedia. Perhaps the moderator would comment?)


 * Neutrality tag suggests BLP violation: The latest and current neutrality tag was placed Nov 11. Since this article is a BLP, it would seem that non-neutrality is a BLP violation, therefore (per the moderator's last comments), the editor responsible for the tag should make the reasons clear, and this should be resolved as a priority.


 * Regarding multiple RfCs as the best way forward: My previous comment about RfCs indicated that I couldn't imagine, given the discussion already, how a half-dozen or so RfCs, one for each disputed content item, seems like a solid course of action. There's already 30,000+ words of discussion around these same items, and disputes over individual details within the items. Is the idea to put up entire paragraphs and sections for approval, to lock in the wording? Are we to create an RfC for every content disagreement? That said, I am up for discussing whatever is put on the table.


 * What exactly is the policy basis for much of the exclusion challenges?: As I understand Wikipedia policy, once notability is established and an article created, the standard for inclusion - noteworthiness - is reliable sourcing and relevance to the article topic, with relative weight of items in-article determined by WP:DUE, when there are competing viewpoints, otherwise, by giving emphasis to the most important items (e.g "Career" over "Early life"). In a BLP, just about anything to do with the subject is relevant provided it is reliably sourced. For example, in the Jones article, common sense and sources tell us he has designed a watch and electronic testing gear, so what is the policy basis for excluding that? And once that is included, what is the policy basis for limiting reasonable detail about those items, such as review excerpts and product descriptions? Is "I don't like that" adequate sole basis for an RfC?


 * My issues with Jones' article content: I don't have content issues, only issues with editor challenges to inclusion. I'm here to discuss. I have already made my position clear. To summarize: I believe all of the content under dispute is noteworthy, neutral and reliably sourced, and from challenging editors, I have asked for specific reasons why the situation is otherwise, and not received clear and actionable replies (as documented on the article's Talk page).

--Tsavage (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding "Batteriser controversy" clarification: Please note that the Batteriser controversy in the article refers to the extended public exchange between Jones and Batteriser, and not to any of the various other coverage of Batteriser. What makes this a controversial interaction between the two parties is the series of events specifically involving Jones and Batteriser: Jones' original critical EEVBlog Batteriser debunk episode; Batteriser's responses that mention Jones; Jones second episode critiquing Batteriser's demo video; the various other media that cited Jones' work in their own coverage (e.g. Gizmodo, EDN Network, Hackaday); and the Sydney Morning Herald investigative article summarizing the controversy, which states, "...electrical experts have slammed the company's claims of longer-lasting power as misleading. It all started with popular Australian YouTube channel Electronics Engineering Video Blog (EEVblog)." and covers Jones original episode, gets direct response from Jones and Batteriser, and interviews several independent experts. added --Tsavage (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Statement by Staszek Lem regarding Batteriser


 * In the talk page it is written: "This may be a minor story in the whole wide world, but in a David L. Jones article it appears to me to be a substantial event, and a fully defined controversy".
 * All sources which discuss the event are discussing Batteriser. This discussion involves many other things: Battreiser's promoter, a new trick to troll youtube, boost converters, batteries, and whats not. But clearly the central subject is one: Batteriser. Therefore in fullest detail the topic must go into its article. Batteriser was criticized before and after Jones. In Jones article it must be a brief description how it was related to Jones not the whole WP:COATRACK of events. Of note is ridiculous insisting that controversy was started from Jones, just because some newspaper said so. This statement is provably false and to cite it because some "WP:RS" published it is inept wiklawyering: for starters, if the source publishes verifiably false information, it is no longer reliable. My brief version of events was reverted by Tsavage. While complaining that Ronz exercised WP:OWNership of the page, Tsavage appears to do exactly the same: revert warring (he reverted to his "better" version at least twice). In talk page he did not prove that my version was wrong as claimed in edit summary. Instead, he presented a great plan to make this section even more grandiose.  Staszek Lem (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As for tagging, given this is a BLP, the material should be removed until consensus is reached for it's inclusion. I'd hope that we could simply focus resolving the content dispute rather than wasting time discusing tags that will be removed once the problems are resolved, which in the meantime notify readers and editors of the dispute. I do think the tags are justified given the use of poor sources, poorly sourced information, and non-encyclopedic information. As we've been unable to come to agreement on what are and are not "high-quality sources" as required of BLP, I think we're at an impasse without others' involvement. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Additional from ゼーロ:

Forum users have started harassing me again with a bit of doxing: http://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/dave-needs-help-to-stay-on-wiki-a-general-call-for-help/120/

I don't know what the procedure is in cases like this. ゼーロ (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Doxing" refers to revealing "personally identifiable information". I see nothing like that there. Do you? Did I miss it? Jeh (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed my account name to avoid being harassed, and they are trying to link it back up to the old one in order to continue harassing me. I don't really want to discuss it here though, as every public mention just encourages more abuse on other platforms. ゼーロ (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator
I have prepared an incomplete draft of the RFC at User:Robert McClenon/Draft Jones RFC. I have prepared the draft in user space rather than here because the levels of the headings will break the formatting here. Anyone who has a proposed wording for any of the five proposed sections may insert it into the draft in the proper place. If there are two different wordings, and editors cannot agree, then the question in the RFC will have to be changed to whether to include either of the draft sections or none, and similarly if there are more than two proposed wordings. Please have at it at the user page. I would like to get the RFC published within two or three days and this case put to bed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

As to the neutrality tag, unless anyone can say precisely what the neutrality issue is and why it cannot be answered with the RFC, I will just be pulling the tag. The purpose of tags is to improve articles, not to tag articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fifth-round statements by editors
"As to the neutrality tag, unless anyone can say precisely what the neutrality issue is and why it cannot be answered with the RFC, I will just be pulling the tag. The purpose of tags is to improve articles, not to tag articles. " Fine if all contentious material is removed per BLP, disruptive otherwise. Do clarify your intentions. --Ronz (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ronz. The question has been answered, the tone of some sections, particularly uWatch and Batterizer, are heavily biased in Jones' favour. Given that it is BLP, either the tag has to stay or the tag and the contested material has to go.

I'm still sceptical about the possibility of having any kind of RfC that isn't just stuffed with forum users, so I propose that we run one as a test to see what happens, rather than doing them all together. ゼーロ (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fifth-round statement by jeh

(could we maybe have the headings here read like this: "Fifth-round statements by editors (DLJ)" ? Reason - this page is, alas, one big page with several DR cases on it. When I see something in my watchlist for e.g. "Fourth-round statements by editors" there is nothing there to tell me that it's the fourth round of this particular DR, not unless I happen to recognize the name of a participant.)

Regarding the "neutrality tag" issue: Mr. Moderator, welcome to the world of Tsavage and myself. We haven't seen Ronz or ゼーロ elucidate precisely what the neutrality problem is either, not in terms of P&G.

The closest I ever saw on the talk page was Ronz's chain of argument, which (as I understand it) goes like this: Various sections of the article do not meet Ronz's (very strict, IMO) interpretation of the requirements set out by BLP, and those requirements are intended to ensure neutrality; therefore those sections are, by definition, non-neutral. At other times, Ronz seems to me to have argued that because various sections of the article are non-neutral re Jones then they must, by definition, be violating BLP.

ゼーロ claims here that the article is "heavily biased in Jones' favor". But "neutrality" does not mean, nor does BLP require, that the tone of the article has to be neutral. It means the article cannot be edited so as to impose a bias that is not in our sources. i.e. all RS'd viewpoints must be represented and given their WP:DUE weight.

From WP:NPOV: "[NPOV means] representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

In other words, if "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on" Jones are generally or even overwhelmingly positive, then so be it.

Indeed, it would violate NPOV to not accurately represent those views -- positive though they may be.

AFAIK no RS'd negative viewpoints have been excluded from the article, and none of the sections are more positive than their references, so where is the "neutrality" problem?

If there are any such dissenting views in RSs, then by all means, bring them forth! The correct response would be to add them as counters ("on the other hand...") to the existing text, not to remove the existing text. But the editors claiming neutrality violations have never presented any such sources.

Regarding ゼーロ 's fear of "stuffing" of !votes at any RFCs, I will point for at least the third time to my analysis of the votes at AFD2. There is simply no evidence in the !vote record to support this concern, at least not on the "keep" side. There were no IP "keep" voters and all six of the "keep" voters had lengthy prior edit histories here. And there is no more reason to be worried about vote-stuffing now. Our moderator here has suggested that !votes at the RFC be ignored if they're from IPs or newly-registered users; this rule, applied to AFD2, would not have resulted in the exclusion of a single "keep". But several "deletes" would have been ignored - as, in fact, they were. I completely support our moderator in this. Jeh (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Additional by ゼーロ: This is why I requested a DRN. We are stuck in an infinite loop. Let's save it for the RfC, I'm not going to waste my time answering Jeh again here. Let's just get on with it. ゼーロ (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fifth-round comments by Tsavage:

I understand the intent of the proposed RfC, but in practice it seems to counter the way we edit. By putting entire sections up for comment, we're attempting to pile multiple sourcing verfications and considerations of in-article weight and writing style into single compound questions. How can that possibly work?!

I am committed to discussion (see participation above and in article Talk), however, with nearly two weeks already invested in this DRN case, the proposed solution now on the table - a mega-RfC - will require much more time and discussion to prepare, and then, even if consensus is reached on invidual sections, where does that leave future editing? For example, what if an editor immediately afterwards rewords part of a sentence in one of the paragraphs, perhaps with a new source, does that invalidate the RfC for that section, or can the consensus finding be used to challenge the new edit?

Before proceeding, I'd like to hear from other parties why they believe this super-RfC idea seems like it has a reasonable chance of being effective. --Tsavage (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator
I see that at least one editor doubts the idea of using a multi-part RFC. The purpose of this noticeboard is to resolve article content disputes. There doesn't appear to be any likelihood of compromise, and there appear to be multiple sections in dispute. If anyone has a different suggestion for resolving this content dispute other than "do it my way", explain. Unless anyone has a new idea, there will be an RFC. This case will have one of two results. It may be a general close based on the RFC. However, if the complaints and commenting on contributors continue, I will fail this thread and put the RFC through anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

As to a complaint about wanting to have the name of this case in the headings, I would point out that I expect each of the participants in this case to check every 48 hours. The last change in your watchlist is not an effective way to know whether your case has been updated, because another update could be made right after one to your case. Editors are expected to check the case every 48 hours, without expecting the moderator to do all of the work of pinging you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want to influence the content of the RFC, edit the draft RFC in user space, or comment here on what you want it to say. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

One of the editors expresses the concern that a large RFC will be stuffed by forum users, and proposing running a small RFC as a test. First, I have proposed that unregistered editors be excluded from !voting in the RFC. Second, running a small RFC as a test would simply stretch out this dispute. Does anyone really want to stretch out this dispute? Third, does anyone have a better idea for how to get this case resolved? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator
Maybe I wasn't clear. I was not asking participants to !vote in the draft RFC. I was only asking them to edit the wording of the RFC. As it is, when the draft RFC is moved to the article talk page, the existing !votes and discussion will have to be deleted because they will be dated before the bot timestamp on the RFC. The purpose of this draft is to improve the wording of the RFC, not to get opinions yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * An editor says that each section should include proposed content for each topic. I agree.  Please put the proposed content in the draft RFC.  That is what it is for.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Seventh-round statements by editors
It's a strange RfC, in my experience. While the questions are clear, what they are referring to is not. Ideally, we should have content for each subtopic (Batteriser, μWatch, etc) that is not in dispute, with the RfC identifying a specific proposed change for each subtopic. Minimally, the RfC should include proposed content for each subtopic.

Would editors remove their responses to the current RfC so we can work on editing it? --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Will remove mine after I close this comment. However I thought the RfC was going to include alternate wordings for each subtopic, and the commenters would pick among them. If we have to settle here on ONE wording for a subtopic to run in an RFC, won't we be just in the same loop? Jeh (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the questions are kind of strange when there is no proposed text for the sections. There doesn't really seem to be a question over if there should be a mention of these things, it's the text that is in dispute.

I'll suggest new questions, since an RfC seems inevitable now. I have little confidence in the process but at least the questions should be about specific content and based on policy. It would be better to simply make a decision on policy, rather than trying to have a vote. ゼーロ (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Seventh-round comments by Tsavage:


 * No-one has really addressed my fifth-round question, do you think this RfC has a reasonable chance of being effective (if so, how?)? Because what is the point of working on this if it has little to no chance of resolving anything? The moderator has said it is the only avenue if no alternatives are suggested. I assume from the comments above that everyone is going ahead with this? --Tsavage (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've stated that I have by doubts. To elaborate, I think the most likely outcome with simple "should this section exist" will be "yes, it should exist" followed by a continuation of the edit war over the wording. If the RfC is to use to be useful, it must comment on the proposed wordings or offer a new compromise one. Ronz and I have already compromised and stated that we would support a better written version of the section in question.
 * Would you accept an edited text, or are you unwilling to compromise in your version? I'm just trying to establish what is likely to happen after the RfC, to produce useful questions. ゼーロ (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Following the DRN instruction to address only the moderator, considering ゼーロ 15:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC) (and perhaps as an alternative to the proposed RfC), the dispute comes down to a series of individual content items that each include a proposed wording and sourcing. There are perhaps a dozen such items, across all sections, that we may be able to agree comprise the dispute. If we can establish an effective listing format for each item, then it should be possible to decide on each one, by discussion here, by appropriate noticeboard, or by RfC. I suggest a format as follows.


 * Question: Is the following content reliably sourced, noteworthy and acceptably worded for the article, David L. Jones? NOTE: this is the universal question


 * Proposed wording: ___ NOTE: This should consist of a single factual statement, and MUST include the sources, precisely placed. Common sense should be used in defining each item, such that each includes all the parts pertaining to one overall statement, e.g.: "Product X was found to be 'quote 1' by Source A[ref 1] and 'quote 2' by Source B[ref 2]" or "Product X, a widget that widgetizes,[ref 1] was released by Entity A on 10 Feb 2010.[ref 2]" would each count as one logical item, where the first example concerns "product review" and the second, "product release" - hopefully, we can agree on logical grouping at that level of common sense.


 * PAG challenge: ___ ''NOTE: This is ONLY a reference to the appropriate one or more PAGs, and NOT for arguing the point. It MUST include at least a link to a specific policy or guideline section, and for sections with multiple parts, clear reference to the applicable part (e.g. "example 3," or a brief excerpt, and so forth)


 * The "PAG challenge" section should probably be omitted for noticeboards and RfC (let editors make up their own minds), however, it is useful to see if we can resolve this locally with the participating editors. I maintain this is (still) absurd at the scale we are applying it, but it is consistent with discussion best practices (clear and specific questions, challenges, and PAG references), and the current section by section approach seems less viable. --Tsavage (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Eighth statement by moderator
Since the editors are making negative statements about the concept of a multi-part RFC, but no one has suggested another way to resolve this, please either work on improving the multi-part RFC, or ask me to fail the case and refer it to formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Eighth-round statements by editors
I move for formal resolution. I think it's clear that the RfC questions discussion is not going to reach any kind of consensus, and frankly I'm unwilling to keep responding to Tsavage on that page because it saps my basic will to carry on living. Please fail this DRN and move to formal moderation. ゼーロ (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad#Aisha .22reaching_age_of_puberty.22
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

We are discussing the particular text in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad that reads: "Traditional sources dictate Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad,[150][227][228] with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached puberty at the age of nine or ten years old." All the citations/sources state the age of Aisha at marriage (i.e. between 9 - 12) but none of the original citations mention her being pubescent/having gone through puberty at the time of marriage. The original sources or narrations of the life of Mohammed, the ahadeeth, www.sunnah.org do not mention EVER her being pubescent. During the discussion, a number of secondary sources by Muslim apologists were cited saying that she "must have been pubescent" etc because "it was the custom". Once again, I am not disputing the age of Aisha...only the statement that she was pubescent, as no original source ever states this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Made edit to page which was quickly reverted. Opened discussion on Talk page. Was told by user FreeatlastChitchat that "there are like a hundred "hadith" which say she reached puberty". When he could not find a single one, he went to secondary sources. I can find equally "reliable" secondary sources which state she did not reach puberty. However, I personally would find them questionable (i.e. just as the secondary sources provided by the above user are unreliable/questionable).

How do you think we can help?

If no primary source can be provided that states Aisha was pubescent/reached puberty at the time of her marriage to Mohammed and the secondary sources are from Muslim apologists, then either we put in the opposing view from non-Muslim sources stating she was in fact pre-pubescent or we take the citation about her puberty out completely.

Summary of dispute by Eperoton
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Putting in an opposing view was one of the options I suggested, so I'm not sure why this is a "dispute". I'm objecting to removing part of a statement with five non-primary source citations based on an editor's interpretation of primary sources and personal assessment of the cited secondary sources. Eperoton (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by FreeatlastChitchat
@JQTriple7 would you be kind enough to check the "dates" on the Talk page conversation, it is barely 20 hours old, furthermore there is one single disgruntled editor who is not listening to anyone and any reliable source provided to him is "apologist". So I am not sure how DRN can come in play here when the discussion is barely 24 hours old. Therefore I am asking that this case be rejected because consensus opposes this view of a single editor and he has not talked about it on the TP extensively. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Amatulic
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Muhammad#Aisha .22reaching_age_of_puberty.22 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Filing party has not listed all the involved editors through the bot. I will do so manually. JQTriple7 (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC) ✅ I have manually listed the involved parties. JQTriple7 (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC) ✅ There has been significant prior discussion on the article talk page. JQTriple7 (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC) ✅ I have notified all involved parties on their talk pages as the filing party didn't do so. Thanks, JQTriple7 (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Lewis's trilemma#.22Largely_ignored_by_theologians_and_biblical_scholars.2C_who_do_not_view_Jesus_as_having_claimed_to_be_God..22
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
 * (possible typo, probably ?)
 * (possible typo, probably ?)

There's a back and forth edits based on one published editorial that makes an unsubstantiated claim about a "majority". Without any other citations or evidence I do not believe the claim should be allowed in Wikipedia without multiple sources to back up such a claim.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There is the a section on the talk page that user Rbrohm has not addressed. I am not versed enough with Wikipedia protocol to know how these "yes it is; no it isn't" disputes get resolved; it seems to be at an impasse.

How do you think we can help?

Someone more knowledgeable about the criteria for citations, evidence, sources, etc. required for making additions such as this claim should evaluate the page and decide the fate.

Summary of dispute by Rbrohm
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Thistledowne
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Flbuk
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Lewis's trilemma#.22Largely_ignored_by_theologians_and_biblical_scholars.2C_who_do_not_view_Jesus_as_having_claimed_to_be_God..22 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Indo-Pakistani War_of_1971#RFC.2C_Should_.22Decisive_victory_of_Provisional_Banlgladesh_Government.22_be_written_in_result.3F
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 survey was completed on whether to include Bangladesh in the results section of the article. user:Human3015, however, continues to exclude mention of any sort of Bengali victory in the war, even though it is based on historical sources.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We talked on the discuss page and the majority agreed that Bangladesh should be included in the results section.

How do you think we can help?

Try and get to the bottom of why Human3015 keeps on removing this.

Summary of dispute by Human3015
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Indo-Pakistani War_of_1971#RFC.2C_Should_.22Decisive_victory_of_Provisional_Banlgladesh_Government.22_be_written_in_result.3F discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Although there has been significant prior discussion on the talk page, none of it is recent. There hasn't been any discussion between the parties there since August. JQTriple7 (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Health care in the United States
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 conflict on whether the several articles that relate to the Healthcare of the United States contain excessive negativity and are biased towards such negative opinions, including the sources that are largely opinion based and not reliable. It can potentially affect the neutrality and reliability of the articles in question as well.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing the issue constructively with the user on the article's talk page. Notifying another administrator for possible assistance as well. The admin is: User:The Blade of the Northern Lights

How do you think we can help?

Provide neutral insights on this issue and give a constructive decision on how to resolve this heated problem regarding an important aspect of Wikipedia.

Summary of dispute by CFCF
The filing user has provided no sources for any statements whatsoever and simply deletes properly sourced material they find objectionable. There are other parties present in the discussion, also detailed in the currently active post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine. Even a cursory glance at the page histories show that this single editor has seen unilateral opposition (from at least 6 other editors) and is now engaging in yet another time sink. (I have added more editors to the list of involved parties, because they have either edited the articles in question or commented about the behavior of the IP-user) Please disregard this notice and close as appropriate. CFCF  💌 📧 22:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Drbogdan
I also agree with the comments made by "User:CFCF" re the issue(s) presented (hopefully, this is a better location for my comment than my earlier post below) - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MaterialScientist
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Escape Orbit
I have some sympathy for the specific issue that filing editor 2601:647:4601:4634:D455:1D6A:4C07:B030 raised regarding the view that "Issues like injuries, homicides and sexually transmitted infections cannot be atributed to the system of healthcare or can be atributed at most a little."

However, when it was suggested that perhaps the content in question be moved to a new, more suitable article (like Health in the USA), this was rejected on the grounds that this article would also "portray the U.S. in a negative light". So the chief concern isn't accuracy or neutrality, but the image of the U.S.?

The other thrust of the filing editor's argument is that the fact was poorly sourced. It was sourced from an academic paper written for the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Some may disagree with the conclusions reached, but there are no grounds for questioning its reliability as a source.

The topic of this article can be controversial, and naturally opinions differ. It would be more profitable use of time to balance the opinions (and facts that they are based on) with others authoritative sources, rather than simply requesting that content is removed because you don't like it. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Flyer22 Reborn
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Ozzie10aaaa
I would concur with CFCF appraisal of the situation on the article in question,( and have little to add beyond his statement above) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Health care in the United States discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Once again, CFCF is attacking me for my efforts to improve Wikipedia, even if some appear to not adhere to the editing protocols. We need a constructive way to resolve this problem, not just simply demanding this discussion to be closed and disregarded without any user input from others and let the issue prevail with possibly even more negative consequences. I agree that I have deleted too much without giving an appropriate edit summary but since the changes have been undone before this dispute occurred, I think we should move on to resolving the dispute and the quality of the articles itself. 2601:647:4601:4634:D455:1D6A:4C07:B030 (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

✅ There has been sufficient prior discussion on the talk page. JQTriple7 (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * FWIW - Thank you *very much* for inviting me to comment on the issue - yes - *entirely* agree with *all* the recent related comments above (as well as on the talk-page) made by "User:CFCF" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You just copied and pasted what you wrote from the Talk Page. Not needed for this discussion. Also, going back to what CFCF said about all the editors opposing this, not all of the users listed are actively opposed against my good faith intentions, some actually want this discussion to occur, not the other way around. 2601:647:4601:4634:D455:1D6A:4C07:B030 (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Not all participants have been notified on their talk pages. Filing party should do so, otherwise I will do so shortly. JQTriple7 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Please keep discussion to a minimum before the case is opened by a volunteer. Thanks, JQTriple7 (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC) ✅ All participants have been notified on their talk pages. JQTriple7 (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Recusing myself from volunteering on this request as I have interactions with at least two editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC) After a close look, I don't see any rules this chapter break and the consensus go toward keeping it. Everyone seem open for a sourced replacement or addition. However, this would require an actual suggestion. Iluvalar (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC) - There are errors in the filing of this case. The filing party has failed to list themselves as a party to the case, but has listed two editors who have not been involved either in the discussion on the article talk page or in editing the article. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but am recommending that it be procedurally declined. All editors are advised to be civil and concise, both here and on the article talk page. Civility is not optional in Wikipedia, and excessively long posts are often ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

- Having read the unhatted statements and discussion, I think sending this back to WPMedicine or to the article's talk page for the 2601 IPv6 user to establish consensus for the changes that they want to make. Pending no reasoned objections, I intend to close this thread with those reccomendations 48 hours from my timestamp. Hasteur (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with the recommendations. Discussion will now take place on: Talk:Health care in the United States. 2601:647:4601:4634:A8D3:C40:D286:B3E2 (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)