Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 144

Talk:Organizational behavior
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

On the organizational behavior topic there is a big messy un-sourced list of disciplines and then even sub-disciplines. there are no reliable sources in the list in the article and i thought we could just boldly remove un-sourced material. am i in the right place? could someone lend a hand over there and help resolve this. That would be great.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

tried to point out no un-sourced material and offered to delete the un-sourced section instead of add even more un-sourced material as iss246 suggested we do

How do you think we can help?

hoping to have this amicably settled with no additional conflict

Summary of dispute by iss246
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Organizational behavior discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - The filing party is requested to notify the other editors on their talk pages of this filing. This thread will be closed if notice is not given so that the other editors can decide whether they want to participate. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not yet notified the other editor of the filing of this request.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Volunteer note - The filing party is requested to notify the other editors on their talk pages of this filing.  This thread will be closed if notice is not given so that the other editors can decide whether they want to participate.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * iss246 has been notified now was not aware this was needed. regardless its completed now.Happydaise (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Iran–PJAK conflict
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

In Iran–PJAK conflict, I have added verifiable content from and attributed to reliable sources. User:Greyshark09 started a pseudo-editwar, making constant groundless claimes that my edit violates various guidlines and policies without further explaination.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Step one, I have tried to discuss with User:Greyshark09, however he seems reluctant to discuss and evades answering me. Step two, I requested for a Third opinion, it was not answered. Note: I filed a dispute resolution (Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 143) but I forgot to notify the user and it was closed.

How do you think we can help?

I think this is a Civil POV pushing case, and hard to be dealt. Maybe an experienced user can help.

Summary of dispute by Greyshark09
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Iran–PJAK conflict discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has not been any discussion this month (in November). Recent discussion should be a prerequisite to a filing here.  The parties are advised to go back to the article talk page and resume discussion.  If discussion is inconclusive, a new case can be filed here.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Ferenc Szaniszl%C3%B3
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 have a dispute on the following:

should we, or should not we insert "who face discrimination" in the text of the article

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

On the talk page, the editors, who helped the creation of the article, have a looong discussion. The article itself was about to be a Soapbox - if You take a look at the Talk Page, You can see, what I am talking about.

How do you think we can help?

I think the whole article should be rewritten in a more neutral tone. We are unable to do it, I was accused of lots of things, and get really annoyed, the others are pushing some political agenda.

Summary of dispute by Thucydides411
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Summary of dispute by Norden1990
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Ferenc Szaniszl%C3%B3 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - The filing party is requested to notify the other editors on their talk pages of this filing. This thread will be closed if notice is not given so that the other editors can decide whether they want to participate. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editors of this filing.  (Notice on the article talk page, while a good idea, is not sufficient notice.)  Neither accepting nor declining at this time.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Superstore (season_2)
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

Dispute over how the cast is listed on that page, as well as whether future unaired episode should be shown on the page

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

User tried discussing on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

Come up with a revision that all parties can agree with

Summary of dispute by Brianis19
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Tornado1117
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Superstore (season_2) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:BarlowGirl
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

BarlowGirl (BG) has endorsed a host of secular artists over the years, both while active as a band and also after disbanding. In band years, the sisters played The Beatles music at a number of concerts. The Mamas & the Papas is also cited as a musical influence. In 2013 and even in January 2014, the band operated a BarlowGirl Merch store despite claiming to be disbanded. During this time, BG cited artists such as Bruno Mars and Beyoncé as influences. Since February 2016, Lauren Barlow said she admires Lady Gaga's work. The band did all of this despite its messages like "don't conform", purity, etc.

A number of users, from 68.108.83.5 to Instaurare to Walter Görlitz, have so far refused to allow a balanced perspective to be shared on this article. I believe that all these users have a pro-BarlowGirl bias. It's one thing to disagree with part of my edit. It's quite another to intentionally conceal information simply because it reveals notable, long-held concerns about contemporary Christian music (CCM) like BarlowGirl.

The final revised edit, which I did after reviewing feedback from other Wikipedians that objected to my earlier edits, may be found here here. Nevertheless, it was rejected.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

In addition to discussing on the article's talk page, I discussed on Walter Görlitz's talk page, which he responded to by directing me to the BarlowGirl talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I would like all sides of the issue to be fairly represented. Consider the edits I made to "Pink (Victoria's Secret)", for example: both pro-VS and anti-VS perspective that are notable, appropriate and relevant to the article are included. I am asking for the same standard to be followed with BarlowGirl (BG), which already discusses objections to Mercy Ministries in a fair matter. Likewise, BG's musical influences are very much worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article.

Talk:BarlowGirl 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 some discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not listed the other editors, let alone notifying them.  The filing party should list and notify the other editors within 24 hours.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:United States_presidential_election,_2016#Results_section
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 dispute is regarding the 2016 Presidential election vote count. My position is that Associated Press results has higher WP:WEIGHT than the Leip's Atlas source (because it includes members of every media organization in the US and David Leip's website appears to be doing some projecting models). It should be used for the vote count in the info box.

My second position is that we should probably try to find a more authoritative source than Leip's atlas for 3rd party counting, but we should leave it for now. CrazySeiko doesn't like Leip's atlas.

MaverickLittle position is that Leip's Atlas is a more accurate source than AP for the infobox.

My main concern is MarverickLittle's behavior, he appears extremely agitated that I am trying to discuss this with him, and explaining to him WP:WEIGHT guidelines. Really i think he has been rather abusive. I asked him in edit comments to discuss in the talk page with no results. Then I went to his talk page to consider WP guidelines and ask him to discuss it on the article talk page,and told me to get off his talk page. He finally went to the 2016 Election talk page after I asked him several more times. I'm finding it hard to discuss this with him as he is projecting incorrect positions on to me. He also removed the factual dispute on the results page without establishing consensus.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried engaging talk page discussion via edit comments, tried engaging discussion on his talk page to get him to discuss on article talk page. Tried talking with him on article talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Overall, I'd really like dispute resolution to A) give an opinion about the usage of Liep's Atlas vs. Associated press for the 2016 Election results infobox. (For the article body 3rd party votes, I'm fine leaving it until we can get a better source.) B) Talk to MaverickLittle about being more respectful and constructive in discussion and establishing consensus rather rather than dismissing people and acting unilaterally. This is really my main concern.

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

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

Talk:United States_presidential_election,_2016#Results_section 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 extensive discussion at the article talk page. It isn't clear from this filing whether the filing editor wants to discuss content or the conduct of an editor.  Any discussion here will be limited to article content.  If the filing party wants to discuss editor conduct, they may file a report at WP:ANI or at the edit-warring noticeboard, or they may provide formal notice of ArbCom discretionary sanctions under the American politics case as a preliminary step to requesting Arbitration Enforcement.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Im not taking part in this because all I said was I just want everyone to be singing off the same hym sheet, wiki needs to have clear and consent information but different facts. plus I get said this """ No, your statement is simply not true. I'm not taking anything to heart. Besides you don't know what is in my heart. All you know is some writing on a computer screen. This section is designed for a discussion of how to make this particular article better. It is not designed for you to comment, incorrectly, what is or is not in my heart. What is in my heart is not an appropriate topic for this talk page and, of course, you are incorect. The Leip Atlas is the only option for the table at the end of the article. I have asked for an alternative and there has not been one provided.--ML (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)"" SO no I think this is joke.


 * Comment Have you considered adding both the sources? I'm sorry if you've discussed this already on the talkpage, but it was difficult to navigate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I dont know, none of the ref would comply with each other. This page is getting worse  look what Ive been given now... """ POTUS 2016[edit] This is your last warning before you are referred to WP:ANEW. I have tagged you at section 35 of that talk page, yet you continue to resort to only reverting and excusing said reverts with uncouth and moronic edit summaries. You should be ashamed of yourself for basic arithmetic fallacies: the denominator (VAP) increased more quickly than the numerator (ballots cast) did. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)"" This is how bad this page has become.. Its beyond a joke and people just dont care about having the correct details. """ --Crazyseiko (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with both sources on the page text. I just wanted to put the Associated Press results in the Top level InfoBox, I think it only has room for 1 results and I think AP has more weight via WP:WEIGHT. I'm also sort of baffled by the talk page discussions so I came here for more eyes. I'm fine with leaving Leip for the 3rd party results with a disclaimer until we find a stronger source. (It's basically just David Leip computing these on his self published website, but people in the industry say its accurate).Gsonnenf (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Volunteer note - Do the parties wish to discuss article content? The recent posts do not appear to be constructive.  Keep discussion to a minimum here until and unless a moderator accepts the case.  All posts should be signed, and unsigned posts will be deleted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really no, since Ive keep getting those types of post being left. --Crazyseiko (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I opened this to discuss article content and move towards constructive discussion. If the other parties don't want to discuss content in a constructive manner, I guess I could just open an ANI.Gsonnenf (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Superstore (season 2)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

User claims copyvios and revert away episode summaries trying to write short episode summaries for the page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried discussion on talkpage but unable to resolve.

How do you think we can help?

Come up with a compromise and explain that writing short episode summaries is not copyright infringement as the summaries submitted don't appear on any other site.

Summary of dispute by Brianis19
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Talk:Superstore (season 2) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

List of_notable_people_from_Derry
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

Steven McGonigal is listed under "Authors" from derry - Another user keeps removing his name. I feel it is unfair as Steven McGonigal is an author and is from derry!

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I would like to ask that HighKing stops removing Steven McGonigal as an author

How do you think we can help?

Do a search on Steven McGonigal, you will find he is a country sports writer from derry, and ask HighKing that he refrain from deleting him from the page.

Summary of dispute by HighKing
Some stretching of the truth going on by Cherryamo. Before today (25th), the same day this dispute was filed, there have been no attempts to discuss this anywhere. Nothing has been posted on the article Talk page and one message was posted on my Talk page at 00:39 and 5 minutes! later, this complaint was filed here. As to the dispute itself, its a very simple case since there has been zero discussion. An editor has been adding the name "Steven McGonigal" to the List of notable people from Derry with zero indications of notability and certainly nothing like enough to meet the criteria in WP:JOURNALIST. It's on my watchlist and when I see it, I remove it. Also, not only is Cherryamo an WP:SPA with a grand total of 5 edits, I suspect this is the same editor as User: Steven.mcgonigal and User:JOHNRIDLEY and anon IPs 109.77.203.128, 109.77.203.227 and 109.78.237.86 who also tried adding the name. Based on the name User: Steven.mcgonigal there may be conflict of interest issues. -- HighKing ++ 15:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Talk:BarlowGirl
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

BarlowGirl (BG) has endorsed a host of secular artists over the years, both while active as a band and also after disbanding. In band years, the sisters played The Beatles music at a number of concerts. The Mamas & the Papas is also cited as a musical influence. In 2013 and even in January 2014, the band operated a BarlowGirl Merch store despite claiming to be disbanded. During this time, BG cited artists such as Bruno Mars and Beyoncé as influences. Since February 2016, Lauren Barlow said she admires Lady Gaga's work. The band did all of this despite its messages like "don't conform", purity, etc.

A number of users, from 68.108.83.5 to Instaurare to Walter Görlitz, have so far refused to allow a balanced perspective to be shared on this article. I believe that all these users have a pro-BarlowGirl bias. It's one thing to disagree with part of my edit. It's quite another to intentionally conceal information simply because it reveals notable, long-held concerns about contemporary Christian music (CCM) like BarlowGirl.

The final revised edit, which I did after reviewing feedback from other Wikipedians that objected to my earlier edits, may be found here here. Nevertheless, it was rejected.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

In addition to discussing on the article's talk page, I discussed on Walter Görlitz's talk page, which he responded to by directing me to the BarlowGirl talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I would like all sides of the issue to be fairly represented. Consider the edits I made to "Pink (Victoria's Secret)", for example: both pro-VS and anti-VS perspective that are notable, appropriate and relevant to the article are included. I am asking for the same standard to be followed with BarlowGirl (BG), which already discusses objections to Mercy Ministries in a fair matter. Likewise, BG's musical influences are very much worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article.

Talk:BarlowGirl discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * So first, LABcrabs has not discussed it on the talk page. What the editor has done is push an position that remains unexplained. That position is one common in some Christian fundamentalist circles: that anything that is not explicitly Christian is evil and anyone who participates in this sort of activity is worldly and has compromised their faith. To that end, LABcrabs has used sources that fail either WP:RS or Wikipedia's copyright policy. So until you can admit that you're pushing WP:POV, I can't continue in this discussion. You did the same that the Pink (Victoria's Secret) and I reverted and tagged and oddly, you simply restored your poor content there. I don't have it on my watch list and I won't follow you around. So in short, LABcrabs does not really want "all sides of the issue to be fairly represented" as is claimed above, the editor wants to push a position. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's simple: LABcrabs has not provided reliable sources for his content. Instaurare (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To answer both of you: the position is not what you claim it to be; my position clearly reflects BarlowGirl's material (blogs, books, music, interviews, concert footage, etc.) in depth. The band's signature verses were Romans 12:2 and 1 Peter 2:9. With these (I personally use KJV) and other BarlowGirl (BG) teachings, one would reasonably expect the band to flee Bruno Mars and Lady Gaga's blasphemous presentations and non-marital sex themes. By editing the article, I simply pointed out the work BG endorses, despite such artists opposing the values BG showcased.


 * Artists like BG try to appeal to many markets: fundamental Christians, liberal professing Christians and even the mainstream secular market. Songs like "Never Alone" make no clear mention of Jesus or even God. I don't use "anything that is not explicitly Christian" as my measurement. What I did was simply compare the band's teachings (stop watching porn, stay away from sexual sin, even Lauren asking fans to reconsider their music playlists) to what the sisters are actually doing today. With Bruno et compagnie, the band is sending a mixed message. It doesn't add up.


 * I never received any notification that my VS Pink edits were problematic. I added three photos (two stores and one "bike corset"; I only show one store on the page), changed "appropriate for such-and-such age group" to "targeted to such-and-such age group" and wrote a few sentences on Kylie Bisutti's "Pink to Purpose" campaign. It balances things out. It's not undue weight and I plan to translate it verbatim to French.


 * BG band members were made aware of these concerns and many more. They simply brushed it off and, in the case of Alyssa, AWOLed on Twitter. To paint these sisters as holy angels (which is what the article does when omitting any concerns whatsoever) on Wikipedia is wrong. To paint these sisters as wicked devils (which would be an article that neglects the sisters' musical career and gives undue weight on possible dirty laundry) on Wikipedia is wrong, too. I added a note on the Mercy Ministries controversy a while back and it remained intact and uncontested. What I'm simply asking now is an accurate summary of BG's musical influences (Lauren following and praising Lady Gaga on Twitter is a clear sign of influence) and a small note on what it means in light of everything the band has taught throughout its career. --LABcrabs (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion to a minimum before the case is opened. If need be, please continue in the article's talk page. I'm neither accepting nor declining this case at this moment. Also, Op is asked to include the usernames of the other parties in the section above. Regards— UY Scuti Talk  18:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - Filing party has not listed the other editors. Filing party has 24 hours to list and notify the other editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Heathenry (new religious movement)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I have been trying to add academically referenced information to the page, but one editor has removed content or blocked editors (on false sock puppet charges) for the last two years. She has taken down at least six editors.

I would love to donate to wikipedia, but I am only when it functions as a forum for truth....

Dear readers,

Today we ask those of you in the U.S. to help Wikipedia. To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We're sustained by donations averaging about $15. Only a tiny portion of our readers give. Now is the time we ask. If everyone reading this right now gave $3, our fundraiser would be done within an hour. That's right, the price of a cup of coffee is all we need.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I asked my professor, who teaches a class on the subject, to contact the wikipedia administration, but they referred it to the sock-puppet people, and they did nothing

How do you think we can help?

Simply inform all editors on the page that academically referenced information may not be removed without cause

Summary of dispute by (cur | prev) 12:59
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by 10 November 2016‎ Midnightblueowl (talk | contribs)‎ . . (95
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by 379 bytes) (-967)‎ . . (Undid revision 748757165 by 50.126.235.193 (talk); undoing edits by repeated sock puppet.)
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Heathenry (new religious movement) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Party and_play
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I am new to wikipedia authorship, but that does not mean I am new to debating, new to ethics, new to informational corrections.

Initally, I placed my talk comments on the page. They were deleted by JamesBWatson. After Placing this commet on his page, he restores my Talk Discussion.

Following The Rules : Neutrality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JamesBWatson/Open#Following_The_Rules_:_Neutrality

But I am still not able to get authority to alter the focus of this article.

WHAT I STATE IS THIS:

BLATANT BIAS -- APPEARS TO BE HOMOPHOBIC TO BE ABUSED BY VIOLATIONS OF PRIVACY

THIS ARTICLE AS IT IS APPEARS IS HOMOPHOBIC IN PRESENTATION

FROM SCIENTIFIC FACTS (2014 Forward) VS. PRESENTATIONS ARE DATED AND PROVEN UNTRUE.

First comment regarding Homophobic presence of this article stands Feb2016

I think maybe the tag was added because of all the homophobic subtext? A completely naive reader only reading this article might be led to think sex on meth was a purely gay phenomenon. PNP might be gay slang, but I highly doubt gay men are the only people who have sex while high. Quodfui (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

PLEASE REVIEW MY TALK DISCUSSION IN WHOLE/ PLEASE REVIEW MY RE-ADDRESS TO EDITOR JamesBWatson

Please Advise.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have been deleted time and time again for attemptimg to get voice on this stated focus of this article is BIASED!

No one so far acnowlowedges this TRUE STANDING.

How do you think we can help?

This Article States LAW ARTICLES on PRIVACY and Computing and Moral Responsbility citation section relavant to why this article shows not CENTERED NEUTRALITY.

I PROTEST!

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

Talk:Jerrycan#Removal of_Roosevelt_quote
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 Roosevelt quote in the article on jerrycans that is in utter conflict with actual history. It is misleading people into believing an utterly wrong idea of history (disinformation). I removed it, reverted, rinse and repeat. I then did let it in place, but even a quadruple-sourced (internal links to wiki pages on the historical events) addition to the text that clarifies how wrong the quote is was deleted.

So now Wikipedia makes people believe that the Allies liberated France quicker in 1944 than the Germans defeated it in 1940. In actual history (undisputed) the Allies did barely break out of the Normandy invasion zone as quick as France+Belgium+Netherlands+Luxembourg were defeated in 1940. This nonsense is hidden in the jerrycan article, where readers have no immediate means to check the actual historical dates without leaving the page. The appeal to authority "(President Roosevelt") likely makes the fantasy history claim believable to readers, which makes it even worse.

I want at the very least ensure that nobody gets misled by the (utterly needless) quote in the article if the nonsense quote cannot be deleted entirely.

My last (reverted) edit added this: " This statement was actually incorrect and had it backwards because the Battle of France in 1940 lasted from 10 May to 25 June only, whereas the Allies needed much longer than that (June 6 to mid-July for the Invasion of Normandy alone, till August 25 for the Liberation of Paris and the Siegfried Line at Germany's Western border was reached only by September). "

The other editors utterly disregard the disinformation problem and are determined to keep the misleading quote in there, though it has practically no descriptive value on the item the article is devoted to.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk Page, answer on my user talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lastdingo#November_2016

How do you think we can help?

Tell them this is no place for disinformation and fantasy history statements and quadruple internal linking to relevant events articles is enough and suitable sourcing to prove that the quote has a counterfactual meaning. Or even better, make sure this crappy disinformation disappears and put the page on protection (after solving the content issue) if possible and necessary.

Summary of dispute by Chaheel Riens
My position is essentially the same as Andy Dingley's, as I've pointed out on both talk page, and in edit summaries - and let's also note that it was I who started the talk page discussion, not LastDingo. It's the context of the quote that's important - even if Roosevelt was wrong, or given inaccurate information - he (that is, The President of the United States of America - a reasonably influential person,) believed that the Jerrycan was so important that success would not have happened without it. That's why the quote is present. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MartinezMD
I share a similar position to Andy. The quote is direct from FDR's report to the US congress about the Lend Lease program and correctly attributed to him. FDR being correct or mistaken does not alter the fact he made the statement. A properly referenced footnote mentioning the potential timeline inaccuracy would be the correct way to go here is my opinion. Lastdingo seems to personally argue the point in his proposed addition to the article, and I believe that is not the right way to do it. MartinezMD (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Andy Dingley
(I was the first to revert this. I'm surprised I wasn't listed here.)

It is false and misleading to state, "There is a Roosevelt quote in the article on jerrycans that is in utter conflict with actual history." The quote is sourced and accurate.

Roosevelt may have been imprecise or inaccurate here. I have no idea, I do not feel any need to compare their rates of advance. Roosevelt's obvious point is that the jerrycan was important in the Allied forces achieving the speed that they did, i.e. he is conveying the importance of the jerrycan, not the speed of the advance. That much is relevant and belongs here. There is no more need to nitpick the quote now than there would have been for a newspaper editor at the time to correct him.

There is room for clarifying this - which personally I'd keep as a footnote, not inlined. But Lastdingo has not done this in any proportionate way. As he has now switched to abusing other editors, I have increasingly less interest in going in circles with this. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

DMorpheus2 input
I agree with those editors who think the quote should remain, for the reasons already stated. If I may add a couple additional thoughts:
 * US Presidents do not normally make comments about such minor pieces of equipment as a jerrycan. Usually they can be considered well-informed if they know the difference between a tank and a mess kit. FDR was the leader of the biggest economy in the biggest worldwide military effort ever. Thus I think the comment is really of interest because, merely by showing that FDR knew what jerrycans were, it tells the reader that they were pretty damned important. This is in a similar vein to the content I added many months ago about how many millions were required by the US Army. It tells the reader something about the significance of the cans.
 * The rate at which various forces advanced across France is not really central to this point and is best ignored. Again, wiki's standard is verifiability, not truth. FDR was also rather well-known as a serial exaggerator. But, in case anyone wants to argue this point anyway, and acknowledging none of us can read FDR's mind, I suspect he was comparing the 1940 campaign to the dash across France that began on July 25, 1944. US units reached the German border on Sep 11. It's pretty close if that's how he was thinking about it. DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jerrycan#Removal of_Roosevelt_quote 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 adequate discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other two listed editors.  Another editor who has not been listed has replied and will be added to the list of parties.  I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator
I will be accepting this case for moderated discussion. See User:Robert McClenon/Mediation rules. I see that one issue is a quote from Franklin D. Roosevelt, which appears to be a historically valid quote in which President Roosevelt was historically wrong. Will each editor please state what they see as the issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Johor Bahru
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 user by the name of Johorean Guy used misleading information to claim that Iskandar Malaysia (Johor Bahru) is the second largest metropolitan area in Malaysia, even though statistics point otherwise. Johorean Guy has undid my revisions and engaged in an edit war.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have corrected the information, based on Malaysia's 2010 census figures and metropolitan definitions, which state that Johor Bahru is the third largest (not second) metropolitan area in the country. But my revisions have repeatedly been undone by Johorean Guy.

How do you think we can help?

By mediating a neutral solution to this issue and prevent misinformation.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johor Bahru&action=history discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - It appears that this case is about Johor Bahru. There has been no discussion at the talk page, Talk:Johor Bahru.  Discussion should take place on the talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert. Regarding the edit war in Johor Bahru, I received this somewhat crude, ridiculous explanation on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Semi-auto&oldid=751918605

Translation : Hello, Penangite, Penang is already behind the times. So dont feel paranoid. Ikea, Paradigm Mall & Southkey Mall is opening in JB. JB's highways are also longer than Penang.. Built-up area in JB is larger than Penang.. High speed rail will also commence in Johor.. About 60 elevated highways are under construction in Iskandar.. Penang's era is over Stop vandalising the Johor Bahru page or I will report your account.
 * Volunteer note - There still has been no discussion at the talk page, whether in English or in another language. Discussion in the English Wikipedia should be in English.  I may close this as a conduct dispute.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

A new section on this disputable content has been opened at the Johor Bahru talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Johor_Bahru#Second_largest_metropolitan_area_in_Malaysia_.3F Awaiting further developments.Semi-auto (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

User talk:146.111.30.193
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

Utcursch and I had a dispute on Khas people.

I cited two refs to show that most Bahun and Chhetri form the basis of a nation/ethnic group called Khas, with the first ref states that the present day Chhetri belonged to the nation Khas and the second asserted that Bahun and Chhetri belong to the same nation/ethnic/people.

Utcursch alleged that both were "fake references" and intimidate me that I would be blocked.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Nothing yet.

How do you think we can help?

Clarifying whether the two references establish the fact that Bahun and Chhetri form a nation whose name was Khas. If not, what kind of statement do I need to find in a reference to establish it.

Also, what's the Wikipedia definition of a "fake reference" and was my reference "fake" according to Wikipedia standard?

Thank you!

Summary of dispute by Utcursch
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. --146.111.30.193 (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The references that the 146.111.30.193 is talking about:


 * "first ref"
 * P. 119 states that Jang Bahadur re-labeled the Khas jāt (Khas caste) as Chetri (Chhetri).
 * "second ref"
 * (Let's ignore it's acceptability for a second) It talks about two distinct castes called Chhetri and Bahun. It does not mention the word Khas or nation.

146.111.30.193 synthesizes these two to claim that "Bahun and Chhetri form the basis of a nation/ethnic group called Khas", which is original research. All I'm asking for is a source that directly supports 146.111.30.193's claim. utcursch &#124; talk 21:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, and by "fake references", I mean things like this: the content does not even mention the term "Khas". utcursch &#124; talk 21:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

User talk:146.111.30.193 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - This appears to be about Khas people. There has been no discussion on the article talk page, Talk: Khas people.  Discuss on the article page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Fidel Castro
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 issue: Whether we should include the word dictator in the lede sentence for the article that talks about Fidel Castro.

My position: Fidel was a brutal dictator. This word "dictator" should be included in the lede sentence.

There is a discussion on what constitutes a "reliable source". Some people say that press in China, Russia, and other places were there is no free speech are comparable to US sources. Some people want to express an unbalanced opinion on the issue by saying that if Fidel was not called dictator by some, that is enough for Wikipedia not to do it. Many other dictators are referred as such in the lede sentence or paragraph like Pinochet, Trujillo, Franco, Stalin, etc. Why should Fidel be different? Many articles have been provided showing the many murders that he was part of and ordered, yet these sources are not taken into account. I provided a database with victims listed. The ones that do not want to put that word in the lede, recur to name calling, ad hominem attacks, and belittling other editors. They do not provide evidence.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Removing subjectivity by providing a definition for what a dictator is. Provided articles and database that proof the atrocities suffered by the Cubans.

How do you think we can help?

Finding a way to apply the definition for dictator consistently across the entire encyclopedia. What should be satisfied for a person to be called dictator. What constitutes a reliable source? Same newspapers contradict themselves thru time. Newspapers from different countries contradict themselves. Maybe newspapers is not the way to go? Yet I see value in newspapers, good articles, good writers, truth seekers, yet other have an agenda to push thru.

Summary of dispute by Guccisamsclub
An Rfc would be the best way to do it. Way too many editors involved and the topic is of interest to the broader community, not just those who've been participating in the relatively recent dispute. Otherwise agree with TFD.

Summary of dispute by MelanieN
Agree with TFD. We need to reflect the balance of world opinion, not just American sources or our own definition of what a dictator is. The article currently reflects that balance, saying in both the body of the text and the last paragraph of the lede that some view him a dictator, and summarizing human rights issues. The lede sentence correctly call him a "revolutionary"; all sources from all viewpoints seem to agree on that description. --MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC) (May I add that I am grateful to User:Jhaydn2016 for bringing this here. The edit warring had gotten so bad that the page is currently locked for a week.)

Summary of dispute by emijrp
Just give a look to Death and state funeral of Fidel Castro article which has plenty of references and a worldwide perspective of Fidel. The only world leaders that name him a dictator come from United States and Sweden (well, senators from USA aren't world leaders...). Revolutionary and other positive adjectives are among the most popular ones. ¡Hasta la victoria siempre! emijrp (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Scaleshombre
Agree with Jhaydn2016. Ample RS for decades refer to Castro as "dictator." WP uses the term for similar leaders. Scaleshombre (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by TFD
Whether or not Castro was a dictator, mainstream sources usually do not refer to him as a dictator in their descriptions. They generally say his critics saw him as a dictator, his supporters did not. The examples provided where a person is described in the lead differ. Mainstream sources always refer to them as dictators in their descriptions and they had formally assumed dictatorial power: the constitution was suspended and they ruled by formal executive orders. TFD (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Also agree with TFD. As for Pinochet et al: See WP:OTHERSTUFF. "Finding a way to apply the definition for dictator consistently across the entire encyclopedia" is not what I'd consider a plausibly reachable goal. Better go for peace in Palestine. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jacob2718
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Kaldari
The lead already describes Castro as a dictator with proper context: "Conversely, critics view him as a dictator whose administration oversaw human-rights abuses, the exodus of a large number of Cubans, and the impoverishment of the country's economy." Considering that Castro is a very polarizing figure, even within the U.S., I think this is the best compromise we can hope for. Describing him as a dictator in the lead sentence is just going to cause endless edit warring (as we've already seen). Reliable sources are all over the map as far as how they portray him. It would violate WP:NPOV (and arguably WP:BLP) for us to take a side in the lead sentence without qualification. Kaldari (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Cambalachero
I also think that a RFC would be the best venue for this dicussion. Cambalachero (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TeeVeeed
I think that we have enough reliable source English language references that describe him as a dictator, that it should be a non-issue. I've never heard of trying to include sources and references from Africa and China before, (and only because they do NOT use that word-so in a you cannot prove a negative sort of way)...using the fact that South Korea for instance, does NOT call-out castro as a dictator, and if for some reason they even did, how would we even know what that is in OTHER LANGUAGES? It is NOT "UNDUE by omission"? The discussion is absurd imo, but I look forward to whatever consensus is decided.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Tataral
There is clearly consensus on the talk page for describing Castro as a dictator, or his regime as a dictatorship, in the first paragraph of the lead. Dictator is a widely used term, both with reference to Castro specifically, but also more broadly with reference to non-democratic leaders who may have held formal titles which didn't convey the nature of their position (e.g. president, chancellor, prime minister, secretary-general etc.). The articles on right-wing dictators such as Pinochet seem to always include the word dictator/dictatorship in the first paragraph of the lead. Describing Castro as a dictator has certainly nothing to do with an "American bias" or anything like it; rather it the word used by all mainstream reliable sources across the planet, as firmly established on the talk page. The idea that we shouldn't describe him as a dictator because his following on Cuba objects to it is comparable to the idea that the article on Hitler shouldn't describe him as a dictator because it would offend old-guard national socialists who insist that he should only be described with his formal titles as "Leader and Chancellor." It's pretty much a non-argument with no basis in Wikipedia policy. --Tataral (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Fidel Castro discussion
This should be an RfC. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wherever this is decided, I would like to point out to Jhaydn2016 that Wikipedia does not define or agree to define things. We refrence what reliable sources say. Even if we did that, using such a definition to define another topic, like castro, would be WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. I like the discussion, but hope that the question could be more in line with current policies since this looks like it would cross multiple lines as-is. What we can do is agree to apply polices like reliable sourcing to contentious material. For the record, I am not aware that there is anything that would require us to favor global sources, especially if they are not in English for English language Wikipedia.TeeVeeed (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has notified all of the listed editors of this filing (although they didn't identify this noticeboard explicitly as the place for the filing).  Due to the very large number of listed editors, discussion here is probably not a feasible way to resolve the dispute.  The suggestion of some editors to use a Request for Comments is a good idea.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * An RfC was started today. See Talk:Fidel Castro. --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Guru Gobind_Singh, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nanded&oldid=751314497
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

1-It is basically about using Ji after the Guru's name. People are disagreeing on that but how is it possible to show disrespect to God? Using of Ji will only show the younger generation that we need to respect our Gods.

2- Second disppute is about using the word died for Guru. A Guru never dies but he/she attains immortality.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried talking to a few directly but got no satisfactory response. They rather changed my edit again and again as well.

How do you think we can help?

I need a moderator. People are ganging up. I need a fair person to hear me out as the topic is very near to me. It is my faith.

Summary of dispute by Mike Rosoft

 * There is nothing here to discuss; User:Paramdeeptung is ignoring the clear policies and guidelines, and revert warring. Wikipedia is not a religious text; it doesn't use honorifics after the names of important figures of various religions (except in direct quotes), and it doesn't include religious beliefs presented as a fact. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bonadea
I concur with what Mike Rosoft says above. In addition the editor is very new - their account was created today - and so they may not have realised that discussions on Wikipedia talk pages are not resolved in half an hour (which was the time elapsed before they created this DRN report). As regards "Ji", there are specific guidelines for that honorific at Project Sikhism, specifying that it should be used very sparingly. The user has been advised of this, both on their own talk page and elsewhere. My own involvement has been marginal. --bonadea contributions talk 21:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by KylieTastic
I reverted this users edits first due to the large number of errors created breaking images, wiki-links and template parameters (such as seen here). The user complains of "disrespect to God" but this breaking of many article elements was I would have though a bigger disrespect to the subject. I answered the users query on my talk page here basically pointing out the errors they had caused, as well as additional reasons aka MOS:HONORIFIC and suggesting that they should not remove died/death etc but could consider adding that it was considered by their faith as meaning the subject had "attained immortality". I've not been involved further in their escalation. KylieTastic (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by David Biddulph
Paramdeeptung's edit warring on Guru Gobind Singh is typified by (which broke links such as the image link in the infobox and broke infobox functions such as the date of death) and  (which removed a number of references). His repeated disruption has been reported at WP:AIV, and at WP:AN3#User:‎Paramdeeptung reported by User:Arjayay (Result: ) (regarding Nanded where Paramdeeptung is now up to 7 reversions in 24 hours). When the effects of his disruption were pointed out to him by a number of experienced editors, his responses were Sockpuppet investigations/Mlpearc and this at WP:AN3. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Arjayay
I raised this at WP:Help desk but User:Paramdeeptung started edit warring before we had a (sensible) response. I pointed out the general rules at their talk page and pointed them to the guidelines at WikiProject Sikhism the response on my talk page was that they did not agree with me, so I stated "It is not ME you are disagreeing with - it is members of WikiProject Sikhism - who drafted the guidelines." But this was not accepted (their later posts on my TP deleted by others). Clearly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - (Also went to WP:DRN + WP:SPI within 9 hours of opening an account). - Arjayay (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Mlpearc

 * Per . -  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 00:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Guru Gobind_Singh, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nanded&oldid=751314497 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - The discussion on the article talk pages has been minimal, and editors are asked to continue discussion on the article talk pages. The filing party has not notified the other editors of this filing.  However, the filing party is also advised that Wikipedia is neutrally written, and will not adopt particular nomenclature only because a particular religion uses it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - The filing party has been blocked for 24 hours. They will come off block soon, but it is noted that an administrator found their edits to be disruptive.  If the other editors wish to engage in moderated discussion, one of them may state that they would like to engage in moderated discussion.  Otherwise this case will be closed as a conduct issue (disruptive editing).  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Oromo people
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

Stereotypes such as savage, pagan, inferior, enemy, bad people, heathen, ready to kill and brutal are added in an ethnic-group article. These are terms usually seen in propaganda leaflets to provoke ethnic violence & their importance were discussed in the articles talk-page as per WP:ONUS with no consensus. Editor's reasoning for adding them is to explain the reason for name change in which non of the sources used precisely said the old name was changed because of these but most likely (while still non of the sources also did precisely mentioned it) it was changed because it is not how they identify themselves. People have the right to identify themselves by names they choose but what is the importance of adding those stereotypes that were also associated with African ethnic-groups name in the very past, though they continued to refer themselves by their ethnic name inspite of it being associated with those kind of stereotypes. Simply put disputed content is somehow similar to the topic should we add the phrase: "Muslims view Americans as heathen or infidel people" on American people or add "White South Africans or Americans used to view Zulus or muslims with the above mentioned stereotypes" on Zulu and Muslim people Wikipedia article by quoting a Reliable source? Yes it is true there are some muslim Americans who have these kind of view but should it be included anyways?

Second issue is which source is appropriate to define the term Galla, the journal or Hassan? Hassan did not see the dictionary himself. If the dictionary is widely circulated then why not get the book from a nearby shop/library & proof himself instead of quoting another source printed in a printing organisation in which it's address is not found in Google?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed in the articles talk page

How do you think we can help?

Various editors provide their opinion and discuss the issue then provide their proposal or recommendation. Finally, we will edit the article as per WP:GOODFAITH, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:ONUS and WP:DUE in collaboration and by consensus.

Summary of dispute by Ms Sarah Welch
[1] The allegations raised by @EthiopianHabesha, in part, are incorrect. Here is the relevant article's section. The relevant talk page section is here, with context, and replies.

[2] Oromo people were referred to as "Galla", and not as Oromo, in extensive historical literature before 1893. The word Galla was the reference for them and it remained in active usage through 1970. The first part of the dispute is whether the old pre-1970 name of Oromo people should be censored in wikipedia. If the answer is no, and we mention "Oromo is relatively a new word, they were called Galla", then the obvious question in the reader's mind is why Galla name for a long time, why Oromo name now, why the change, what is the meaning of Galla, what is the meaning of Oromo?

[3] @EthiopianHabesha's view: WP:ONUS somehow implies 'don't answer these questions'. My view: per WP:CENSOR and WP:COMPREHENSIVE, the article should answer these questions, summarizing from scholarly reliable sources the reasons why, the when, the how of the historical persecution and name change of Oromo people. That is the dispute. (That is not the only dispute though; see article's edit history, WP:3O and restore by admin/arb-member and remarks to @EthiopianHabesha on the talk page).

[4] I do not understand the second part of @EthiopianHabesha's submission above, "Second issue is which source is appropriate to define the term Galla, the journal or Hassan? Hassan did not see the dictionary himself." The "Hassan source" was published by Cambridge University Press, and its review has been published in a scholarly paper here. It meets WP:RS requirements (fwiw, the article cites second sources). How can @EthiopianHabesha allege, "Hassan did not see the dictionary himself"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Doug Weller
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I've been struggling to understand the filer. I have asked them to be more specific, to avoid discussing other articles or make the sort of comparisons he is making. When I first ran into this dispute the editor was suggesting getting a 3rd opinion. I offered one and was still told there was no consensus. He disagrees over reliable sources but hasn't gone to RSN as requested over the dispute as to whether we should use a 1924 journal article by a British colonial administrator or a Cambridge University Press book which a review in the journal of the Institute of Ethiopian Studies calls "a fine scholarly work". The pagan bit is I think about a quote that states that ""Gadaa Melbaa has noted that 'the Abyssinians attach a derogatory connotation to the Galla, namely "pagan, savage, uncivilized, uncultured, enemy, slave or inherently inferior". And 'heathen' in this context means "non-Muslim". At the moment the article says "Scholarship that followed Barton, states that the label Galla for them, in historic documents, is a stereotype and has been translated by other ethnic groups as "pagan, savage, inferior, enemy",[19][20][21] and "heathen, that is non-Muslim".[22][23] The Oromo never called themselves Galla, and resist its use."and " Different groups have attempted to reconstruct a speculative origin theories, wherein either Oromo are presumed "heathen and expansionists who displaced another ethnic group", or the Oromo are presumed to be original people who were "displaced by others". EtheiopianHabesha's talk page is worrying and this may be some sort of ethnic/nationalist argument whose details have eascaped me. Doug Weller  talk 17:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is very frustrating that the filer is still going over the same ground on the talk page and won't go to WP:RSN over a source he keeps arguing about. I'm not sure there is a point in using this venue if he's going to concentrate his discussion at the article talk page. Doug Weller  talk 11:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Oromo people discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Robert: Sorry I forgot to do that, anyways I just notified them. EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Volunteer note - The filing would do well to take the advice of User:Doug Weller that Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Volunteer question - Do the editors want to engage in moderated discussion? Moderated discussion, which is voluntary, is what this noticeboard is for.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * @Robert, there were very limited people engaged in the article talkpage and here I Was hopping to involve various editors as I stated above but now I see that this venue is mainly for involved editors. I think the venue I should try first is RFC where uninvolved editors provide their opinion on the issue raised and have their say as per suggestion "Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise". Thank you — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Volunteer note - It still isn't clear whether there is an interest in having moderated discussion. If not, this case can be closed.  Does the filing party want moderated discussion, or only to complain?  Do the other editors want moderated discussion?  (I will comment that the filing party does appear to have difficulty in stating their arguments in clear English, and might consider editing a different Wikipedia.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Robert, as I stated above I came here so that we convince one another by discussing only content & issue instead of one trying to convince POV by bullying the editor. I think the argument is clear and it is about stereotypes/terms usually seen in propaganda leaflets (used to incite ethnic violence). What I want to discuss about was on the topic should we include the phrase "X people are/were labeled as infidels, heathen, savage or barbarian by Y people" in an ethnic-group article? My objective was to discuss the importance of including them as per WP:ONUS. Anyways, on my side I want to take the issue to RFC. Thank you for the help — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Shah Mir#Jonaraja's description
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

In an edit here, I added information about the ancestry of Shah Mir as narrated by a Kashmiri historian Jonaraja. The narrative is sourced to a recent historical article. has repeatedly deleted or modified this content saying that it refers to "mythology". Stating that the narrative is attributed to Jonaraja and that we also point out that is likely a "concocted genealogy" made no difference to this editor.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page. The article has also been full-protected by admins for 10 days due to edit-warring.

How do you think we can help?

Decide whether this content should be retained or omitted.

Summary of dispute by Barthateslisa
On the page of Shah Mir, who is a historic figure, some users including and some IPs, have been editing his early life section as per, what seems to be their POV. The dispute is over selective addition of a widely dismissed theory about Mir's origin, which declares Shah Mir, who again is a historic figure, to be a descendant of a mythological character from an ancient Indian epic. Shah Mir's origin is uncertain and has many theory, but some users are pushing the aforesaid theory, apparently its their preferred one. The funny part is that the citation mentioned to back the theory is also quoted selectively, as it dismisses the theory itself. I have objected to this as I believe half information will lead to misinformation about the subject among the Wikipedia users. During the talk page discussion it became evident that other user is well aware of other theories regarding Shah Mir's origin but is only focused on adding his/her preference. I hope we can have a balanced editing on the page, which doesn't lead to misinformation. Barthateslisa (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Shah Mir#Jonaraja's description discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editor of this filing.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

First statement by moderator
I am willing to open this case for moderated discussion. Please see User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules for the ground rules. Now: Will each of the editors please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issue is? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

First statement by Kautilya3
I hope will focus on content, not conduct.

The only issue from my point of view is that the opposing party has repeatedly deleted sourced content. The source provided The Regions of Sind, Baluchistan, Multan and Kashmir is part of the UNESCO series on the history of Central Asia. It is availabe online as PDF, and I have specified the precise the page numbers (311–312). The opposing party has not contested the reliability of the source in any way, but just stated that they do not believe it. (I suppose that is what they mean by "mythological".) They do seem to suggest that the source has been misrepresented in some way, but this has not been explained. The ball is in their court to make the case.

By the way, the relevant version of the article is this one. The dispute is concerning the section "Early life". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

First statement by Barthateslisa
User and some IPs have been adding misleading sentences about early life and origin of Shah Mir, a historic figure and the subject of the page. The user is selectivity quoting the source, which apparently suits the user's POV. The source mentioned here clearly dismisses user's preferred theory about Shah Mir's origin, which the user is trying to put in the early life section. No consideration for NPOV is visible in the edits. The source is not even a matter of dispute, its selective use is. Adding one dubious theory about a person in the first line of the section is misleading and unfair towards the readers. Also may I add, that the source also dismisses the theory which the other side is trying to add on the page in the very first line.

BTW, the whole "relevant version" stressed by the user is again a matter of POV. Barthateslisa (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator
Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The issue appears to be that one editor objects to certain content and has removed it and the other editor thinks that it should be included. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, without naming names or complaining about conduct, what they think the content issue is? That is, what content should be included, and why, and what content should be excluded, and why? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Second statements by Kautilya3
The Rafiq article, accepted by the opposing party as a reliable source, mentions two historical records that deal with Shah Mir's ancestry (pp. 311–312): one by Jonaraja, a medieval Kashmiri historian, and the other Persian chronicles. Both are mentioned and, I believe, should be mentioned in our article. To be perfectly clear, I copy below the content as I wrote it originally:

I do not think that there are any NPOV issues with this text. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Traian Vuia
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

Traian Vuia's flight described as "Power Hops" although the wording is not used in similar achievements from other pioneers of flight.He has flown by the very definition of flight. Some other editors try to invent other terms for his achievements, such as "power hop", not explained anywhere, and not used for similar achievements of other pioneers. My proposal to change the text is accurate and it was documented and properly referenced. The "claimed a powered hop" passage is a logical fallacy, and the correction would not require a discussion in a group of normal persons. He would have never claimed "I have powerhopped, yuhuuu!!!". He would have claimed "I have flown".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Used the talk page, edits were rejected, request for mediation was rejected

How do you think we can help?

Additional knowledge and information other users could provide could be useful.

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Ratt#Reverted Changes
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I first placed this information within the Editor Assistance section and was advised I may have to submit a disput resolution. I have been editing the RATT band page to include the latest legal battles. Yesterday, the page was reverted back to what it was many months ago, stating that this was the last stable version of the band. I hadn't noticed in the Talk:Ratt section that they had decided over a year ago to wait to update the page until all legal resolutions were made, but these legal issues have been on going for over a year. On RATT's talk page, I discussed the changes with Sabbatino, who did the revert, and User:Mlpearc replied asking me "WTF" about the legal information I was referring to. I explained what I was referring to and provided now two references. Sabbatino and I came to a consensus that I could revert the page back and make it so it was similar to Jack Russell's Great White (as their situation is similar). Mlpearc came back and said good luck. I reverted the changes, and was in the process of applying the changes to make the page similar to Jack Russell's Great White, when Mlpearc immediately reverted my changes back without any discussion about this on the RATT talk page and then sent me two messages posted to my talk page accusing me of an edit war, when he saw that Sabbatino and I came to a consensus. I replied to him explaining once again that Sabbatino and I came to a consensus and that he had said 'good luck,' but then he reverted my changes. He stated that what he meant was he had no wish to discuss the issue. Now I'm afraid to do the reversion because I don't want to be kicked off of Wikipedia, but what he did was completely unprofessional. A consensus had been made, and yet he took away (once again) all of my changes and then accused me of being in an edit war. I have no idea what to do now. I'm afraid to make any changes because he'll make more accusations against me. Thank you!

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I spoke with him on the RATT talk page and on my personal talk page, but he has refused to communicate.

How do you think we can help?

I would like the RATT page reverted back to 26 November 2016 as was decided upon with the consensus with Sabbatino (the person who did the initial revert) and I. I just now noticed there's now an admin hold on the page. Then I can make the page to be like Jack Russell's Great White, as was decided upon on the consensus.

Summary of dispute by Mlpearc
Oh my goosh, just move on which I tried to do at ten o'clock this morning You need to concentrate on gaining your consensus. - Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 23:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ratt#Reverted Changes discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editor of this filing, but the other editor is aware of this filing because they have replied.  Do both editors want to engage in moderated discussion, which is voluntary?  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Robert McClenon. I had not included the other editor, as he and I had come to a consensus (as he is the one who made the initial reversions of the page) and I didn't want him to have to go through this. I can ping him here and see if he wishes to have any input. Dijares (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I already came to understanding with this user and we determined that the page should look like other similar bands with similar issues. The other (3rd) editor said that he/she moved on, but that message wasn't clear as it can mean "OK" or "no" with the latter being the answer (at least that's the impression I get). – Sabbatino (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I don't want to engage in moderated discussion thank you, I never had an interest in the RATT topic, my interest was only about use of "Legally".   -  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 15:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: As an (I like to think) unbiased editor in this situation, I think that the issue is pretty obvious here. If Mlpearc (sorry if you don't want to be pinged) doesn't want the page to be changed, then that should be made clear. However, if Mlpearc is truly indifferent, then Mlpearc should have had no reason to revert Dijares's good faith edits, which he made with consensus since Mlpearc claimed not to care. It is, I believe, unreasonable for Mlpearc to ask that Dijares procure further consensus when there is nobody (who claims to care) who contests the edits. The accusations of edit-warring towards Dijares are unfounded; if any edit-warring is present, it is present on both sides. R. A. S immons Talk 21:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I appreciate your input. I'm not really sure where to go from here. I know the page is on admin lock down. Do I wait until that time frame expires, and do I risk getting in trouble again if I try to edit it after that time? Thanks again! Dijares (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You might want to take a look at WP:PREFER, which provides some information on what to do with pages that are protected due to content disputes. You may suggest uncontroversial changes via the protected articles talk page, but there is obviously some controversy surrounding the edits. Frankly, I think that resorting to full protection without any interaction with the involved editors wasn't the most tactful choice on the administrator's part, but what can you do? I suppose you could try asking the admin who protected the page about their rationale, but I'd wait a bit to do anything like that. I'm not the most experienced editor really, so maybe we'll see what some more experienced editors have to say regarding the issue. Sorry I can't be of very much help. R. A. S immons Talk 00:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you please remove the page protection for Ratt It seems I misunderstood the consensus on the talk page. Thank you, -  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 02:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you rasimmons for your input, and thank you Mlpearc for putting in the request to remove the lock down on the RATT page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dijares (talk • contribs) 02:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ DMacks (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanx. -  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 02:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I am an involved editor who has had a look over the discussion mentioned above. While I must agree that Facebook is a terribly unreliable source of information (for POV reasons), it looks like additional sourcing information was also provided to indicate the current [legal] status of the band, and it appears [to me] that the edits to include this information were performed in good faith.  I am uncertain of the reasons behind the resistance to these edits other than that they did not appear to be reliably sourced— reliable sourcing is pretty darned important, and even things that are ostensibly "true" should not be added to Wikipedia articles unless that "truth" can be documented through reliable, independent sources...  However, the restrictions on the nature of sourcing for establishing notability are somewhat different than those for adding information to an article, and we regularly allow non-controversial edits to articles that are not necessarily reliably sourced to bona fide independent sources once the subject's notability has been established (and so long as the person making these changes either has no COI or has already declared one).  In this particular case, I do not think anyone is contesting the band's notability, therefore changes to the article referenced to possibly non-neutral sources are likely to be considered acceptable so long as they are not controversial or likely to be lse (?).  Accusations of edit warring are also very delicate and potentially inflammatory, and even when apparently true are emotional to level at experienced editors (who are likely aware of their implications already).  There, my 2¢.  Best of luck to you all on resolving this particular dispute!  KDS4444 (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Mlpearc and Dijares: So it's been a few days now and no response from either party... Did I miss the mark with the above?  Please let me know so we can work on trying to resolve this or can call it resolved.  Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, KDS4444. The page was removed of its restrictions and I was able to apply the changes. Since then, unfortunately, there have been more court proceedings, which led to even more edits (and some vandalization of Bobby Blotzer's page - in which temporary protection has been provided for) so the situation is very confusing. Because of the reference issues, I did more research, and I added more citations to the page specifically for the United States Patent and Trademark Office marks for the RATT name/logo/images that are shown to be owned by WBS, Inc., which is owned 50/50 by Bobby Blotzer and Warren DeMartini. But, even to this point, when I try to fix things, they get turned right back around again. Unfortunately there are a lot of heated fans when it comes to this band, and they often have their own opinions on how they believe things are going. I've stepped away for a few days, but continue to monitor for any attempts at vandalization. I've requested a semi-protection on the RATT page because of the constant edits, but was denied. So, for now, until a few weeks when things may settle a bit, I'll just monitor it. Thank you again for your input! And I'm sorry I hadn't noticed your first comment. Dijares (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've considered this issue closed since my last comment. -  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 17:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Volunteer note - User:Mlpearc considers this to be resolved. Do other editors agree?  Can it be closed?  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (I think mostly Robert means you, Dijares— it sounds like you are ready to consider this resolved, at least for the moment, yes?) KDS4444 (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:JT LeRoy (Laura Albert)
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 Wiki pages related to Laura Albert have been disorganized and poorly written (vague references, personal accusations, etc.). Much of the content was created by Msturm 8, under various IP addresses. NVG13DAO, a specialist in transgender studies, tried to work on the page, but gave up. PacificOcean (me) went on Live Chat for guidance- first step was to edit requests. SwisterTwister and Huon helped, but their help was reverted by Msturm 8. I did a major overhaul of much of the Laura Albert content, and posted it as an edit request for 3 weeks. No objections; and so my guides told me to note the objections and post it. I also made similar changes to the JT Leroy page. On JT Leroy Talk page thereafter, Msturm 8 posted objections. I responded, and Msturm 8 responded without getting into content, but mainly just repeating that Laura Albert is a fraud. In the section on the Lawsuit, the civil case against Laura Albert was addressed, but she is not criminal and was not convicted of fraud for being an author, using a pseudonym, and creating a public persona. As you can see in the repartee at the top of the Comments section of this article, Msturm 8 has accused Albert of stealing, embezzlement, and is determined to burn Albert at the stake for these claims.. but attempt for intellectual discussion went nowhere. (http://forward.com/culture/351569/how-to-kill-a-butterfly-like-elena-ferrante-or-jt-leroy/) I believe I am labeled as having a conflict of interest simply because I mentioned that I have met Laura Albert in person, but Msturm 8 made a film "The Cult of JT Leroy" and has a conflict of interest in painting a negative portrait of Albert to sell her film. The most recent edit that Msturm 8 is adamant to maintain is "Many others have felt differently,"When Albert’s fraud was finally exposed (after she wrecked the credibility of several publications, book companies, a film studio—plus many gullible readers)..." Who is "many"? These accusations seem inappropriate.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Posted edit requests before making edits (there were no objections), discussed my thoughts on the articles on Live Chat and sought guidance from Volunteer Editors, tried to respond to Msturm 8.

How do you think we can help?

Hopefully you can provide clarity on what needs to happen next. Obviously I can't continue editing the page without getting myself entangled in an editing war since most of what I've tried to do, even with the pre-discussion with volunteer editors, has gotten reverted by Msturm 8; who seems vehemently opposed to any changes and not really able/willing to discuss the content rationally. Thank you.

Summary of dispute by Msturm 8
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I was not aware of the recent edit disputes taking place or I would have chimed in earlier. I became aware after all of my recent contributions to the page were eliminated.

I have been aware that the "JT LeRoy" page over a period of many years was a misrepresentation of the issues and facts at hand, but only fairly recently decided taking on an understanding of Wikipedia to fix it. Some of my changes were not logged in, and were from my IP address by mistake (sorry about that) but otherwise I am forthright and in no rush at all to work with whomever to make sure the JT LeRoy page represents the controversy that people are going to the page to get clarity on. Pacific Ocean just cited a page that was written by Laura Albert. This is the problem at hand, and what has constituted the problem for many years. Laura Albert created the fraud of JT LeRoy. She is not one we can go to to seek an explanation of it. Keep in mind, Laura Albert successfully committed a fraud that overlapped with writing for the New York Times, HBO, books being published in twenty languages, and many other publications and media outlets. This Wikipedia page is not going to be immune from her actions.

Laura Albert's "JT LeRoy" has been proven in court to be a fraud for various reasons. These reasons are all facts. There was much public outcry by literary agents, close friends, and others who were closely involved with "JT LeRoy" including one of the participants in the fraud, Albert's ex-partner Geoffrey Knoop. This is a fact. I had included citations from various top-notch newspapers.

I have left a comment on the Talk page so I won't repeat it all here, but the overall point is that this page should not look like just another page for a writer without explaining the controversy and the fall-out. The headlines all say "Pseudonym" after it was proven in court that JT Leroy was not a pseudonym. This is clearly misleading. JT LeRoy was proven to be a fraud. "Hoax" is also not the correct word. According to your very own, Wikipedia page, "A hoax is a distinct concept that involves deliberate deception without the intention of gain or of materially damaging or depriving a victim." With the case of JT LeRoy, a corporation was set up to run the profits of "JT LeRoy" without letting those involved understand Jt Leroy's true identity. For over ten years, many people did not understand that they were talking to a grown adult impersonating the voice of a child on the phone who was homeless and HIV positive and from a West Virginia truckstop. Again, this is a fact and not an opinion.

The page is in serious need of revision to include the factual controversies at hand. It is a misleading and confusing read at the moment, as it always has been. For years, people have cited the page to me and I have not had the time or energy to bother with it. I am willing to work with whomever in a slow and patient way to make sure the page reads correctly. I am not looking to promote my film on the topic. We could eliminate all mentions around both documentaries and other 'inspired' works and so forth. I do not care. I want to this page to read clear and simple. Maybe absolute brevity would be best at this point considering the years and years of "JT LeRoy"'s intention to protect her public image as best as possible.

And I will reiterate, "personal opinion' only comes into this topic if you think that Laura Albert's personal story and background justifies her actions that were found to be a fraud. That is a choice. But that doesn't refute the FACT that a massive number of people felt hurt or betrayed and they are commenting publicly within the last few months in major newspapers like the New York Times and The Guardian. The Wikipedia needs to address the emotional fallout and how the fraud was conducted and not be a misleading source of information. I believe strongly that TRUTH matters, and shouldn't constantly be spun. Thank you for your time. Msturm 8 (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:JT LeRoy#Discuss_with_User:_76.21.32.54 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. This controversy, between two editors who both have conflicts of interest, is probably beyond the scope of this noticeboard.  There has already been administrative involvement, including by User:KrakatoaKatie.  I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Volunteer update - Placed DRN notification template on User_talk:Msturm_8, as filing party User:PacificOcean had not done so. --JustBerry (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - Seeking input from users User:SwisterTwister and User:Huon mentioned in the dispute overview, as case handling is stalled per User:Robert McClenon's note above. --JustBerry (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Treaty of Defensive Alliance (Bolivia–Peru)#Name
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

In the LEDE of the article, MarshalN20 has
 * 1) deleted an alternative well known name of the treaty (against WP:OTHERNAMES)
 * 2) deleted the interpretation of the treaty given by the President of the Council of Ministers of Peru, E. Mercado Jarrín (against WP:DUE)
 * 3) deleted the indication that the treaty was invoked when Bolivia confiscated the last competitor of the Peruvian Saltpeter Monopoly (against WP:DUE)
 * 4) stated an opinion about Chilean expansionism as a fact (against WP:NPOV)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

this the first step after the article talk page.

How do you think we can help?

You can moderate a open discussion about the issues.

Summary of dispute by MarshalN20
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Keysanger has been harassing editors in articles related to the War of the Pacific for the past decade or so. Most of these editors have given up, and administrative action in these articles has been inconsequential. I was topic banned from articles related to Latin American history due to a naming dispute on the article Paraguayan War—this ban was lifted over a year ago, but I have since been very busy with graduate school work and research. I still am busy, but can certainly take time to participate in this discussion.

I am the author of three featured articles (Peru national football team, Pisco Sour, and Falkland Islands—which I co-authored with WCM).

A central part of the problem is that Keysanger does not write according to the guidelines of Manual of Style. It's not that he is ignorant of them, but rather he consistently refuses to accept them. Plainly speaking, he is an incompetent writer who refuses to improve as a writer. This also makes discussions with him very uncomfortable, especially when he resorts to long statements and ignoratio elenchi (in both questions and responses). Evidence:, ,.

Lastly, I am also extremely concerned at Keysanger's research. He holds an open partisan stance, often dismissing authors who are either non-Chilean or that disagree with the Chilean version of events. Moreover, he often demonstrates to not know the historiography about the War of the Pacific, giving undue weight to fringe perspectives that fit his particular point of view.

Having said all of this, I can properly reply to the points made by Keysanger:
 * 1) It's not an alternative name. It's already indicated in the first sentence of the article that the treaty was secret. How many more times must the word "secret" appear in the first sentence? It's disrupting the prose and is inherently very WP:POINTY.
 * 2) It's wrong to give undue weight to the opinion of a minister who served in the mid-20th century. The treaty was signed in 1873, decades before the minister was even born. Why is his opinion so important? Also, the proposed alteration is against the standards of the Wikipedia Manual of Style.
 * 3) I don't understand what you are trying to state, but it is clear that this is related to the fringe view presented by Keysanger as a fact in the article Peruvian Saltpeter Monopoly—which, by the way, is also wrongly titled (the term "nitrate monopoly" is far more common than "saltpeter monopoly") and again demonstrates Keysanger's lack of understanding about the War of the Pacific's historiography.
 * 4) Chilean expansionism into nitrate-rich territories is a central cause for the War of the Pacific, according to conventional history.

Talk:Treaty of Defensive Alliance (Bolivia–Peru)#Name discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Comment Correct me if I am wrong:  had proposed bringing this issue to moderation, but  beat him to the punch??  That aside: while I agree that the article's title is indeed "vacuous", I do not agree that this is a meaningful reason to change the title of the article, especially in light of the existence of previous discussions in which this has been considered and decided against.  That particular authors have decided to call it by other names does not mean that the article should be moved or retitled until such time as that new name has become a widely accepted one and evidence of this can be demonstrated.  Surely the emphasis on the secret nature of the treaty and the parties involved which appear in the lead are enough to satisfy the importance of these things??  Best of luck to you both.  KDS4444 (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * MarshalN20 had proposed bringing this issue to moderation? Where?.
 * I have not challenged the technical title of the article.-- Keysanger (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Yes, you're correct on every point.-- MarshalN20  T al k 17:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - Previous efforts to discuss here have been beyond the scope of this noticeboard. This dispute, over this treaty and the War of the Pacific, have been going on for so long that discussion here isn't likely to be productive.  We can try, but it is not likely to work.  I will again recommend formal mediation. The only real alternative that I see to formal mediation would be arbitration, and I would hope that this can be handled as a content dispute.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oi. I did not know.  In any case: Response The talk page goes like this: "You're trying very hard to fit any source you find to support your view. The titling of a "special chapter" does not mean that this is an alternative name for the treaty. As you leave me little option, I will report this to AN/I. The misuse of sources from your part is absolutely deplorable.-- MarshalN20  T al k  12:03 am, 23 November 2016, Wednesday (8 days ago) (UTC−8)"
 * While AN/I is not quite the same thing as DNR, it is still represents an intent to engage in dispute resolution, and I see no offer on the part of to bring the discussion here, which is the point on which I was seeking clarification.  There is nothing wrong with a pre-emptive move to do so, of course, other than that it at least appears like an attempt to beat someone to the punch.  I understand that the article's title has not (yet) been changed, but was this not the intent?  And was this not the subject of the previous discussions which resulted in a decision to retain the current title instead of an alternative one that includes the words "secret" and "Boliva/ Peru"?  KDS4444 (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I may remember the contributors respect to this page: Refrain from discussing editorial conduct, and remember this noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment only on the contributions not the contributor. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.


 * Comments like:
 * ''Keysanger has been harassing editors in articles related to the War of the Pacific for the past decade or so. Most of these editors have given up, and administrative action in these articles has been inconsequential. ...
 * A central part of the problem is that Keysanger does not write according to the guidelines of Manual of Style. It's not that he is ignorant of them, but rather he consistently refuses to accept them. Plainly speaking, he is an incompetent writer who refuses to improve as a writer. This also makes discussions with him very uncomfortable, especially when her resorts to long statements and Ignoratio elenchi'' (in both questions and responses).
 * Lastly, I am also extremely concerned at Keysanger's research. He holds an open partisan stance, often dismissing authors who are either non-Chilean or that disagree with the Chilean version of events. Moreover, he often demonstrates to not know the historiography about the War of the Pacific, giving undue weight to fringe perspectives that fit his particular point of view.
 * doesn't meet the requirements of a this page to be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.. The use of could be appropriated.
 * -- Keysanger (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - In his first comment, Keysanger tells KDS4444 that he has "not challenged the technical title of the article." However, there does exist very clear evidence for the contrary. On November 20, 2016, Keysanger writes: "Of course there are another names, in fact it is usually named "Secret Treaty". But, for now, we set it to "Treaty of Defensive Alliance" . On November 23, 2016, Keysanger again writes: "So, there is another name, much more common than the vacuousness of "Treaty of Defensive Alliance" . This is exactly the type of individual that Wikipedians have been dealing with for the past half a decade or so. Frankly, I am very tired of it. I hope that this DRN process can be of help, but we need to maintain honesty at all levels—everything that I have written about Keysanger up to now has been done in the nicest possible of ways. All of it is true and backed up by his own actions.-- MarshalN20 T al k 17:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Recommendation Given the length of the discussion above, the length of the discussion on the relevant article talk page, and the existence of previous discussions on this topic which have apparently dead-ended, it looks to me like this issue has met all of the preconditions to head to formal mediation. My suggestions as it heads that way: 1.) despite existing evidence of possibly disruptive editing, to keep any mention of each other's actual behavior altogether out of mediation and to focus exclusively on the matter of article content, and 2.) to keep that content based discussion focused on the existence of pre-existing reliable sources.  I have noted that the current article on the War of the Pacific refers to this treaty through a redirect title ("secret") rather than its official title, which is a less-than-neutral approach.  Whatever the outcome, you may both take heart in the fact that the formal name of the treaty and its its informal intentions will certainly be preserved, regardless, and that the subtleties of the lead section, however it ends up being worded, aren't likely to cause anyone to misunderstand what or who was involved, or why.  I have no background in this particular area of Latin American history, but having now read the relevant articles, none of the issues over which this dispute exists would have changed my own understanding in the end.  KDS4444 (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

organizational behavior
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

two editors not engaging in discussion or even bothering to respond to my direct questions asked.

second time i have put a request here now as i read about dispute resolution being useful. want others to engage rather than threaten i first tried to put an attempt here on 05:21, 16 November 2016 however they were not interested they know best it appears to me

not sure why the first attempt was taken off here without action


 * I can only once more possibly repeat the point Im making. Given that this is a list of disciplines, why dont we just keep it to disciplines - rather than specializations within disciplines such as social psychology - if we include social psychology which is a sub-discipline of psychology we then need to include all of the specializations within anthropology, sociology, economics - and that would then make the list extremely long. I just want this question to be responded to. That's why I came here first of all - after reading about how we should resolve things and i steadily followed all the steps asked to list this dispute we are having.Happydaise (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The above is false problem. One does not have to include all the specializations within anthropology, etc. because a subdiscipline of psychology is listed. Two subdisciplines of psychology, in fact, are related to OB: social psychology and industrial/organizational (i/o) psychology. Social psychology and i/o psychology have a special relationship with OB. I am therefore in accord with the idea of listing those two subdisciplines along with psychology, the parent discipline. One does not have to include sociobiology and other fields that happydaise has previously added without justification. Iss246 (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

i have kept trying to engage and offer dispute resolution asking questions that are ignored asked if they would participate in calm dispute resolution instead i get threats

How do you think we can help?

just someone objectiv to intervene and say hey lets talk eh and solve instead of threaten arrogantly that would sure help eh

Summary of dispute by iss246
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I observed that Happydaise deleted (e.g., social psychology) from and added topic areas (e.g., sociobiology) to the "contributing disciplines" section to the entry on organizational behavior. He made changes without justifying them. I first thought that the nonjustified changes reflected his being unfamiliar with WP because he had made no prior edits. When I restored the deletions such as social psychology and deleted topics he added such as sociobiology, he reversed my edits. I would be okay with adding, say, sociobiology if it were justified but it is not. He also showed that he had more understanding of the working of WP than I would anticipate of a newcomer with no prior experience with WP (e.g., use of this noticeboard). I suspected the he is trojan horse for someone who had been previously banned from WP.

I want to be clear. I am okay when an entry is edited and those edits are justified. But I am not okay when meritless wholesale edits are made or an individual simply provokes a needless dispute. Iss246 (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

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

organizational behavior discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. One of the other editors has been notified.  The other one has not been notified and should be notified.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - User:MjolnirPants has filed a thread at WP:ANI. No action will be taken here while that thread is still open (because we do not deal with cases at two separate forums simultaneously).  This case is on hold until the thread at WP:ANI is closed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - The WP:ANI thread was withdrawn by the filer. A moderator is needed to begin moderated discussion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Can i ask what the next steps are here? The other person is continuing to make changes to the article instead of engaging here with me peacefully - they just want to continue warring- so what do I do next?Happydaise (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Volunteer question - Do the editors want to engage in moderated discussion? Moderated discussion is voluntary but is the purpose of this noticeboard.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I would be definitely wanting a moderated discussion. can you notify Softlavender and others to join in ? it would be really good if they could join in that process because. Im really sick of them over-riding my work with out talking about it first and refusing to join in here - they just want to be edit warringHappydaise (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

First statement by moderator
I am willing to open this case for moderated discussion. See User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules for the ground rules. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think that the issues are? Be civil and concise, but I already said that. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

First statements by editors
Thats great thanks for answering the call - My view would be just keep it to disciplines as in economics, sociology, psychology and so on - but not sub - disciplines of these base disciplines.Happydaise (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Often a subdiscipline of a more general discipline is a contributor to organizational behavior. But another subdiscipline is not a contributor. For example, social psychology is more intimately related to OB than another subdiscipline of psychology such as biological psychology. There is a good deal of evidence, including from the OB WP entry, that social psychology is an important contributor to OB. I could find no evidence that biological psychology has contributed to OB. In the interest of accuracy, and in terms of helpfulness to readers of the encyclopedia, a subdiscipline such as social psychology should be included. Because psychology is such a vast field, it would not be helpful to include it as a contributing discipline because only a small number of its many subdisciplines are contributors. We want to be helpful to readers, particularly university students, by accurately identifying the contributing subdisciplines. With regard to other general fields such as anthropology and its subdisciplines, I would need to understand the situation on a case by case (discipline v. subdiscipline) basis. We need to think in terms of how accurate we are and how helpful we are being to the users of the encyclopedia. Iss246 (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator
It appears that the issue has to do with the listing of disciplines in the Contributing Disciplines section. Is that correct, and are there any other issues? It also appears that the issue has to do with when to list subdisciplines within a discipline. One editor thinks that only main disciplines should be listed, and the other appears to be saying that a case-by-case basis is needed. Is that the issue? If so, will each editor please explain why they think that their position is better? Is there room for compromise? (Why not sometimes list specific subdisciplines that are directly relevant?) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Second statements by editors
Social psychology should be listed as a contributing discipline because evidence from the OB article itself implicates social psychology in OB. Biological psychology should not be listed because of the lack of evidence for a connection between OB and biological psychology. Using the psychology sidebar, I counted about 40 subdisciplines within psychology, all of which are not related to OB. Including psychology among the contributing disciplines to OB can leave a reader with the mistaken impression that most of the subdisciplines within psychology contribute to OB when that is not the case. Of course another subdiscipline of psychology, industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology, is closely related to OB, and I favor including it among the contributing disciplines. But I disfavor including psychology itself because it is such a wide umbrella discipline that one could claim that it is related to a thousand different entries. As for other more general fields and their subdisciplines, I favor examining them on a case-by-case basis depending on the generality/narrowness of parent discipline and the subdiscipline. Iss246 (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Why not just list what is already said in the history part of the article and list just disciplines? History "As a multi-disciplinary field, organizational behavior has been influenced by developments in a number of allied disciplines including sociology, psychology, economics, and engineering as well as by the experience of practitioners." there are no sub-disciplines in that list.Happydaise (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking about simplifying this all. when I first read this article and joined up at Wikipedia I thought this list seemed strangely placed. Another point is the many sub-disciplines of economics, mathematics, anthropology, sociology as well- why are you just focusing on one discipline - thats why I suggest just using disciplines - if you really have to have this un-sourced list at all - as well as it then all being mentioned again and repeated in the History part. Why not just delete it. Its already mentioned in the History part. I am glad I worked out how to use this dispute solving section here.Happydaise (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I am focusing on one discipline because that is a discipline I know very well. I am a professor of psychology. By carefully examining one discipline, we can develop some insight into how to address other disciplines and/or subdisciplines. Two subdisciplines of psychology are clearly relevant to OB, social psychology and i/o psychology; many other subdisciplines of psychology, however, are not. A careful examination of the other listed disciplines and subdisciplines is in order. Regarding the placement of the list, I need more time to think about that matter. Iss246 (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator
There has been a suggestion that the problem here is that including a list of disciplines and subdisciplines at the beginning of the article is a little strange, and sets up controversy. Do the editors agree that perhaps either eliminating the list or moving the list would be appropriate? Please address this concisely, and please state any other issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Robert McClenon, I think moving the list further down would be helpful to readers. It appears too early. I support retaining two subdisciplines of psychology, namely, social psychology and i/o psychology, and deleting psychology itself and the remaining subdisciplines of psychology (e.g., personality psychology, counseling psychology). Retaining social psychology and i/o psychology pinpoints just where psychology has contributed to OB. I support retaining sociology because of the influence of Max Weber. I support retaining anthropology but not political science. There is no mention of political science in the article whereas the article has implications for anthropology. Iss246 (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Third statements by editors
Yes - just eliminate the list solves all the problems. its un-sourced and its already in the article anyway isnt that enough - and why the repetition- too much emphasis is placed on a list of historically contributing disciplines and away from other parts of the article.Happydaise (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * including a list at all is just repetition and is the problem I have with this list - contributing disciplines are already mentioned in the History section. Can we possibly focus on this point im making?Happydaise (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should eliminate the list. It would be better for readers if the list were placed in a lower position. It serves the purpose of reminding readers that the subject known as organizational behavior did not appear ex cathedra out of the mind of some great authority but has roots in the social sciences.

I explain above which two subdisciplines of psychology are clearly relevant to OB, social psychology and i/o psychology. Those two subdisciplines should remain on the list. We should delete psychology itself and the remaining subdisciplines of psychology (e.g., personality psychology, counseling psychology). Retaining social psychology and i/o psychology pinpoints just where psychology has contributed to OB. As I wrote earlier, I support retaining sociology because of the influence of sociologists such as Max Weber on OB. We should retain anthropology but not political science. There is no mention of political science in the OB encyclopedia entry; by contrast, the article implicates anthropology in OB. Iss246 (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * contributing disciplines are already mentioned in the history section of the article. Why the repetition and mentioning this twice and making such a focus on a separate list of disciplines and sub - disciplines that might have historically contributed - and i disagree with which disciplines and sub - disciplines to even include anyway if you really need to be repeating and including an un-sourced list that is already in the article - what about sub disciplines of anthropology like i've asked - can i suggest the moderator comments here please.Happydaise (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator
It appears that both editors are agreeable to having the list of contributing disciplines moved to a lower part of the article. Can it also be given a lower-level heading? What is I/O psychology, anyway? (To an information technology person, I/O is input-output, and I don't think that is what is meant.)

Please do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Robert McClenon, I/O psychology is industrial/organizational psychology. Sometimes I/O professors land up in OB departments. OB professors sometimes publish in I/O journals. There is considerable overlap between the two fields. One I/O psychologist told me that the main difference between I/O and OB is that I/O professors are in psychology departments and OB professors are in business schools. Iss246 (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors
I think anthropology is just as important and sub-disciplines of anthropology should be listed as well if the un-sourced list is included twice in the article, once in the list and the second time in the history section. And political science and mathematics are definitely as important too alternatively - if the list was just removed, the mention of a few contributing disciplines are still there under the history section - isn't it enough to mention contributing disciplines just once in the history section instead of repeating it again in the form of some un-sourced list and us arguing over which disciplines and sub - disciplines to include in this un-sourced list - maybe just expand the bit already there in the history section of the article?Happydaise (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Two concerns. First, anthropology and political science may or may not be contributing disciplines. Evidence is needed to justify that claim. So far I have not seen such evidence. Second, the list is as unsourced as almost every other list in WP articles. We are not in a position to go around to every WP article that has a list, and begin sourcing the lists contained therein. Iss246 (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Im trying to solve this - the list appears twice and it shouldnt be in the article twice- and its un-sourced. could it just be deleted as contributing disciplines is already in the History part and it would solve the impasse. Would that be okay?Happydaise (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I am trying to resolve this dispute too. The article, as it stands now, needs a great deal of editing. I did a little just before. I think the list could be shortened (e.g., delete personality psychology, etc.), and moved it to some place at the end of the article (just before the list of journals). On reflection, I agree that anthropology should remain on the list but not political science. Iss246 (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * i cant seem to get a response in reference to the list being included twice already. can we delete the repetition of the un-sourced list. and i'm saying the sub-disciplines within anthropology and politcical science sub-specialties should obviously be included if you must include the un-sourced list twice. they are very important- You just wont respond to that problem of repetition however -can i ask the moderator to comment- responding backward and forward like this is not helpingHappydaise (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

If we include a subdiscipline of anthropology, we should not include anthropology itself. For example, if it there is evidence that ethnology contributed to OB, then we should delete anthropology because subdisciplines of anthropology such as physical anthropology are not contributors to OB. In this way, we more precisely indicate what aspect of the discipline has contributed to OB. Iss246 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * i don't want to engage in back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon could you please comment here. The list of disciplines and sub-disciplines is currently included twice in the article - can we delete one of the un - sourced lists?Happydaise (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator
What part of the request not to engage in back-and-forth discussion wasn't clear?

Will each editor please make a list of everything that they would like to change about the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors
I would like to place the contributing disciplines section just above the journals sections. I would like to shorten the contributing disciplines to look like the following.

Contributing disciplines
 * Social psychology
 * Industrial/organizational psychology
 * Sociology
 * Human Resources Management
 * Ethnology
 * Economics

Iss246 (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I would like to see the other mentioning of the various sub - disciplines and disciplines removed from the History part - or remove the list - should not be repeating things. also if the un - sourced list is included maybe we could include a range of references for each of these areas. I would also like to see the heading of contributing dsisciplines and sub - disciplinesHappydaise (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article should include references from researchers who are identified with subdisciplines. For example, Kurt Lewin and Solomon Asch, two notable social psychologists, are mentioned in the text. Therefore, social psychology should be in the list of contributing disciplines. On the other hand, almost all the lists that I have found in WP are not footnoted. I would refrain from footnoting the list. Iss246 (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Instead of back-and-forth discussion - will wait and see what Robert McClenon says to do nextHappydaise (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. We should wait to read what User:Robert McClenon and User:MjolnirPants write. Iss246 (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator
First, do the parties agree that we need a stand-alone list of disciplines (and possibly subdisciplines) at all? Could the disciplines be listed in the course of a more general discussion of the subject? If we do need a list, should it be moved to lower down in the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

What else do the editors think needs to be changed in the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors
I dont think that there is any need at all for a stand-alone list of sub-disciplines and disciplines - especially given it is an un-sourced list - with many other sub-disciplines and disciplines that could equally be added to such a list. There is already mention in the History part of the article of contributing disciplines and sub-disciplines - so truly, why not just get rid of this un-sourced list of disciplines and sub-disciplines and be done with it. esp. as the reliable sources just don't mention a list like this- so why is it in the article at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happydaise (talk • contribs) 10:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the list would be helpful to readers because it conveniently locates OB in the wider universe of research. It would be helpful if it weren't too long, and just pinpointed the key disciplines or subdisciplines that have made the heaviest contributions to OB. The contributing subdisciplines can be ferreted out by looking at the research reports that have been footnoted. I am opposed to footnoting list items themselves because doing so would be inconsistent with how lists are presented in the rest of WP. I agree that the list is in the wrong place. It should be near the bottom of the article. Iss246 (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator
One editor wants to move the list further down in the article. The other editor thinks that the list is not necessary. Are the two editors willing to agree on moving the list down? Are the two editors willing to agree on omitting the list? Also, are the two editors willing to rely on a Request for Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Robert McClenon, I would agree to move the list down. I would also agree to shorten the list. I would not agree to deleting the list. Perhaps user:MjolnirPants would add an idea. Iss246 (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The un-sourced list of all the different contributing disciplines and sub - disciplines that historically may have possibly contributed is already mentioned in the article under the History part - so i don't see the need to repeat it again when it's already in the article. If we do have to keep an un-sourced list this at all then maybe make sure it is at least sourced and that all of the other many types of sub-disciplines and disciplines that also might have contributed historically are also given mention in the list like anthropology and statistics and many others - my choice is get rid of the un-sourced list. Robert McClenon i looked at the Request for Comments section like you suggested- and the number of different steps involved to list this matter at that place for comments - i think its a good idea but could you list it there please?Happydaise (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

We should limit the list, where possible, to the subdisciplines that made substantial contributions to OB. The list conveniently--for readers--locates OB in the wider universe of research but not in such a wide a universe as to include every discipline and subdiscipline in the social sciences. I gave an example of what such a list would look like in the section of this colloquy entitled "Fifth statements by editors". Iss246 (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Im sure Robert McClenon said no back-and-forth comments and you didnt even comment on his offer to list this dispute on the Request for Comments section. i asked him to kindly list it there and we were waiting for his reply - so please don't comment again until he tells us what doHappydaise (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Happydaise, your criticism of me is misplaced. I was anticipating that user:MjolnirPants would comment here before we go to the RfC section because he had an interest in the list. Otherwise I have no objection to using the RfC section. Finally, Happydaise, please don't instruct me regarding what I should or should not write on this page. I don't instruct you on what to write on this page. Iss246 (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Kenny Vance
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

user newenglandyankee is posting fraudulent and untrue information that is defamatory to Kenny Vance. This process is so convoluted I cant even figure out who to contact to this regard. Can someone please just tell me how to actually tell someone that this person is posting mis-information regarding Mr. Vance's career, profile, and history? All i keep getting is link to link to link. Who can actually monitor the posts and keep Mr. Vance's record STRAIGHT?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Contacted, tried to explain that his information is libel and fictitious

How do you think we can help?

Block this user from editing content on this page due to the fictitious nature.

Summary of dispute by NewEnglandYankee
On December 9th, a (new) user registered as "Amymichelle229" made a large-scale text replacement on Kenny Vance. The edit summary was "users enter material that was untrue, corrected with the assistance of Kenny Vance himself". User:bonadea left a conflict-of-interest notice on User Talk:Amymichelle229. In response the user claimed that he/she "just took his biography from him and posted it. I'm a website manager, I don't really care about him."

My feeling was, and is, that the article isn't a very good one. I said as much on User Talk:Amymichelle229. I think my first message was a little bit too censorious, so I tried to tone it down afterwards. My point, however, stands: neither "the assistance of Kenny Vance himself" nor "just took his biography from him and posted it" sounds like a reliable source. It doesn't do Wikipedia any good to replace a substandard article with another substandard article.

Since then the same edits have been made by two other anonymous users: 2602:304:CEAE:8BB0:28AA:639D:DE1E:66CA and the IP address 69.75.101.130. The latter address subsequently used the User talk:Amymichelle229 page to say that "Kenny is willing to take police action against you". Among other things, this level of excitement makes me feel skeptical about the claim that "I'm a website manager, I don't really care about him."

The user has since denied having said "I don't really care about him" and tried to delete that quote from Talk:Kenny Vance. Here is the diff showing the quote:. The user also wrote, on User talk:69.75.101.130, that "I am his website manager", but then changed that to "I am a website manager" (emphasis added). . This still looks to me like a conflict of interest.

Also, the user claims that the article is defamatory. I don't see any defamatory content--just a lot of unreferenced essay-type material, all of it positive in tone.

I have added no content to Kenny Vance; I have only restored (perhaps too many times, considering 3RR) the content that was there beforehand. In my opinion, there's a strong case to be made for deleting about 90% of the article entirely, unless someone comes up with a lot of sources, but I know nothing about the subject.

NewEnglandYankee (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Menachem Mendel Schneerson
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

It has been argued before that the Crown Heights riot should be mentioned in the article for Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The riots and his relationship to them merited mention in his obituary in the New York Times, his hometown paper. All the retrospectives on the riot, mention Schneerson, if only to note, the car involved in the inciting accident was in his motorcade. Different reviewers delete it without providing verifiable independent reasoning

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There has been a prior archived discussion on this that appeared to resolve that the riots should be touched upon in the article.

How do you think we can help?

There are issues that perhaps only third party arbitration can fix. The discussion, much like the debates after the riots, devolve into the use of terms like racism, anti-Semitism, bias, and pogrom. I am not interested in that. I would just like to have a line in the article, somewhere that states: "A car in the motorcade of Rabbi Schneerson inadvertently hit pedestrians; this led to riots that underscore tensions in the community between Blacks and the followers of Schneerson."

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

I strongly urge editors of wikipedia to arbitrate changes in this article. There are some members of Wikipedia that will delete anything, even the most well sourced point, from this hagiography.

Rococo1700 (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Dispute resolution noticeboard. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I am closing the discussion here. This is not a dispute which can be mediated. I have sought administrator input into the lack of mention in the article that an accident by a car in the police-led motorcade of Schneerson caused the death of a Black child, and triggered the riots, and that he had no comment on the events or the death of a Black child. I have faced recurrent deletion of well sourced material by Kemal Tebaast, Debresser, and Bus Stop. They do not seek to resolve the issue. This is due to a bias by these editors to delete mention of this events linked to Schneerson. Rococo1700 (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Calarasi steel_works
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 steel plant of Calarasi was closed in the 90s and left to its faith. Organized groups of thieves started to dismantle the steel plant Selling its machinery and buidlings as scrap metals. The poorest and most excluded people in Romania (according to all statistics) are those with Roma origin and it was mostly Roma people that handled the hard work of dismantling the factory physically while they sold the scrap metals to other companies (mostly with ethnic romanian owners). Romanian media, including mainstream media, does often mention the ethnic origin if the criminal is Roma but does not mention the ethnicity if the criminal is of other ethnic origin. The article Biruitorul is defending that explicity single out the ethnicity of the scrap metal collectors but no other ethnicity of those involved (all people in decision making positions were of ethnic romanian origin). This is a usual way of reporting in the romanian press but should not be accepted in Wikipedia. The issue of ethnicity is NOT relevant to mention for the story of the steel plant. The user Biruitorul insist on including it and refuses to have a sincere discussion on the issue although i invited him several times.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have invited the user Biruitorul to have a discussion Before he engages in a editing war but he refuses to have one.

How do you think we can help?

1. Make the user understand that racial biasing of one ethnicity is not accepted. 2. Make the user understand that ethnicity is only Worth mention if its relevant to the story.

Summary of dispute by Biruitorul
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The source on which I draw, perhaps the most respectable of Romanian newspapers, does indicate that the thieves in question were Roma. The fact was reported by a newspaper that we accept as a reliable source; it is therefore relevant. We are not censored, and despite the other user's continual raising of red herrings ("racial bias!" "irrelevant information!" "what about the owners!?"), there is no good reason for the information not to stay. - Biruitorul Talk 03:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:C%C4%83l%C4%83ra%C8%99i steel_works discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - I have notified Biruitorul of the DRN case filing on their talk page. Had not been notified by filer. --JustBerry (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - The discussion at the article talk page has been minimal. Please discuss further on the article talk page to see if discussion is productive.  The filing party has notified the other editor.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Hope not_Hate#New_controversy_section
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

In November 2016 Hope not Hate published a report on hate crime following the death of a UK MP. An accompanying press release stated that 'More than 50,000 abusive and offensive tweets were sent celebrating MP Jo Cox’s murder'. At least four national newspapers in the UK repeated these claims as did the report authors themselves and the campaign twitter account.

In December 2016, Evolution AI commented on the original report, suggesting that the claims could not possibly be true and detailed 'severe methodological errors' in the report. The UK newspaper, The Guardian, after being contacted by Evolution AI, retracted their story, stating: 'This article has been removed. It was based on a press release from anti-racism campaigners Hope Not Hate which it admits contained incorrect information.' The Economist newspaper also corroborated the Evolution AI analysis. Eventually the Hope not Hate campaign retracted their original claims - claiming a mistake in their press release.

The editor Snowded has reduced my edit detailing these facts to a single sentence as the 6th sub section in a section entitled 'Changing focus'. I believe these criticisms should be recorded in a 'Controversy' or 'Criticism' section rather than a 'Changing focus' section. When scientists retract articles this is generally recorded in a controversy section (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haruko_Obokata). A high quality article should be easily navigable: readers have a reasonable expectation that they will quickly be able to find information that will help them decide whether the Hope not Hate campaign are a reliable source of factual information.

I believe it is not the editor's place to make value judgements on whether an organisation is an unreliable source - the editor's role is to record facts from a neutral point of view. The facts are that a credible source has made technical criticisms of the Hope not Hate campaign's methodologies, which have been accepted by two UK newspapers.

Disclaimer: I am an author of the Evolution AI report

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

I would like my edits to be reinstated.

Summary of dispute by Snowded
The editor calling for this dispute has a commercial interest in promoting the story as his consultancy company was involved. He has not called for an RfC, he has not allowed any time to elapse to allow other editors to engage. He also appears to be a single purpose account, only one other edit some years ago. A waste of everyone's time and and I'm not engaging unless he gains some support on the talk page. Snowded TALK 11:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Doug_Weller
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The editor suggested asking for a third opinion. I gave him one. His response was to come here instead of raising an RfC as was suggested. Perhaps he thinks the role of DRN is to make a conduct decision. In any case, I don't think this belongs here. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Hope not_Hate#New_controversy_section discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hattie Jacques_on_stage,_radio,_screen_and_record
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 page has a correct and sourced edit regarding the four appearances of Hattie Jacques on Juke Box Jury. The BBC's archive is provided as the source and each entry is invididually, accurately sourced. Yet the editor Cassianto keeps removing the correct data and the sources to revert the page to an incorrect earlier edit. Cassianto used to be known as SchroCat and repeatedly made the reversion under that edit name too. I have attempted to ask them to stop this malicious editing, but they ignore it and continue to make incorrect adjustments to this page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked them to stop making the reversions

How do you think we can help?

Cassianto (and/or SchroCat) need someone else to intervene

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

Hattie Jacques_on_stage,_radio,_screen_and_record discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.