Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 149

Talk:Malcolm Wanklyn#Dandolo.2C_.27Avieri-class_destroyer.27.2C_imaginary_submarine_etc.
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 page contains some incorrect claims on a few of Malcolm David Wanklyn's achievements. I have corrected said claims, quoting several sources. The author of the page keeps reverting the pages, refusing serious discussion and arbitrarily deeming my sources unreliable or even nonexistant.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to explain on talk page, but with no result.

How do you think we can help?

I do not really know.

Summary of dispute by Dapi89
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Malcolm Wanklyn#Dandolo.2C_.27Avieri-class_destroyer.27.2C_imaginary_submarine_etc. discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.


 * This individual has appeared on this article recently, which was stable until today, and has began making fantastic claims about the reliability of the sources used. In his edits, he inserts figures, info and date to sentences that are already cited. That is not acceptable. Also, he throws out sources that don't reflect his own views. He has made claims that some ships Wanklyn sank were not sunk at all. In that case, where did they disappear to? His use of U-boat.net, a website mainly dedicated to German submariners, is inadequate and unreliable. Dapi89 (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * A short summary of what I have done. I will partly copy-paste from the talk page for time's sake.
 * Most of the page about Malcolm David Wanklyn, written by Dapi89, seems to be based on the book "Hero of the Upholder" by Jim Allaway. From what I see, Allaway takes Wanklyn's wartime claims at face value, therey mixing up history and legend. I might as well say that based on what I can read here, his book seems a bit sensationalistic and amateurish.
 * Most submariners from all countries - British, German, American, Japanes, Italian - during that war claimed more ships sunk or damaged than they actually sank, because it was not possible for them to ascertain the exact results of their attacks. Wanklyn was not an exception, and this is more than understandable. The point is, serious historians, postwar, cross-check submariners' claims and enemy records, and find out which ships were actually sunk or damaged. Allaway did not. I have corrected the page, based on actual records that, I repeat, anyone willing to check will be able to.
 * Maybe Uboat.net page, that mentions actual excerpts of Upholder ' s log, as well as historical research by the meticulous researcher Platon Alexiades, can be considered unreliable (not by me, but I am not the only one here who makes decisions). But there are the cited books from the Italian Navy Historical Branch that support what I have written.


 * You can see more on the article talk page.


 * My claims are:


 * 1) that Upholder did not damage an "Avieri-class" destroyer (which would be a Soldati-class destroyer) on the same day he sank the Italian destroyer Libeccio.
 * 2) that Upholder did not sink Italian steamer Dandolo in July 1941. She did not disappear to anywhere. She was damaged by Upholder, repaired, and sunk by torpedo bombers in December 1942.
 * 3) that Upholder sank Italian submarines Ammiraglio Saint Bon and Tricheco, and no other Italian submarines. The claim for a submarine sunk by Upholder in December 1941 is wrong. That submarine, that conveniently is not named in the page, did not disappear to anywhere, because it never existed (or, more simply, was the Italian submarine Settembrini that escaped damage, but that is not reliable, since it comes from the unreliable Uboat.net).--Olonia
 * 4) that the Italian merchant Bainsizza was not sunk by Upholder, but by aircraft in October 1941.


 * And a short list of what Dapi89 has done until now:


 * 1 - reported me to an Administrator when I threatened to report him (falsely calling me a "new user" - check my history, I am not - to put me in a bad light);
 * 2 - refused the judgment of said Administrator when he judged that I had committed no violation;
 * 3 - ignored Administrator's suggestion of using the talk page, which I did;
 * 4 - constantly reverted my edits, ignoring the wall of text I had written in the talk page, and ignoring the Dispute resolution noticeboard, until an Administrator protected the page. You can check all this by yourself.--Olonia (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * A lie. Also see here. Three deletions, and insertion of material into a paragraph which does not support it. All this rambling is just that: rambling. Dapi89 (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * While he insists on rambling and lying and accusing me to do so, I invite you to read the talk page to see who is the liar.--Olonia (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If you want this dispute to be accepted here, you need to cut out all comments on each other's behavior and comment only on article content. --Neil N  talk to me 16:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I have stated a simple fact. Also, he uses Aldo Cocchia, an Italian Admiral, not a historian, who also served in the Italian navy during this conflict and cannot be considered reliable. Dapi89 (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * An Italian Admiral who was an historian and the chief of the Italian Navy Historical Branch. And who was not involved in any action involving Upholder. If we considered historians who had served in the armed forces in any capacity we'd throw to thrash half of the official histories written about WWII, including many used as sources by Wikipedia itself. Just two examples: Gavin Long and I. S. O. Playfair, who is extensively used in the pages of the Africa campaign. Meanwhile, one may wonder what historical works Allaway has written, and what is his reputation as a historian...--Olonia (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Stunning ignorance. They were not members of the fascist armed forces. Ameuter defence. O wouldnt trust them to tell me what Mussolini had for breakfast in the morning. Dapi89 (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Reduction ad Hitlerum". You are out of arguments. Cocchia served for 20 years after fascism has ceased to exist. His books, written in 1960s, are based on the only and official records of the Italian Navy. Keep on insulting, meanwhile. Seriously, how old are you? You are so overexcited that you can't even write a grammatically correct sentence. --Olonia (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I was forgetting. Besides Cocchia, other authors I cited are Giorgio Giorgerini, Rolando Notarangelo and Gian Paolo Pagano, neither of whom served in the Italian navy in WWII. And I proved that Derek Walters, in his book The History of the British U-class Submarine, carefully records all British submarine successes, but does not mention the damage to an "Avieri-class" destroyer on 9 Nov 1941, nor the sinking of any Italian submarine by Upholder in December 1941. Check here. --Olonia (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So? It wouldn't matter if they were still serving, it'd be akin to using a memoir.
 * And why exactly is it, that these writers should take precedents over others?
 * Third, he claimed it damaged. See Wingate and Thomas as well. Dapi89 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * They who? Memoir? Have you any idea how a official history is written? Official documents all over the place.
 * I know well that he claimed it damaged. Incorrectly, and understandably for him. But in the page, you wrote that he damaged it.--Olonia (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Volunteer note - The editors are advised to heed the warning from administrator User:Neil to be civil, comment on content, not contributors, and avoid personal attacks. Is there a content issue that can be discussed without commenting on conduct?  If so, state it briefly.  If not, find somewhere else to engage in insults, being aware that insults can result in blocks.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Italian archives are incomplete, and in places, an absolute mess. I know. I've been there, and I know other academics who have written on the Italian Navy: a former tutor of mine wrote a book on Italian Naval Expansion. So yes, I do. And your assumption that records "are all over the place", is nonsense and belie ignorance.
 * Once again: why should these sources take precedence over others?. Dapi89 (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Internet is incredible, you can be anyone, you can even decide that you have been to the Italian Navy archives when it fits you. Records "all over the place" is referring to the book. Since we are at it, I know Platon Alexiades, who has done extensive in the Italian Navy archives.--Olonia (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

For Robert McClenon. I am sorry, but I have little patience when provoked. I tried to use this page properly, but Dapi89 immediately turned it into a personal attack. Anyway. I will copy-past the content issue that I had written above so that anyone can read it. In the meanwhile, could you prevent Dapi89 from launching further personal attacks on me on this page? Cancell my replies to him as well. I am fine with that.

Now, to the issue.

Most of the page about Malcolm David Wanklyn seems to be based on the book "Hero of the Upholder" by Jim Allaway. From what I see, Allaway takes Wanklyn's wartime claims at face value, therey mixing up history and legend. I might as well say that based on what I can read here, his book seems a bit sensationalistic and amateurish to me. But that is a personal opinion. Most submariners from all countries - British, German, American, Japanes, Italian - during that war claimed more ships sunk or damaged than they actually sank, because it was not possible for them to ascertain the exact results of their attacks. Wanklyn was not an exception, and this is more than understandable. The point is, serious historians, postwar, cross-check submariners' claims and enemy records, and find out which ships were actually sunk or damaged. Allaway did not. I have corrected the page, based on actual records that, I repeat, anyone willing to check will be able to. Maybe Uboat.net page, that mentions actual excerpts of Upholder ' s log, as well as historical research by the meticulous researcher Platon Alexiades, can be considered unreliable (not by me, but again, I am not the only one here who makes decisions). But there are the cited books from the Italian Navy Historical Branch that support what I have written.

My claims are:

1) that Upholder did not damage an "Avieri-class" destroyer (which would be a Soldati-class destroyer) on the same day he sank the Italian destroyer Libeccio. Sources: Aldo Cocchia, La difesa del traffico con l'Africa Settentrionale dall'1.10.1941 al 30.9.1942, Italian Navy Historical Branch, pp. 67-68; Giorgio Giorgerini, La guerra italiana sul mare. La Marina tra vittoria e sconfitta 1940-1943, p. 483 to 489.

2) that Upholder did not sink Italian steamer Dandolo in July 1941. She did not disappear to anywhere. She was damaged by Upholder, repaired, and sunk by torpedo bombers in December 1942. Source: Rolando Notarangelo, Gian Paolo Pagano, Navi mercantili perdute, Italian Navy Historical Branch, p. 141.

3) that Upholder sank Italian submarines Ammiraglio Saint Bon and Tricheco, and no other Italian submarines. The claim for a submarine sunk by Upholder in December 1941 is wrong. That submarine, that conveniently is not named in the page, did not disappear to anywhere, because it never existed (or, more simply, was the Italian submarine Settembrini that escaped damage, but that is not reliable, since it comes from the unreliable Uboat.net). Sources: Luigi Castagna, Navi militari perdute, Italian Navy Historical Branch, p. 55; Naval History and Heritage Command list

4) that the Italian merchant Bainsizza was not sunk by Upholder, but by aircraft in October 1941. Sources: Rolando Notarangelo, Gian Paolo Pagano, Navi mercantili perdute, Italian Navy Historical Branch, p. 72; Aldo Cocchia,La difesa del traffico con l'Africa Settentrionale dall'1.10.1941 al 30.9.1942, Italian Navy Historical Branch, pp. 16 to 19.

There would be also Uboat.net, but I do not know wheter it would be considered as a reliable source. I invite you all to check what I have stated.--Olonia (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Records are archives, records are not books, books are not archives: if you can't understand that you've no chance of understanding the issue.
 * Can you follow a line of argument? The argument is not that Wanklyn actually sank a submarine in December 1941, the he claimed it sunk. Whether or not the claim is accurate has been addressed. It was an unnamed submarine, people can draw their own conclusions. Turner and Gray say Wanklyn sank Bainsizza. You've been asked why your sources should replace them, rather than be used to contradict them. And you haven't answered that. Dapi89 (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I know that very well. Once again. The article stated that Wanklyn had sunk an unnamed submarine. But no Italian submarines went missing in or around 8 November 1941. Galileo Ferraris was sunk by HMS Lamerton on 25 October 1941; Guglielmo Marconi was lost in the Atlantic in November; Ammiraglio Caracciolo was sunk by HMS Farndale on 11 December; no losses in between. People cannot "drawn their own conclusions", because there is no submarine that can have been sunk by Upholder on 8 November 1941. Wanklyn attacked a submarine (Settembrini, if you believe Uboat.net; "unknown", otherwise), missed it, and wrongly thought he had sunk it. That is all. It happened thousands of times throughout the war, to submariners from any country. You can't claim that a submarine may have been sunk when there is no submarine that has been sunk, or gone missing, on or around that date.
 * Bainsizza. Why do I think that Cocchia, Notarangelo and Pagano should replace Turner and Gray? Because those are not random books, they are, I will say that again, the official history of the Italian Navy Historical Branch. And it is the Italians who lost the ship, they are the ones that know when and how she was lost. She was torpedoed on 14 October 1941 by one of six Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers from the 830th Squadron Fleet Air Arm, and sank in 34°35' N, 12°12' W after a lenghty and unsuccessful towing attempt. There is a lenghty description of her sinking in the mentioned book. If anyone wants to see it, I shall take photographs of the mentioned pages and e-mail them to them. The USMM books even contain the chronology of all convoys to and from North Africa: if anyone wants, I can photograph and e-mail them the pages with all the voyages that Bainsizza undertook after its imaginary sinking by Upholder in May 1941. Otherwise, you can make a google search for this ship, and see the results.--Olonia (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Naval Historical Branch work is not the same as an official history. The Naval Historical Branch has published much on the subject, but the History of the Second World War series The War at Sea, by Stephen Roskill, a former naval officer and academic with credentials, is the O.H. The supposition that the Italians knew when and where they lost a ship 'cus it was theirs', holds no water. Absolutely no mention of it in the work I have on the FAA in this war. Dapi89 (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ...are you aware of the fact that each Navy has its own official history? The Historical Branch I am speaking of is the Ufficio Storico della Marina Militare, and the official history I am speaking of is the 21-volume series La Marina italiana nella seconda guerra mondiale. As fort he fact that the country that owns a ship knows its whereabouts far better than its enemy, it is just a plain fact. That it "holds no water" for you is irrelevant. I seriously doubt that you have a work on the FAA at all. And I can prove what I said, with the chronology of the voyages made by Bainsizza after her imaginary sinking by Upholder, as well as the description of its loss to the FAA on 14 October 1941. I can send the pages to you, to pretty much anyone who asks it by tomorrow morning.--Olonia (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That is not an official history. I don't give a damn what you think, I'll drown you in sources on the FAA if I have to. Send it then, because I'm tired of talking about it. Dapi89 (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That is an official history. I don't give a damn what you think: I have been drowning you in actual sources for hours, whereas the only thing you have been doing for hours is looking for ridiculous excuses to attack my sources. Provide an e-mail address and be drowned.--Olonia (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Electoral system#What_now.3F
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There is a dispute between BrownHairedGirl and Homunq on Talk:Electoral system. Homunq had started an RM proposing the article be moved from Voting system to Voting method; after the RM was resolved moving the article to Electoral system instead, Homunq has continued to discuss the idea of putting some of the article's content at voting method or a similar title, while BrownHairedGirl believes that Homunq's continued discussion of this is illegitimate. Both sides of this debate have support from others on the talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion.

How do you think we can help?

The reason this needs to bring in outside eyes is the conflict between two individuals, BrownHairedGirl and Homunq; but the issue can be solved without resolving their disagreement, by simply clarifying the status of the underlying content. The question is: did the resolution of the RM foreclose further discussion of whether to create a new sub-article at voting method or voting rule, with a more theoretical bent, to go alongside the electoral system article's more practical bent?

Summary of dispute by Homunq
I tried to be neutral in the above, so I'm adding a section here to lay out my side briefly. In sum, I feel that BrownHairedGirl's insistence on making this about my behavior, rather than about content, is derailing the discussion. I think that Number 57's engagement has been much more productive; though they're "on BHG's side" and have criticized my actions at times, their main focus has been on the article. I apologize for naming Nealmcb, VoteFair, and Filingpro as parties to this dispute; they clearly have related opinions, but I am not implying that they're acting disputatiously. As for content, I think I made the clearest argument that a split is reasonable when I referred to the "2003 report" (do a page search on the talk page). Homunq (࿓) 11:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by BrownHairedGirl
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The talk page is considering two issues. One is the appropriate content and structure for the article, and the other is Homunq's desire to split out most of the content into a separate article. The first part of the discussion has mostly proceeded well, with for example agreement to move the highly technical "comparison" section to a separate article, retaining only a summary. However, two persistent problems have repeatedly disrupted discussion: a) Homunq posting huge, repetitive walls of text in each discussion section from the RM onwards; and b) Homunq repeatedly raising and re-raising the issue of their desire to split the article. This proposed split has been raised several times without consensus, and in the discussion on my talk page (permalink) Homunq repeatedly insisted that they would raise the issue again and again until there is a consensus. That is clearly a form of forum-shopping or attrition strategy, and progress on developing the article will continue to be impeded until this disruptive editing is curtailed; I have given up on the discussion, because this attrition game is too timewasting. I deplore Homunq's attempt to cast this a two-way personal dispute, since other editors have also asked Homunq to deist. It appears that Homunq may have WP:OWNership issues here. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Number 57
I don't think we are quite at the DR stage yet. Homunq has been putting forward some annoying unclear and circular suggestions with walls of text, but the discussion about the article (see e.g. here) still seems to be progressing reasonably well. I would suggest he simply engages in that discussion about the development of the current article until we're happy with it, and only then will it be feasible or productive to have a proper discussion about whether another separate article is required (one has already been split off with seemingly unanimous agreement), at which point he can hopefully be a bit clearer about what he thinks needs doing. He just needs to be a bit more patient (barely doing anything else on Wikipedia for the last month except contributing to Talk:Electoral system is probably not helping). Number  5  7  12:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Nealmcb
My impression of the original MR discussion is that there were 6 or 7 expressing the opinion that voting method, or perhaps voting rule, was the right term for the bulk of the article (homunq, nealmcb, filingpro, smokeyjoe, ajaxsmack, probably votefair, perhaps saintdonut) and 4 who were mostly focused on wanting to change the name to 'Electoral system' (brownhairedgirl, amakuru, Number 57, markbassett). There was consensus that the existing name, voting system, was inappropriate, and that Electoral system was appropriate for some of the thrust of the article, so a move was made. At this point, the rewrite by Number 57 helps create an article more tightly on the Electoral system theme, which I appreciate. My main concern is to find a good name for the more technical material which applies to more than just traditional political elections. I see now that the new Comparison of electoral systems page, which separates out the algorithmic material, retains the "electoral system" name. A better name would be, as supported by the bulk of the sources, and discussed before here with majority support, something like voting method or voting rule or voting algorithm. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by VoteFair
I support what I interpret Homunq's assertion to be, which is that "election system" and "voting method" have different meanings. Years ago BrownHairedGirl and I had an unpleasant interaction on another article, so I admit that I am biased against hisher persistent requests for Homunq to back down from his request.

I suggest a simple resolution of having two articles, one named "election system" and the other named "voting method" (or, less ambiguously but also less familiar, "vote-counting method"). This is different from Homunq's original request to simply rename the existing single article. For perspective, voting/election methods/systems involve lots of subtle complexities that are mathematics-based, and Wikipedia serves both beginners and experts, so a balance between these extremes is challenging. Yet I'm optimistic that balance can be reached because Number_57, who is rewriting the single article, has been receptive to my suggestions. VoteFair (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Filingpro
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. My understanding is that the RM resolved only to change the name to "electoral systems" and to encapsulate (i.e. move) topics of greater detail to other articles, so how all this happens I think should remain open to discussion. Filingpro (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Electoral system#What_now.3F discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.


 * Just a note that I have a discussion with BrownHairedGirl on her talk page that relates to this issue as well. Homunq (࿓) 16:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Volunteer note  - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The other editors have been notified.  I am neither accepting nor declining this case.  It is ready to be opened for discussion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

OTOH, if you drop that behaviour, then we are left with a straightforward process of discussions on developing an article, with little or no need for DRN. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * do you agree that it would be inappropriate for either of us to initiate a sanctions process against the other while this DRN is pending? That is not, of course, a carte blanche for either of us to violate policies; it's just that if we do, somebody else should be the one to bring it up. I believe that this DRN will help resolve our underlying disagreements, and will abide by anything that is decided here; I suspect you probably would say the same. I think you have clearly violated at least one policy, and you think I have clearly violated several; but if it is as clear as we think, then others can be the ones to report the violations. Meanwhile, the DRN will resolve faster and more cleanly if the discussion on the page can proceed without impediment. Homunq (࿓) 00:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * no, I do not agree. Regardless of the DRN process, your tendentious and disruptive editing is an ANI issue. If you continue to disrupt the talk page discussion by a) posting walls of text; b) repeatedly re-raising the same issue; and c) retaining your insistence that a no-consensus conclusion is a licence to continue to press the same proposals without delay ... then I reserve the right to ask admins to consider sanctions.
 * (I've deleted some content I wrote here, because it was argumentation, and doesn't belong here. BHG, if you want to read what I said, you can look at the history, or I can put it on your talk page.)
 * So, while I still hope that this DRN will resolve the underlying content question, and I realize that it's not the place to handle my dispute with BHG, I ask volunteers (such as ; thanks for your work here, and no need to respond if you don't want to) if there is some other forum where we could resolve this inter-user issue one way or the other, either so that I could participate in the talk page there on the same footing as others (unless somebody besides BHG decides I'm being unreasonable), or so that I would be told by a third party to shut up and stop aggravating BHG. At least one of us is in the wrong here, but without a third party we both recognize as legitimate, yelling at each other is just wasting everybody's time. Homunq (࿓) 19:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is now several days since Homunq desisted from flogging the dead horse ... and in that space opened up by the absence of yet another round Homunq's of walls of text seeking a split, agreement has been reached on two significant changes to the article.
 * That looks to me like a good place to be. If Honunq continues to exercise such restraint, then I am sure that more progress will be made as consensus is reached on more issues, and I won't need to waste time on diff-farming for ANI.
 * Of course, if OTOH Homunq continues to believe that pleas for them to follow basic good practice amount to "intimidation" (as Homunq claimed here), then Homunq has the option of an ANI complaint. But beware of WP:BOOMERANG. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Volunteer note - User:Homunq asks whether it would be inappropriate for User:BrownHairedGirl to initiate sanctions "while this DRN is pending?" The answer is a definitive No, because if the answer were Yes, it would be granting disruptive editors a license to use DRN filings as a ruse to avoid WP:ANI or other sanctions.  DRN cannot be used as a way to divert attention from a conduct issue.  I am not saying whether there is a conduct issue, but DRN cannot be used to divert attention from a conduct issue.  (On the other hand, a filing of a conduct dispute at WP:ANI will result in a DRN thread being closed.)  DRN can go forward if two or more editors voluntarily agree to discuss a content issue, and no proceeding is pending in another forum on the same topic.  Do two or more editors voluntarily wish to discuss content here, or should this thread be closed?  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for others, but I am not interested in using DRN to discuss the issues as framed in this filing by Homunq. My reasons for rejecting that framing are set out above. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)~
 * , do you think this DRN could be productive, or would you rather just talk it out on the talk page? I'd still like to resolve this issue, so the DRN could be helpful in my view; but I must admit that one impetus in starting it was to get a neutral third party whom both BHG and I would recognize involved, so without her involvement, this may not be the right forum.
 * , thanks for the reply. The question on the appropriateness of seeking sanctions was intended for BHG herself. The question I asked you and other volunteers here was: can you help me find an appropriate forum so that we can find some neutral editor or editors who can tell BHG and/or myself if we're acting inappropriately? At the present time, both of us believe the other is, and neither of us recognizes the other's judgement on our own actions. It's a broken symmetry - for instance, I don't foresee wanting her sanctioned, while she apparently does foresee that possibility with me - but I think it's a case where third-party involvement would be helpful. Homunq (࿓) 13:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Homunq - If you wish to use this DRN to decide whether someone is acting inappropriately, you are in the wrong place. Inappropriate behavior is a conduct issue, and this is a content forum.  We only discuss article content, not editor conduct.  User:BrownHairedGirl is an administrator, amd I, for one, am inclined to assume that administrators are acting reasonably and that they have good judgment as to when to caution other editors as to their behavior.  If you really want to discuss whether an administrator is acting inappropriately, you should first read the boomerang essay, and may then go to WP:ANI, where other administrators and experienced editors will comment.  The only forum that can actually sanction an administrator is the Arbitration Committeee.  Listen to BHG, or ask other administrators.  Your call.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless two or more editors want to discuss article content, this thread will be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The subtext of what you're saying is coming through loud and clear; thank you. That's sincere, not passive-aggressive or sarcastic.
 * This DRN was started to resolve a content issue. If Number 57 thinks it's worth doing, then it is. But from his statement above, that looks unlikely; so unless he explicitly says otherwise, I'm fine with it being closed. Homunq (࿓) 16:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need this at the moment. Number   5  7  16:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

BHG on VoteFair's statement
wrote in their statement that: Years ago BrownHairedGirl and I had an unpleasant interaction on another article.

This surprised me because I had no recollection of any previous encounter with VoteFair, and VoteFair has only 399 edits in nearly 11 years. But none of us has perfect recall, so out of curiosity, I checked with the Editor Interaction Analyser, which reveals no interaction between us on any other topic.

The only explanations I can see for this are either that:
 * 1) VoteFair's recollection is mistaken; or
 * 2)  VoteFair also edits under another account which is not disclosed at User:VoteFair.

Any of us can have a memory lapse, but an editor acting good faith will retract a mistaken assertion. Similarly, if a good faith editor has failed to disclose a doppelganger account, I am sure that they would wish to correct that oversight.

Please will VoteFair explain this? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

List of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_The_Walking_Dead
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Somebody just Please do Something about this!

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Ok, Someone keeps on removing the iHorror Awards section for whatever reason. When it is a Real Actual Award Show. Also, they keep on saying that it's spam, when it isn't. So you can you please or someone else put it back on there? And do something about the users that kee on taking it down?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I feel like both of these Users need to get Blocked or atleast get Blocked for 24 Hours.

How do you think we can help?

I say remove Drmies' Admin Rights. This user keep on abusing their power to block and report people without thinking first and just jumps to conclusions.

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

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

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

:Talk:Nigel Farage#Reversion of WP:RS edits re his alleged racism whilst at school.|Reversion of WP:RS edits re his alleged racism whilst at school.
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 incidents have been removed repeatedly from the page of the UKIP politician Nigel Farage. One, the existence of a published letter from a teacher at his school concerned about his fascism as a pupil (widely published in respected newspapers, verified, and which Farage himself admits seeing), and the other an open letter from a schoolfriend, concerned about the same subject, also published in the broadsheet press. These keep being removed on grounds of "speculation" and "coat racking" even though we've had a long discussion about why they don't fit the criteria for either. The upshot is the page as it exists omits an important and widely known part of the background of this well-known political figure and is I believe less balanced, impartial and fair.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the Talk page. The incidents keep being removed with little explanation or engagement with the editors who have added them.

How do you think we can help?

Advise us to whether one or both incidents meet the criteria for inclusion on Nigel Farage's Wikipedia page.

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

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

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

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

:Talk:Nigel Farage#Reversion of WP:RS edits re his alleged racism whilst at school.|Reversion of WP:RS edits re his alleged racism whilst at school. discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editors of the filing here.  Also, has the filing unregistered editor been involved in the discussion?  If so, they should list themselves as a party also.  (Maybe they filed this case logged out and are one of the editors.)  Other editors have also been engaged in recent discussions about Farage on the talk page and should also be included and notified.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Ali Watkins
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes -- see links below to talk page, subsequent discussion at RS noticeboard, and back at a different section of the talk page here.

Location of dispute Users involved

Dispute overview

It is unclear from extensive discussion to-date which specific aspect of UNDUE might be in question.

The edit in question (clarified below after discussion re RS issues to highlight that the reporter is Pulitzer prize finalist) to the Senate section of the article:

"On March 9, 2017, Ali Watkins, a Pulitzer Prize finalist for coverage of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture and on staff at both Huffington Post and BuzzFeed, reported after speaking with 'more than half a dozen officials involved with the committee’s investigation” who requested anonymity, that 'Even some Democrats on the Intelligence Committee now quietly admit, after several briefings and preliminary inquiries, they don’t expect to find evidence of active, informed collusion between the Trump campaign and known Russian intelligence operatives, though investigators have only just begun reviewing raw intelligence.'"

was reverted by SPECIFICO here.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The revert was followed by 1) discussion on the talk page in a section titled "Reliable media and unnamed sources" then at 2) the RS noticeboard (some discussion had continued at #1), and then 3) back on the talk page in a different section titled with the reporter's name, "Ali Watkins".

In sum, SPECIFICO reverted as indicated above. The RS issue turned out, after much discussion, to be a non-issue given the reporter's credentials. General claims of UNDUE been made; but reference to any specific para in UNDUE is lacking despite repeated requests.

To facilitate discussion, I can identify a handful of (imo) the most germane posts but, at this point, (again, imo) it would be more helpful if the other invitees could present their arguments below -- with reference to specific paras of UNDUE.

How do you think we can help?

Encourage invitees to identify, with specificity, any claims in WP:UNDUE, together with statements of relevance to the edit and revert.

Summary of dispute by SPECIFICO
This content is undue, newsy, and otherwise inappropriate. When OP met resistance at the article talk page, he jumped to RSN, which affirmed that the case for insertion was weak (although not necessarily due to RS issues). OP then went back to article talk claiming to be vindicated at RSN and again pushing for insertion. It seems to me to be pointless to engage in further discussion on the matter, as consensus is clearly against OP's view. SPECIFICO talk  16:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how this DR thing works, but it's clear to me that disparagement and misrepresentation of other editors is never helpful, nor is framing content discussions in battleground terms. SPECIFICO talk  23:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Masem
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I have only gotten involved because this came up on the RS/N board (whether the source was reliable, which given the writer's credentials, appears to be), where I did try to point out if this really was appropriate to include at this time given that WP is NOT#NEWS and that we should be looking at including material in the long-term; the type of statement proposed is very much a short-term view that will be unnecessary (most likely) when the larger investigation is closed. I do note that this same mindset should also be applied to that article in general due to ongoing nature of the investigation to include less opinion and rhetoric and staying more to factual events, not intending to single out the one above statement. --M ASEM (t) 14:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Thucydides411
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This particular dispute is just a tiny part of a much larger dispute. From my observations, there are generally two "camps" editing at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. One camp wants the article to detail every alleged connection between Trump and Russia and every form of alleged Russian interference in the US elections, and to present every statement bolstering these claims, with as little mitigating language as possible (for example, see the dispute over whether "alleged" should appear in the title). This camp also wants to exclude, as far as possible, any statements that cast any doubt on claims of Russian interference (for example, there have been disputes over whether Russian denials should even be mentioned in the lede, whether Assange's statements that Russia is not the source of the leaks should be mentioned at all in the article, or whether former US intelligence officials who have expressed doubt about the case against Russia should be mentioned). The other "camp" generally wants some dissenting views included in the article (e.g., Russian denials, Assange's statements, the widely critical reaction among cybersecurity experts to the declassified reports put out by the Obama administration), and doesn't want claims made by US intelligence agencies to be treated as fact.

While SPECIFICO is posing this as an issue of the disputed content being too newsy or undue, that's not at all what's at issue. If the issue were the newsiness of the content, then SPECIFICO (and others in the first camp) would probably take issue with most of the content in the article (most of which they added themselves). Most of the article is made up of blow-by-blow accounts of which US official/politician/commentator said what when about alleged Russian interference. The real issue is the content. If I were to try to come up with a predictive model of what edits the "first camp" would object to, I would probably include one factor: does it favor or disfavor the hypothesis that Russia interfered in the election? I'm sorry to be so jaded, but that's pretty obviously what the issue is. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * A pretty good example of how this works can be gleaned from SPECIFICO's comment below:
 * "Some of the members of Congress are quoted because they have access to the classified version of the intelligence assessment, and for this reason their views may be noteworthy. The public opinion polls, journalist and pundit ruminations, and SYNTHy references to OTHERSTUFF are not appropriate in my opinion."
 * So, if I understand the principle at work, people who have inside information should be given more weight in the article. So what about Julian Assange's statements? After all, the guy who released the leaks to the public might know a thing or two about where they came from. Well, then we suddenly learn that there is a whole host of reasons why Assange's statements are undue, not noteworthy, suspect, and so on. He has an agenda, apparently (unlike the intelligence agencies, or any of the politicians cited, of course).
 * There are a lot of examples like this from the disputes over the article, but I'll mention just one more. SPECIFICO and others in the same "camp" have arguing for the exclusion of any "non-expert" opinion. So then it comes time to discuss whether to remove commentary by William Binney. Binney is a very well-known and highly respected former NSA analyst. He says that he's unconvinced by the case the US intelligence agencies have made about Russian interference. Suddenly, Binney is fringe, has an agenda, has appeared on RT before, and, by the way, is an old fogey. So, to sum up: we have to feature people with insider information and expertise, unless they say something that goes against the Russian intervention theory.
 * This just goes back to my previous statement: there is one predictive factor that nearly 100% predicts whether SPECIFICO (and others in the same camp) will support or oppose the inclusion of any content in the article, and it's not UNDUE, SYNTH or RS. It's quite simply whether the content bolsters or detracts from the idea that Russia interfered in the US elections. I really wish it weren't this simple, but it is. I've seen it in action for a few months now. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Steve Quinn
I took the liberty of pinging everyone at the WP:RSN discussion (final edit linked here) per SPECIFICO and User:Steven Crossin below.

I think it has been established at the RSN and the article talk page, WP:NOTNEWS applies to the above content. It is at best a transitional piece. At the same time, it is very weak reporting replete with vague assertions about what might happen, from both Democrats and Republicans. The statement itself is not balanced because the Buzzfeed article quotes a third official saying: "That take isn’t universally held...there’s a lot of room to find something significant. More importantly, I think this needs to be matched to other reliable sources for it to merit inclusion in this article. If this is widely reported in the (mainstream) media then it carries enough weight. If it is not widely reported then it does not carry enough weight. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Ali Watkins discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - This noticeboard is a valid venue to discuss content disputes about undue weight in an article. There has been discussion on the article talk page.  One of the editors who has taken part in the discussions has not been listed.  The filing editor must notify the editors (after adding one more editor) of this filing.  Robert McClenon (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

repeats general statements, so I will not respond.

Thanks - we can pick it up from here. I take it you are implicitly referring to the WP:BALASP subsection of WP:UNDUE. Is that correct?

I appreciate that you are "not intending to single out" this report and agree that much if not the entire article is replete with intermediate claims. As one example, relevant here, see the Links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials section.

Also, note subsequent reports by Glenn Greenwald and by NBC confirm these expectations.

Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not necessarily specifically referring to BALASP, but more to the fact that while my stance that this material is too much of only short-term relevance, your contribution is technically being singled out given the number of other apparent short-term material (opinions and views of people that may or may not be connected to the investigation that would not be present when the investigation is completed in the future), and the whole article needs a similar review, which clearly is not just on you do handle. WP is not a newspaper, and we have no deadline to get an article "right" but this type of story attracts editors that want to put every breaking news item into the article, and that just isn't encyclopedic. --M ASEM (t) 22:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thx for noting my "contribution is technically being singled out". On that point -- in your view -- did any objection raised in the prior discussion cite any specific aspect of UNDUE unique to THIS contribution? (Apologies if this is a burden -- but I presume you would have mentioned such in what I took be helpful summary comments.) TIA Humanengr (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm Steve here, one of the volunteers at DRN. I think Masem hit the nail on the head at RSN. This article covers a topic that is rapidly changing, nevertheless it is not intended to be a news article. Content from a source that is determined to be reliable does not necessarily mean it warrants inclusion. The article overall needs a good trim, I wouldn't subscribe to the argument I saw in the RSN thread that there were lots of quotes referenced from members of Congress in the article - see WP:OSE (more tied to notability of topics in general, but it applies here as well). The objective should be long-term coverage of the topic as a whole, and with no deadline existing here to get the article "complete", I'd say my view is to not include this, but at the same time, trim a lot of the fat out of the article. Steven   Crossin  23:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of the members of Congress are quoted because they have access to the classified version of the intelligence assessment, and for this reason their views may be noteworthy. The public opinion polls, journalist and pundit ruminations, and SYNTHy references to OTHERSTUFF are not appropriate in my opinion.  In many cases these UNDUE or off-topic bits have been added becuase some editors believed that it was inappropriate to give due WEIGHT to the mainstream media accounts of what occurred.   SPECIFICO  talk  23:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Am I misreading or does "their views may be noteworthy" mean you withdraw (at least part of) your objection? Humanengr (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There are other editors who commented at RSN. They should also be pinged in case they have anything to add here. SPECIFICO  talk  23:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do so, if you wish. I have already read over the discussion there, though. Steven   Crossin  23:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No need, if it won't be useful. SPECIFICO  talk  23:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Steven  -- In practical terms, how and when would you expect the article to be trimmed? Humanengr (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @ Steven : re "no deadline existing here to get the article complete" — OTOH 1) the Senate hearing may last indefinitely; 2) the article is strongly biased towards claims of collusion, hence not NPOV, with the only element opposed given at the end of this section (credit to ); 3) the Ali Watkins piece, along with NBC and Greenwald merely help balance with updated reliable info. Humanengr (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with including third official saying: "That take isn’t universally held...there’s a lot of room to find something significant." Re other reporting, did you see the subsequent reports by Glenn Greenwald ("Key Democratic Officials Now Warning Base Not to Expect Evidence of Trump/Russia Collusion") and by NBC ("Clinton Ally Says Smoke, But No Fire: No Russia-Trump Collusion") mentioned above and linked below? How does WEIGHT apply given that? (I'm ok with including WP:NOTNEWS in the discussion here, but thought it more helpful to focus first on resolving UNDUE b/c as said "It's all on the UNDUE/WEIGHT aspects".) Humanengr (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - In view of the large number of editors who are now listed, this noticeboard may or may not be an appropriate forum. This noticeboard usually handles cases with two to four editors, and the intention is to dispose of matters within one to three weeks.  If there is a specific question, a Request for Comments may be appropriate.  Two other alternatives may be either going back to the article talk page (a free-for-all), or formal mediation.  Is a mediator available to take this case?  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Robert. A mediator might be helpful, so I thank you for that suggestion. In the meantime, given recent related reverts, undos, …, I started a new § on the article talk page. Humanengr (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Volunteer note - By the way, this case is about American politics, and 2016 and 2017 are after 1932. Therefore disruptive editing is subject to discretionary sanctions under the second American politics case ruling.  ˈSo be civil and concise, and comment on content, not contributors, both at this noticeboard, and anywhere else.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Punjab (region)#Amritpal Singh Mann's map
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 few people have an unnecessary problem with the polar orthographic projection of the Punjab region I've created. They seem to think that the Punjabi speaking areas or the Punjab provinces of India and Pakistan is the Punjab region, but when clearly the article's 'Physical geography' portion defines it based on historical, cultural and linguistic lines.

See description box of the image for more details:



Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've asked them to convince me with a proper argument on why I should remove some areas from the projection. I was not satisfied with their response!

How do you think we can help?

Help them understand that this is a projection of the Punjab region not the Punjabi speaking areas or Punjab provinces of India and Pakistan. There is more to consider than the current political and lingual situation of the area.

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

User:Amritpal Singh Mann has created an inaccurate map, and insists on adding it to the article. When asked for sources, he first presented a list of maps from various books: As I've mentioned on the article's talk page, not even one of these maps validate the accuracy of his map; on the contrary, they clearly prove that his map is wrong.

Now, he claims that "the article's 'Physical geography' portion defines it [Punjab] based on historical, cultural and linguistic lines." The most extensive definition of Punjab is given in the "Older 1846-1849 definition" part of this section. First of all, as obvious from the label, it's an obsolete definition. Secondly, even this definition doesn't support the user's map. utcursch &#124; talk 20:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Apuldram
The globe image should not be included in the lede at all, because it is unnecessay and unhelpful. Unnecessary because the lede already contains a more detailed map, with an inset showing the location of the region in the continents. Unhelpful because 1) the region is so small in relation to the whole world that it isn’t possible to show on the globe significant landmarks, such as cities, mountains and rivers, that would help readers to understand the significance of the region; 2) the outline implies a boundary. That generates dispute. The article’s text already makes it clear that the extent of the region is fluid and has changed many times during it’s history. 3) Amritpal Singh Mann’s insertions of his globes are destructive. They delete or displace useful material, see here, here and, of course, here. Apuldram (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with utcursch and Yohannvt that the globe image is inaccurate and misleading. However, even if a fixed definition of the region were to receive consensus, I would oppose the inclusion of the globe image in the lede, for the reasons given above. Apuldram (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Yohannvt
User:Amritpal Singh Mann has created a map which is misleading the readers of Wikipedia. The biggest issue is the name of the map. My other peers on this page have correctly pointed out different inaccuracies in the image. My point is how can a user give a very generalized name of the image as "Punjab (orthographic projection).svg" while explaining that this is based on the historic definitions of the Sikh Empire (1799-1849) and British Punjab (1849–1947)... In case if his sources are true, then he should name it as "Punjab (orthographic projection)(1799-1947).svg". By giving it a general name as "Punjab (orthographic projection).svg", he is misleading the readers of Wikipedia by making them think that this area as depicted by him is actually the area of Punjab in the current times. This is the actual area of Punjab spread across Punjab, Pakistan & Punjab, India To justify his image,On 14th March 2017, he has intentionally changed all the images of the actual Punjab region to his version of Punjab. Check this edit done by him on Simple English Wikipedia. He has simultaneously changed all the correct images across 40+ Wikipedia languages of the Punjab region to his version on Punjab region on the 14th March, 2017.. Check this Yohannvt (talk) 06:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Punjab (region)#Amritpal Singh Mann's map discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer's note: I am not "taking" or opening this case for discussion, but only: First, noting that there appears to be sufficient discussion at the article talk page and, second, reminding the listing editor that it is his/her obligation to notify the other listed parties by leaving a notice at their user talk pages. A notice at the article talk page will not, alone, suffice. You may use the notice template noted at the top of this page (and if you've not read the material there, this would be a good time to do it) or leave a custom note on their pages pointing to this page and section. If the other parties have not either weighed in here or been notified by 04:15 UTC on March 17, 2017, this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 04:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

All members involved have been notified. Amritpal Singh Mann (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I request Amritpal Singh Mann to remove the word "Unnecessary Problem" in the dispute overview.. i feel the point we picked up is not unnecessary, but justified..Yohannvt (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - Proper notice has been given. This case needs a moderator.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

First statement by moderator
I will be conducting moderated discussion. Please read the ground rules at User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules. Now: Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issue is? Address your comments to me (the moderator), not to each other. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Also, remember that disruptive editing is subject to discretionary sanctions under the India and Pakistan case, so that is one more reason to be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

First statements by editors

 * The map File:Punjab (orthographic projection).svg fails WP:V: it exaggerates the extent of Punjab region by any present or historical definition. The creator (Amritpal Singh Mann) first presented 7 historical maps as sources, but as I've stated here, these maps do not support the creator's claim. Next, he argued that the article (Punjab (region)) supports his claim. This is also incorrect: see File:Pope1880Panjab3.jpg and File:Punjab 1909.jpg. utcursch &#124; talk 15:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see why this case has been accepted. This is one disruptive POV-pushing editor creating nonsense maps and edit-warring to insert it. Everyone else at the article, regardless of whether they are Indian or Pakistani or neither, thinks that the map is ludicrous. DrKay (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

User talk:ChrisChichester
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:ChrisChichester has added a large amount of information about himself to the Christian Gerhartsreiter, arguing that Gerhartsreiter fraudulently used his name. I reverted, with the edit comment "If this other Christopher Chichester is notable, he should have his own article. Mixing in content to the Gerhartsreiter article isn't the right way to cover him." CC then re-added his edits and more. I explained to him in more detail on his talk page why I found his edits inappropriate, and again reverted. He then sent me a nasty message via Facebook, which I answered on his Talk page (asking him not to contact me off-wiki) and added more material about himself to the Gerhartsreiter page.

I have explained the problems with his edits and his behavior to him, and have reverted twice. I don't want to edit war, so I'd appreciate some dispute resolution help here.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have talked to User:ChrisChichester on his Talk page. He has replied once, off-wiki, without addressing any of the WP policy issues.

How do you think we can help?

Please remind User:ChrisChichester of the various relevant Wikipedia policies and ask him to revert the inappropriate edits on Christian Gerhartsreiter.

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

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

User talk:Bennyben1998
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:Bennyben1998 has edited many articles about South Slavic names (Radovan, Dragoslav, Darko (given name), Vesna (name), Jasna (given name), Vuk (name), etc.) to add the claim that they are Russian and other names, although all (or almost all) the people listed on those pages is South Slavic (i.e., from former Yugoslavia or Bulgaria: Slovenian, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, or Macedonian).

I removed these unsupported claims, including in the Category lists, including an Edit summary explaining why. Bennyben1998 reverted with no explanation, or with edit summaries like "PLEASE JUST LET THIS BE ALREADY!!!". I explained my reasoning on his Talk page, and he deleted my comments.

(added later): I also explained myself on the Talk:Darko (given name) page, but Bennyben1998 blanked the Talk page.

He continued his behavior, and I brought up the issue again on his talk page. He deleted my comment again, with Edit summary "Leave me alone!"

I warned him on his Talk page, and his answer was "I'll finally give you the answer you've been waiting for. I prefer names to be Slavic in general and besides, what I'm doing is none of your business and if it is then tell me how?"

I again explained calmly what the issues were, and included a warning. He has not responded.

Rather than reverting his changes myself, and restarting this unproductive cycle, I'd like some help from the DRN.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Explained above. Multiple messages on his Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Explain Wikipedia content and behavioral policies to the editor and encourage him to revert his unconstructive edits.

Summary of dispute by Bennyben1998
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

User talk:Bennyben1998 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - This is probably not the right forum for this issue. It appears that this is not a dispute about a single article, but about a pattern of editing.  There has been discussion on the subject editor's talk page, and proper notice has been given.  Moderated discussion can be opened if there is an issue about the content of an article.  The subject editor is cautioned that editing against consensus may result in a block.  Is there a specific article content issue that the two editors wish to discuss with the help of a moderator?  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:KK FMP#Merge_with_KK_FMP_Beograd
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

Conflicting sources about which of the two clubs with the same name is currently playing in the league. Several sources reported the club as being disbanded, while the other sources claims that the club is currently playing in the league.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on local talk page

How do you think we can help?

Opinion on the content dispute

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

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

Talk:KK FMP#Merge_with_KK_FMP_Beograd 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 inconclusive discussion on the article talk page, and the filing editor has notified the other editors properly. This case can be opened for moderated discussion.  However, since this is a yes-no question, it is not clear whether moderated discussion, the purpose of which is compromise, will be useful.  The editors might instead consider asking other editors for their opinions via a WikiProject, or might use a Request for Comments.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Microaggression#Unbalanced 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

Concerns of bias are repeated several times on the talk page. The specific problem of the "criticism" paragraph in the lead is noted, but the concerns are dismissed. I agree the article is unbalanced, but I would hope to avoid an edit war.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have reviewed the edit history of the article and seen that the paragraph has been repeatedly removed and returned. I would remove it, but can only assume it would just be put back again, as has already been happening.

How do you think we can help?

I would solicit a consensus of what constitutes a balanced perspective for the article, and possibly making the page edit-protected if necessary.

Talk:Microaggression#Unbalanced 2 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer&diff=768456512&oldid=768456442
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've added information about this studio's co-financing and distribution deals with other studios with the correct, but someone botched it to the oblivion along with the rest of the page, which made me edit war over it with him/her and a couple of other admins, and now it's locked from THREE MONTHS, which is absolutely the worst to happen to the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried my best to convince them in edit summaries and requests that what I was adding is true and that the sources I'm trying to provide are reliable sources. They just don't give a care.

How do you think we can help?

You need to look at this section at the edit assistance request page and change all the information to the way I want it to be.

Summary of dispute by Spshu
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
 * He keeps lying that MGM's deal with Sony is a "primary distribution deal" and that their deal with Warner Bros is only limited to the Hobbit series, which isn't true because Warner Bros. didn't just collaborate with MGM on The Hobbit, they collaborated on other movies like Creed, Barbershop 3 and Me Before You (look in this page from films from 2014 onward in case you don't know), plus the deal with Sony started to die down after the latest James Bond movie was released, and according to http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/15/business/la-fi-ct-fox-mgm-20110415 and http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/04/sony-and-mgm-finalize-bond-co-financing-partnership.html, MGM decided against signing an overall distribution deal with Sony and instead limited their partnership to the Bond franchise and select films while MGM has deals with other studios like WB and Paramount. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.208.128.40 (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sro23
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer&diff=768456512&oldid=768456442 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Toonz
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

KAMiKAZOW butchered this article COMPLETELY right after I updated a dead link by re-uploaded the document it links to. He started an edit over between me and him over which information stays and which doesn't, and NOW it's locked FOREVER, which means that no one is able to edit the article anymore.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Can you please use the talk page and this revision to change the page back to the way it used to be and unlock it?

How do you think we can help?

Can you please use the talk page and this revision to change the page back to the way it used to be and unlock it?

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

Summary of dispute by Zweeb101
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

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

Summary of dispute by Sro23
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

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

Talk:Dutch letter#Banket
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 were two articles covering largely the same topic: Banket (food) (a kind of almond pastry), and Dutch letter (banket shaped into letters). It was proposed with general agreement to merge the latter into the former. An uninvolved editor "merged" them, but did so by redirecting the general article to the more specific one (i.e. the wrong way), while not actually copying any content from the blanked article. As a result, straight loaf-shaped banket no longer "exists" in WP's universe; only letter-shaped.

Having eaten loaf-shaped banket every Christmas for five decades, I noticed this mistake when I looked for the article about it. I proposed fixing the problem by moving the article to the more general name, while expanding it to also cover both varieties. I created an example of what it might look like in my sandbox.

This has been resisted on two fronts:

1) Drmies' argument is that in Dutch "banket" is not the name of a food but more of a generic description of fine pastries. My response – that in English usage it is what this pastry is commonly called, with links to numerous examples of that – was rejected because they were merely recipes and furthermore not "printed".

2) The Banner seems similarly unconvinced that the pastry is called "banket" in the US. Reversing his previous support for a merger, he demands instead that I create a content fork of the merged article, and call it "almond pastry", which itself is not a name, but a description... one which also fits a wide variety of unrelated foods (and Dutch letters).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

See Talk page for the "discussion".

How do you think we can help?

Evaluate the arguments and evidence on these two questions:
 * Article naming: Is the pastry commonly called "banket" in English? If not, what is it called?
 * Article merging: Are letter-shaped banket and loaf-shaped banket similar enough to be covered in a single article, or is there enough material about each to require two?

Summary of dispute by Drmies
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
 * Filer is wasting our time. "Banket" as a food exists only minimally, as an adjective that's sometimes used substantively. In as much as "banket" is a food, it comes as the banketletter (or Dutch letter, an awful term but OK). In as much as "banket" is an adjective applied to the banketbetter ("pastry chef"), it simply means "pastry" or "fine pastry", but it never means a specific kind of anything. And the rest is on the talk page, ad nauseam. We don't have a dispute as much as a case of someone hard of hearing, whose "evidence" from reliable sources are search results, recipes, and commercial websites. Drmies (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , look at User:JasonAQuest/sandbox, which, I believe, argues that banket is ... exactly the same as banketletter. Serieus? Drmies (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , User:JasonAQuest is misrepresenting my position. I have no disregard for English sources--I have disregard for his sources--at least some of them. Yes, recipes from websites should most likely not be used for serious discussions about naming etc., certainly not if they're not from reliable aources. Banket, in all of his English sources, simply is a kind of almond pastry, as he acknowledges in the draft in User:JasonAQuest/sandbox. So at best banket is banketletter, just not shaped as a letter but as a log. An unbent banketletter, if you will. That there are some in America who think of "loaf-shaped almond pastry" when they hear the word banket isn't really all that relevant, and there is no need for that to be anything more than a footnote--or a paragraph, like this one. And he's got a good source, this one, though he misrepresents it: he says "banket" was introduced to the US--well, no, "banketletter" was introduced, and "banket" is simply an abbreviation of that word. The source cites DARE (I know what that is; I don't know if Jason does), which only reinforces that we're just talking about a name. I can't access Taste of the Midwest, but in the sandbox I see no explanation that this book actually argues that there is some distinct thing called banket that is different from banketletter or whatever we call it. Finally, he cites this very useful book, with a very nice recipe--and the book doesn't even mention the word banket. In other words, I really have no idea what he's trying to argue. It seems clear from the sources that there is no distinct thing called "banket" except for that it's a regionally used American name, used only in regions with significant Dutch emigre populations ("Bottema" is of course a name from the northeast of the Netherlands--see the picture of the log-shaped almond pastry/letter/whatever). Anyway, I think I'm done here. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you for bringing this to my notice. Please respond to the discussion below and go through all the policies I've referred to. I'll look at the sources and comment back. Till then, please discuss further on the issue below. Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Many of the citations in that article are taken from Dutch letter, which the article was based on. Drmies' sudden quarrel about them is with previous editors. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But speaking of misrepresentation, he apparently doesn't notice that his "good source" contains numerous mentions of "banket" as the name of the food we're talking about. For example: "I made banket in pieces about 12 inches long and about 2 inches in circumference. It can also be shaped into letters...." It's even presented in an entry of its own in authorial voice: "banket, a rolled pastry filled with almond paste". Is that a reliable source? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So you found a usage from 1982 that has "banket" for "banketletter". Bravo. If you like you can use that to make yet another argument for "banket" to link to "banketletter", since that same source says, on the same page, "especially used regionally in the shortened form of banket". Goodnight, Drmies (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by The_Banner
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. My summery discussion so far: Thank you. The Banner talk 10:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * POV-pushing
 * ignoring arguments of others involved
 * ignoring suggestions to create another article instead of demolishing Dutch letter
 * failure to understand that Banket (food) is a redirect and not an article. Beside that "Banket (food)" is only merged with Dutch letter last December, a move filer opposes
 * promoting a geographical bias by trying to make the article USA-centric, or, as he stated earlier in the discussion "English centric". But when I stated that my Irish (English language) cookbooks did not agree with him, it was promptly attacked.
 * filer does not seem to understand that an article over a specific, narrowly defined subject can exist next to a wider article like Almond pastry
 * filer announced that he would go to dispute resolution when we did not give in. So this action is a bit forum shopping in the hope that the volunteers solve his lack of arguments.

Talk:Dutch letter#Banket discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Hello, I am Yashovardhan Dhanania and am volunteering here today to sort this out for you. Please allow me some time to review the discussion that has already taken place. Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC) I have reviewed the article talk page and the statement by the original filer. Please note that all articles must follow Notability strictly. As such, this discussion will focus on ensuring that the articles which are discussed follow the policies. I noticed that the original filer did not serve notices to the other disputed editors. I have placed notices on their talk pages inviting attention to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard here. Notes have been left on the talk pages of both the articles concerned that there is an ongoing discussion here. For this case to proceed, I request the other editors concerned to leave their opening statements above at the earliest. Please note that this discussion can not proceed without the input from all conccerned editors. Thank you Yashovardhan (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editors of this filing, and should do so.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for raising the concern . I have notified all involved parties of the dispute and served a reminder to the original filing party. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Both were aware that I intended to bring this here, and I placed a notice on the Talk page they were both following after I had done so. I apologize if this was inadequate. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Volunteer response: To begin with, this dispute is about the redirect Banket (food) which was merged to Dutch letter on 27 December 2016 by . Further, the filer started a discussion on the talk page of the latter on 24 March 2017 stating his objections to the merge. The filer has requested to clear confusion over 2 issues - namely, article naming and article merging. I would like to clarify that prima facie, the dispute appears to be about the naming conventions of the food item Dutch letter in The United States and The Netherlands. Filer has argued that Dutch letter is called blanket in the United States and so the article should be called Blanket (food) rather than Dutch letter. It must be noted that the sources provided by the filer to prove his arguments at the article talk page were called unreliable by both the other parties The_Banner and Drmies. Both have agreed in their opening statements that their arguments have been ignored by the original filer. Further, the suggestion to create another article for the broad subject was rejected by the filer. I must remind all editors to Assume good faith. Further, as I had stated above, the policy of WP:Notability must be strictly followed here. As consensus was reached earlier on the merger of Blanker (food) to Dutch letter, there is no point to believe that the redirect was done in bad faith. Rather, it should be agreed by all editors concerned that the redirect was done in good faith by achieving consensus. I would like to ask the original filer  to provide evidence here to prove his point that the article Banket (food) should not redirect to Dutch letter but rather, can fulfill the condition of WP:Notability and stand as a seperate article. I hope this is agreeable by all editors that evidence of existence of independent reliable source is a first step here. Yashovardhan (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not an accurate representation of the issue, or my position. Perhaps I should've refrained from presenting the others' arguments in my summary; I was trying to be fair to them.
 * I have not disputed the merge or suggested that a separate article be created. I have simply disputed which name was chosen (apparently at random) for the merged article: the name of one specific variety of banket, rather than the term for banket in general. The demand for a separate article in defiance of that merge comes from The Banner. I have "ignored" it because it is an unsound idea, especially if done under the name he made up for it. I understand that it can be done, but I think it's a bad idea.
 * The accusation that my evidence of the name's common usage is "unreliable" is particularly odd, because when pressed for evidence against it or for an alternative, neither Drmies nor Banner has produced any; the best citation either has offered is "my cookbook" with no elaboration about what it says. The closest either has come to a constructive alternative is Banner's "almond pastry", which fails as an article name because 1) it is not what the food is commonly called, and 2) it also describes a wide variety of unrelated foods which are not the topic of this article (bear claws, almond puff pastries, almond croissant, almond bars, etc).
 * The Banner is correct in one accusation: I am trying to make the article "English-centric". That is because this is the English-language Wikipedia, a fact that neither Dutch-fluent editor seems to respect. Drmies' arguments are especially inappropriate in this regard, as they are based entirely on Dutch-language usage of the term, and he rejects every English-language source I provide on specious grounds. (By what logic are recipes an unworthy source when the subject is food?) I understand that it can be confusing how words change their meaning when they enter a different language. Italians are baffled that "fumetti" refers to "photo comics" in English when it is simply the Italian word for "comics", Danish people find the English use of "danish" difficult to accept, and the people of Hamburg can be forgiven any resistance they have to "hamburger". But that doesn't make the English-language uses of these words invalid.
 * To summarize: my position is that we should have one article that covers all foods made by rolling almond paste in pastry dough and baking it, and the English-language term that encompasses them all is "banket". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Volunteer's response: Thank you for clarifying your position. One thing that I would like to clarify is that even though this is the English Language Wikipedia, it does not discriminate on foreign names against English names. The relevant policies appliacable would be WP:TITLEVAR and OTHERNAMES which discuss this issue quite nicely. I would request all participants including you to go through them.
 * Now that you have clarified your position, I would like to know if you are interested in creating a new article with the more general name as its title as was suggested by one of the respondents in his opening statement? I believe it would be in the best interest of all editors in dispute here.
 * Lastly, I must clarify that you must seek community consensus in article titles. Moreover, since you are suggesting a change in the article title or rather disputing a redirect which led to the more generalised title redirecting to the more specific one, you must ensure that the consensus of the community isn't hurt in the process. I request you to answer my questions above and read through the relevant policies I mentioned. Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've already created an article in my sandbox which attempts to cover the whole topic, so as far as that goes: of course I'm willing. I'd be more than happy to restore and enhance Banket (food). But there are two reasons I'm reluctant to put it up alongside the existing article, and why I've refrained from doing anything yet:
 * 1) There was a unanimous consensus that the subject should be merged into a single article, and there would immediately be a redundancy between the new article and the existing one. It would merely reintroduce the situation before the merger. I've been scrupulous about not doing anything without consensus.
 * 2) I've seen no valid suggestions for what else to call it. Let's start with a blank slate and ask: what's the best name for such an article? I nominate "banket" based on all of the usage examples (recipes, labeling, articles about it, etc) I've cited. After all, it was good enough for a WP article that stood for 8 years (before being clobbered in a backwards merger). Drmies apparently vetoes it on the claim that it isn't used by enough English-speakers (only those familiar with the food, I guess, and not wherever he lives), and that it means something else in another language. Paradoxically, he seems to be arguing that we call the general article by the Dutch term "banketletter", despite it having less (if any) general usage among English-speakers, and citing no sources (reliable or not) to support it. Meanwhile, Banner insists on calling it "almond pastry" without citing sources for that name either, and despite the obvious confusion with other almond pastries. Both fail WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS. The only option with any demonstrated support in English usage is "banket", but there's no consensus on the Talk page for it. So here we are. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I must add the following naming convention as reference as well - WP:DIVIDEDUSE. Please note that this is just a guideline and not an official policy. It is however, most apt in this scenario and covers it exclusively well. Please remember that Dispute redressal cannot ensure that all parties are satisfied, however, I will try my best to do so. Some might have to make a compromise in order to satisfy the consensus. It would be really nice if everyone can agree on this guideline so that it can be used in this process without any objections. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Outside of these two talk-pages, there is no "divided usage" that I can see: people either call it "banket" or they throw together a few generic adjectives to describe it without a name (almond, Dutch, roll, pastry). (For the letter-shaped variety, there's another name, but it isn't interchangeable with the other varieties: that was the mistake made by the merging editor.) I apologize that I haven't provided Drmies-approved sources (whatever those might be) to back up the English usage of "banket", but it's something of a WP:BLUE question in ethnic-Dutch English-speaking communities: show someone a log of rolled pastry with almond filling and they'll either call it "banket" or they'll shrug because they don't know the name. That retail photo isn't an obscure example: this is a product with all-English labeling, sitting on the shelf of a US general grocery store, and there's no question what they consider the name of the product to be. Consider: for 8 years before this merger, there was an article called Banket (food), and no one – including Drmies or Banner – questioned that it was a valid name, even after the merger was proposed. Their objections only this week, when someone has come along with suggestions that challenge their status quo and control, lack credibility. (Or sources.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I am recused as a volunteer as I have had interaction with Drmies but I would like to comment on a concern I have with the original filing editors request here being based on original research and personal experience. I seriously recommend that be re-written with their own concerns being based on policy and guidelines as this looks very much like single editor not getting the point right now.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * i seem to agree that the original filing should have been better. However, i hope things are clear right now. What I understood is that the concern is about the name of the article and the redirect was just an excuse to start the discussion. I'll be more than happy if a resolution could be reached here. Thanks for your comments! Yashovardhan (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you know that, that actually makes this a "move discussion" and may not yet be ready for DRN? From Requested moves;
 * --Mark Miller (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If that's the appropriate venue, I'd be happy to take it there instead. I'm just trying to find a solution. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize if my unfamiliarity with this process led to a breach of protocol. I was trying to give context: the fact that there used to be an article with the proper name is relevant to this naming dispute. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd request all participants to further clear their stands here and not make changes to their opening statement as this makes it easier for everyone to read and discuss. I'll request the original filer to explicitly state what he expects as a resolution here. What I've been able to grasp is that he wants the name of the article be changed. Others may comment below here on this issue. Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, but that is going to be confusing as it only conflicts with the filing itself. We generally ask that the filing editor rephrase in their opening as it makes it clear to all without having to read through extensive comments.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What I read in this long story above, is a clear POV of the filer. As he states in his opening statement 2) The Banner seems similarly unconvinced that the pastry is called "banket" in the US. Reversing his previous support for a merger, he demands instead that I create a content fork of the merged article, and call it "almond pastry", which itself is not a name, but a description... one which also fits a wide variety of unrelated foods (and Dutch letters). There he makes absolutely clear that he wants the article to be draw along USA-lines, not according to a neutral-sided worldwide view. Pastry is the wide, geographical neutral subject. Dutch letter happens to be a specific part of pastry with strong ties with Holland. I will have no problems with a renaming of the article to something "Butter letter", what is one of the alternatives names of the Dutch letter. But I admit that I did not any research in how common that name is. The sandbox-version makes clear that JAQ is aiming for a wider article, that would be better placed in the article with the earlier suggested name. Please note that there are cheaper versions of Dutch letters where the almond paste is replaced by bean-based pastes. That are still Dutch letters, but not the almond based pastries mentioned by JAQ. The Banner  talk 22:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not aiming for a US-centric article, merely to have the article title reflect the most common English usage, rather than to deny that it counts. This unfair charge of bias is one that Banner has repeatedly made against other editors as well. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So far the discussion... The Banner talk 23:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I can best restate it by repeating this from above, with the answers that I would propose: How do you think we can help?

Evaluate the arguments and evidence on these two questions:
 * Article naming: Is the pastry commonly called "banket" in English? If not, what is it called? ("Banket" is the name with the best-demonstrated English-language usage.)
 * Article merging: Are letter-shaped banket and loaf-shaped banket similar enough to be covered in a single article, or is there enough material about each to require two? (They can be covered in a single article describing all varieties.)

By the way, you should anticipate a sequel to this dispute, because Drmies has apparently gotten the notion to suggest that Dutch letter be renamed to use his preferred Dutch term instead of the more familiar English. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * These measures are completely unacceptable for me, as they are showing a clear POV. The Banner talk 22:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. At this point all that is even being asked for is an evaluation of their own points. That is for the talk page of the article and the move discussion, not DRN. By the way, I have an interest in the subject as a member of Project Food and drink, not as a DRN volunteer and am not acting in such capacity. There is a mediator established here and if they wish to proceed with the request other volunteers can only make suggestions but the final decision rests with the volunteering mediator.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is clear the filing editor is working in good faith and simply did not know that they could re-file a move request or discuss the outcome of a move further in other ways and places, however eventually everyone has to live with an outcome. I suggest that this be closed as the wrong venue. The requesting editor can make a new request in the eventuality that this is does not get resolved.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I support this. Apologies for the inconvenience. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

there appears to be a widespread resentment among all participants about the filer's conduct. I'd only remind him of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV. I've to agree that the filer has not provided enough reliable evidence here or at the talk page to support his request. Moreover, he appears to be obsessed with getting forward his POV without concern for other editors. I'd agree here with. At this point, i don't think this case is fit for DRN. the filer should have made a move request and debated about his topic there rather than here. However, the filer seems to have ready a draft in his sandbox which he believes could prove a more general article. As the previous article at Banket was a stub, I'd suggest the filer to talk about replacing the redirect with the article he has written. If no one disagrees, my final decision would be to be bold and create an article on the banket replacing the redirect. If any one will then object to his article, they could discuss it at afd or the article talk page itself. My final decision is as follows If no participant raises any reasonable objection within 24 hours or if all participants agree with this proposal, I'll be willing to mark this issue as resolved. I'd like to thank al all the participants and other DRN volunteers for helping me reach a possible meditation. Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: March 29, 2017 at 03:33 (UTC) Reason: decision announced
 * I'm done with this Quest editor: this is not a good-faith effort to solve a dispute. I object strenuously to the little sneers, the low blows of comments like "Drmies-approved sources": I can't believe I'm hearing such BS from an experienced editor. You'd think that the editor would have read WP:RS, and would thus be able to distinguish between a recipe on the website of a vanilla bean shop and a book published by a university press. I cannot continue this discussion with someone who resorts to personal attacks, someone whose competence I'm beginning to question. Mark, BTW, I appreciate you coming by; I do think my next step will be a move request, to move Dutch letter to Banketletter--dozens of book sources attest to that name. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) The article Dutch letter should not be merged or move with any other article now unless a new discussion at either the article talk page or requested move results in consensus being achieved about it.
 * 2) The filer has repeatedly tried to bring forward his POV potentially violating the NPOV policy. He has personally attacked other participants as well. Any participant disturbed by his behaviour can obviously file a report at the admin notice board. He is reminded about WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV. This is however not the best place to discuss the conduct of any user
 * 3) if the filer wishes, he could start an afc discussion about his present draft and cover it into an article without replacing the Dutch letter. He may however replace the Banket redirect on achieving consensus for the same.
 * 4) the filer may wish to consider filling a new case at requested moves.

Talk:Hydraulic fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Rationale_for_moving_sections_of_this_article
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 long standing issue with one editor [User:LutherBlissetts] posting huge amounts of material, intimidating other editors, driving them away in Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom Other editors who are experienced are Plazak, Mikenorton, and Beagel. Some of the posts seem designed to remove reliable information from Wikipedia. The topic is a contentious one and needs reliable sources. He is in the process of shifting the focus, removing 100% reliable links from 'Regulation' and 'Public Health' and other edits. There are hundreds of them. He is doing this without any concensus as previous editors do not need the grief he gives to anyone who questions his views. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_3#Lead where he insists on his views over the opinions of 3 editors. I appealed for a collegiate approach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_2#Collegiate_approach In fact the other editors do not post now, I assume as they have given up. Please see any recent sections of the talk page. In addition, I was forced to declare a connected contributer status, after I edited info that I was involved with, after flagging up my concerns. I was asked to not edit the page by SarahSV see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#BLP_and_COI This is [WP:BITE] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Friends_of_the_Earth_and_the_ASA.2C_and_editor_kennywpara I am inexperienced in the fine points of Wiki editing but am getting unpleasantness anytime I post. There is no moderation of an editor who has an agenda to present a partisan view not supported by the UK regulatory system, or science. Not helped by the input of Fyldeman, who runs probably the most prolific anti frack website in the UK

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Repeated requests for leaving well alone and to justify any significant changes. The disussions are endless and every point is challenged. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Hiding_information

How do you think we can help?

Please lock the page. Then it needs a calm discussion (which I dont hold out much hope for as I know LB is an antifrack activist from social media) with independent third party. Someone trying to present a false impression should not be editing this page. All I have ever done outside Wiki is to dispute false information. See supportive comment from a very experienced Plazak (2nd one) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kennywpara#Hydraulic_Fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom

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

Talk:Hydraulic fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Rationale_for_moving_sections_of_this_article discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. hi, I'm Yashovardhan Dhanania and I'll be volunteering to help solve this issue. Please give me sometime to review all details and make sure notice has been issued to the concerned user. However, if this is strictly about user conduct, this is not the place where you can expect any help. I'll be waiting for the opening statement by the other party involved. Thanks Yashovardhan (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer#Semi-protected edit request on_3_March_2017
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've added information about this studio's co-financing and distribution deals with other studios with the correct, but someone botched it to the oblivion along with the rest of the page, which made me edit war over it with him/her and a couple of other admins, and now it's locked from THREE MONTHS, which is absolutely the worst to happen to the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried my best to convince them in edit summaries and requests that what I was adding is true and that the sources I'm trying to provide are reliable sources. They just don't give a care.

How do you think we can help?

You need to look at this section at the edit assistance request page and change all the information to the way I want it to be.

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

Summary of dispute by Sro23
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Talk:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer#Semi-protected edit request on_3_March_2017 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Sierra Leone
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 disputed claim is that Bengali is an official language of Sierra Leone (there is a corresponding dispute on the Bengali language page). This claim can be traced back to an article in a Pakistani newspaper from 2002. However, no primary sources that verify this claim have been located, including within publications by the Sierra Leonean government, and no other contemporaneous news articles refer to it. An added concern is that this claim has been repeated numerous times in more recent pieces, many of which reference the Wikipedia article itself.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have reviewed to the sources used by User:Fuadorko2 to back up the claim, but did not find them reliable. I explained by reasoning to Fuadorko2 on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

The opinion of an experienced editor on the reliability of the claim and cited sources would likely put a stop to the edit warring.

Summary of dispute by Gamesmaster G-9
The claim that Bengali is an official language of Sierra Leone seems to stem from a |2002 article in a Pakistani newspaper, which reported an official announcement by the then-President of Sierra Leone. The claim was subsequently picked up in other newspapers in Bangladesh and India. However, no contemporaneous reports of this announcement have been located in spite of a comprehensive search. Additionally, no reports have been found in Sierra Leone government publications referring to the Bengali language. However, as this claim has remained on Wikipedia for long stretches of time since |at least 2012, it has made its way into numerous blogs, articles, and even publications by less reputable groups, making it something of an urban legend. Given the dramatic nature of the claim (a South Asian language being made official in a West African country with almost no speakers of that language!), I believe the standard of evidence should be higher than usual - an official government source, or primary reporting by a reputed publication on the announcement.

Summary of dispute by Fuadorko2‎
What the people above me has said IS A LIE. There ARE Primary sources, namely many USA university articles. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_referencing_with_Wiki_Markup/4 this is reliable enough under official wikipedia rules. Case should be closed in my favour.
 * this case has been closed. Please file a new case if necessary. Do not comment on closed archive cases. Use the talk page instead. Thank youYashovardhan (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Talk:Sierra Leone discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. It's strange how none of the listed parties except Dbfirs has had any prior discussion at the talk page). In fact, the discussion was started by Jimbo Wales himself (who isn't obviously a party of this discussion. I don't see any discussion by the filer Gamesmasterg9 either except maybe edit summaries. No notice has been served to the other listed parties on their talk page. Infact, I'd recommend first having extensive discussion on the talk page, preferably under the existing section "Bangla" started by Jimbo. After that, you can come back to file a new case here.Yashovardhan (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Article dispute discussion: Re: Demographics section in Norwalk, CT article cites numbers that do not add up. There are references with vague, or no, citations There are references to statistics that do not exist. There are references to irrelevant statistics. There are references to made-up categories.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Have tried reasoning, giving examples, doing the math, tagging section text to make it easy to correct errors.

How do you think we can help?

Maybe, giving some advice or direction for how to write articles or sections using statistics, numbers, categories etc. in a manner that clarifies without interpreting, or skewing, statistics in such a manner that will enable a reader to better understand their purpose.

Thank you

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

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

Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. not enough discussion on article talk page. Yashovardhan (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:German Brazilians
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:Thomas.W added two non-Brazilian sources that claimed that the 2000 Brazilian censuses found that 12 million Brazilians claimed German ancestry. He removed the previous source that provided a different figure, 5 million.

The point is: the 2000 Brazilian census DID NOT ask about German ancestry. This theory started in Wikipedia, by IP numbers. I have been reverting them for years, but their theory about the census was spread to other websites and is not back to the article disguised as "reliable source". I asked User:Thomas.W to show where in the Brazilian census they asked about German ancestry, but he said he would not look for it.

Me and another Brazilian user, User:Grenzer22, warned that the Brazilian census did not ask about German ancestry and then those sources are wrong. However, User:Thomas.W and User:Iryna Harpy, who happens to be an administrator, are ignoring our advices and are doing everything to keep the wrong figure in the article.

I have included three other reliable (Brazilian) sources that found figures between 3.6 and 7.2 million Brazilians of German descent, including one from Simon Schwartzman, who was the president of IBGE, responsable for the Brazilian census (he found the 3.6% figure). However, User:Iryna Harpy removed all my sources, based on illogical and silly arguments.

Another user, including User:Roger 8 Roger and User:Ayazid, also asked both Iryna Harpy and Thomas.W to show us where in the Brazilian census we can find the German figure, but they said they would not do it. They are also using a touristic propaganda published in London as a "source" for the 12 million figure.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I opened a Dispute resolution in the past, but it was ignored

How do you think we can help?

Make Iryna show us where in the Brazilian census it was asked about German ancestry or remove the wrong information now.

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

Summary of dispute by Grenzer22
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Talk:German Brazilians discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - While there has been discussion on the article talk page, there has been no discussion in the past three weeks, so that opening a request for assistance here is premature. The editors should resume discussion on the article talk page.  Also, the filing editor refers to previous discussion at this noticeboard.  Please provide the date of that discussion for reference.  Please resume discussion on the article talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:British Somaliland
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 is about a notable individual of British Somaliland. Who was part of the 4 signatories that signed the independence of the protectorate, Haji Ibrahim Nur. He was also a notable merchant and minister of the British Somaliland protectorate.

Being a minister and one of the main individuals signing the independence papers makes him notable enough for the British Somaliland page.

Although the user Kzl55 argues against it simply, because he is from the Isaaq clan who are the majority in borders of the British protectorate and the current Somaliland and he is discriminating based on clan lines. You can check his contribution history for proof of his biased nature.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have discussed this on the Talk Page.

How do you think we can help?

By drawing a conclusion.

Summary of dispute by Kzl55
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Talk:Balija#Kavarai
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
 * - withdrawn
 * - withdrawn
 * - withdrawn

Kautilya3 insists on having this statement in intro:

In Tamil Nadu, the Balija merchants are called Kavarai (Gavara).

Issue: Kavarai/Gavara (Kavarai being Tamil rendering of Gavara) is a subcaste of Balija. All Balijas in one state cannot (do not) belong to one subcaste (of Kavarai/Gavara).

Outcome expected: This statement to be removed from intro; and put under branches where it can be briefed upon.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

(1) Tried resolving this with Kautilya3 and Sitush on Balija talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Balija#Kavarai

(2) Tried resolving this with Sitush on his talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sitush#Balija_.2F_Gavara

(3) Tried resolving this with Kautilya3 on his talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kautilya3#your_sources

How do you think we can help?

Please help take a call --- to move the statement from intro to branches. See synopsis of issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Balija#synopsis

Summary of dispute by Kautilya3
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The Balijas are a caste group in the Telugu-speaking areas of India. However, during the medieval times, they settled in large numbers in the Tamil-speaking areas, where, according to sources, they came to be called Kavarai (which is the Tamil rendering of the Telugu word Gavara). The line in the lead states that. Anon=us agrees with this: "Balija and gavara/kavarai is used interchangeably among Tamil speakers socially (because Kavarais (viz Gavara-Balija) were the most dominant merchants all thru 1600s and 1700s as seen in enough sources)". But he objects to the statement being in the lead. Despite writing many thousands of bytes in talk pages over the last few days, he has failed to articulate clearly any justification for his position. The first thing he needs to do is to write a sentence of the form "This sentence should not be in the lead because ..." Then we could have had a proper debate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yashovardhan, I think this was roughly the version of the article when this case was opened. It shows the disputed sentence in the lead. I would also that I am not willing to engage in an unstructured discussion here, because such discussion has already happened on the talk page and it has not been productive. I will wait for you to open the sections for structured discussion in the normal way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sitush
As I said here, I am not understanding what this dispute is about. Anon=us keeps bringing up inappropriate sources and making leaps into what appears to be original research in an attempt to clarify their point but it remains a mystery to me. All they need to do is produce one reliable source that explains it clearly. I really do think this is a problem related primarily to communication difficulties. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Balija#Kavarai discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. (1) You say: "Balijas are a caste group in the Telugu-speaking areas" --- Wrong, it is a social group created in 2 ways. (1) One as traders before Krishnadevaraya. (2) Next as group of fighters collected from various castes under the cover-title Balija during the time of Krishnadevaraya.

(2) You say: "..settled in large numbers in the Tamil-speaking areas..they came to be called Kavarai (which is the Tamil rendering of the Telugu word Gavara)."- Wrong. This is your own hypothesis. How can all of them be from Kavara/Gavara subcaste? Also, who said Gavara is a Telugu word?

(3) You are selectively quoting. Very bad to see this Kautilya. Read this carefully (see part in italics): "Balija and gavara/kavarai is used interchangeably among Tamil speakers socially (because Kavarais (viz Gavara-Balija) were dominant merchants. Note: I said Gavara-Balija. Not other castes/subcastes from the social group.

(4) Why not take my whole post into account. I said Kautilya3 does not get the regional peculiarity. Gavara is rendered Kavarai in Tamil BUT the Balija social group is an umbrella term for many more subcastes.

(5) Writing what you want: This sentence should not be in the lead because "Gavara/Kavarai is a Subcaste of Balija and all balijas in Tamilnadu do not belong to just one subcaste" - Already said that 100 times. You want it said again.

(6) You cannot put this in the lead. Everyone in tamilnadu knows Gavara is both naidu and chetty (meaning, part of balija and komati (respectively). If anyone wants to search for Gavara/Kavarai, there is already a page for it in Gavara. Just elaborate there that Gavara is a subcaste of Balija and of Komatis. --Anon&#61;us (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us Good evening everyone. I'm Yashovardhan Dhanania and I'll be your volunteer for this case. Give me some time to read through the finer details. I'd also remind everyone to remain civil and assume good faith. Please do not edit the article during the course of the DRN. All discussion related to this matter must continue here instead of the other talk pages. Provide reliable sources for all your points. Remember we believe in consensus not voting! Please continue your discussions below while I take my time to go through the details. Yashovardhan (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Volunteer's note - clarification needed : can the filer please clarify what exactly is his concern and what does he expect from this DRN. As of now, i can't find the statements he mentioned in the lead of the article. Please change your opening statement above to reflect more on this. A brief description of the issue and expected outcome from this DRN would help. Yashovardhan (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

clarification by filer
Hello. As mentioned above Kautilya3 wants to put this sentence in the introduction. After discussion, Sitush moved it under branches (which is what I requested from DRN). But now Kautilya3 is back again, asking for the sentence to be put back in intro (in the lead) --

"In Tamil Nadu, the Balija merchants are called Kavarai (Gavara)."

Arguments against filer
as filer has already provided clarification along with one other editor involved. Please provide arguments with valid sources, citing policies and guidelines against filer here.Yashovardhan (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the filer has accepted the statement in the lead in his own words. Now, he seems to want to retract it for reasons unknown.

Coming to his explanation of why he wants the line deleted from the lead, Gavara/Kavarai is a Subcaste of Balija and all balijas in Tamilnadu do not belong to just one subcaste, he is arguing at cross-purposes. The statement in the lead does not say anything about subcastes. Neither does it claim that all Balijas in Tamilnadu belong to the subcaste. If he believes that the Tamil term Kavarai is used only for the subcaste but not the entire Balija group, he needs to produce a reliable sources for it. Without such sources, the present sources stand, which state unequivocaly that all Balijas in Tamilnadu are referred to as "Kavarai".

From the filer's point of view, it might be wrong for the Tamilians to use such terminology. But, that would be WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX. We are not here to decide right and wrong.

If he believes the statement misleadingly suggests that all Balijas in Tamilnadu belong to the Gavara/Kavarai subcaste, a footnote can be added with a disclaimer. It could also be explained in the body of the article.

To the best of my knowledge, the statement in the lead is factual and accurate, and it is an important piece of terminological information that needs to be presented there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

In response to Kautilya's note
Note on references: When a person cannot understand nuances, continues to misunderstand, claims the filer (me) "accepted statement", then it proves the person is incapable of understanding the regional peculiarity. Kautilya is asking for sources which say Kavarai/Gavara is a subcaste. Above sources already do; including source (2) and (3) which suffice for what he seeks. If he still has an issue he can file a petition against source (4) (which is the state government) challenging their classification. If I pile up references, this would move nowhere. First let Kautilya refute existing references. Thanks.

Additionally: let Kautilya present his sources, so their reliability can be verified. Note, Sitush already explained Francis source cannot be used. Mukund source can be presented for examination. Also request Kautilya not to assume what I might think is wrong. Kindly restrict argument to veracity of sources.

Bringing to admin notice -- This was written to Kautilya in Jan 2017, providing sources. He did not reply back then. Now, let him argue against those sources too.

--Anon&#61;us (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Arguments supporting filer
If you agree with the filer, please mention it here along with citing valid policies, guidelines and sources as necessary. Yashovardhan (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Other discussion
I'd be waiting for user:Sitush to file a response to the recent developments. Also, as requested by filer, user:Kautilya3 please provide valid sources to support your arguments. Other discussions related to this should be continued below. Yashovardhan (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC) user:Sitush has indicated that he no longer wishes to participate in this discussion. He mentioned - I have already replied. Since I don't have an understanding of what the problem may be, I can't comment further. I literally cannot make sense of it. - Sitush (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 *  additional note for filer : Please note that I'm not an admin. I'm just a regular editor like you volunteering here to help resolve your dispute. As such, any decisions taken by me don't have enforceable power. However, it is expected that the meditation provided here be accepted to all parties. If not, you are free to continue discussion on talk page, file an RfC or even go to the med com for resolution. Thank you. Yashovardhan (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * at his talk page while replying to the DRN reminder. Although it is encouraged that all DRN related discussion occur here, I'll accept his withdrawal and remove him as a party from the DRN. His comments above will, however, be kept for reference purpose. I'll be waiting for user:Kautilya3 to cite reliable sources as suggested by the filer. Thank you. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 3, 2017 at 09:59 (UTC) Reason: waiting for comment from user:Kautilya3
 * Hello Yashovardhan, please clarify what happens if the thread is closed after 24 hours, without response from Kautilya. Where do I take the issue to next? I do not know what is Rfc and med com. Please can you post links to them. Many thanks.--Anon&#61;us (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us
 * Don't worry, Kautilya3 has indicated he'll reply today itself (evening GMT). If, however, he doesn't do so, I'll close this as failed and will give you proper instructions and links on the possible next steps. Yashovardhan (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just want to indicate I will not be around tomorrow. So if you give 24 hours notice, for me to respond to kautilya's arguments, please take into consideration that I can respond only after 48 hours. Will my best to respond earlier though. Thanks.--Anon&#61;us (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

no issues! On the other hand it's really important for anyone who is going to remain off for more than a day to inform others as well at DRN. Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Arguments against filer: Sources for the lead statement
I have been asked to provide sources for the sentence in the lead. Not sure why this is being asked, because the sources have been there in the article for quite a while.
 * The Kanakalatha Mukund source mentions it multiple times in her book:
 * P. 46: kavarai (the Tamil word for Balija merchants)
 * p. 183: Balija: a right-hand merchant caste, kavarai in Tamil
 * p. 185: kavarai: Tamil word for Balijas
 * All three mentions make it clear that kavarai is the term used in Tamil to refer to Balijas. The first occurrence qualifies it as Balija merchants. That is presumably because the Balija warriors might have been referred to as Nayaka or some derivative of that word.


 * The Peter Francis source says
 * p. 35: In British times, glass bead- and bangle makers in Tamil Nadu were the Valaiyal, a subdivision of the Kavarai. In other parts of Dravidia they were called Guzula, a subdivision of Balija. (Note that Kavarai include the Gajula Balijas.)
 * p. 35: The Kavarai and the Balija are equivalent and occupied low positions (Baines 1912, 97). (This is presumably said to amplify/explain the previous sentence because the whole discussion is in the context of bead-making.)
 * In the talk page discussion, I mentioned John Baker and Washbrook.
 * p. 223: The Balija caste, for instacne, was divided into several sub-castes... (in 1901 or 1911 census). Among them was Kavarai. However, 'Kavarai' was merely the Tamil equivlaent of the Telugu word 'Balija'. The authors are trying to say that the classification was broken. One of the supposed subclasses spanned the whole class.
 * The Niels Brimness source, which the filer claimed for his own support does nothing of the sort:
 * p.106: The Kavarais were Tamilized Balija Chettis of Telugu origin.., nothing more, nothing less. This is essentially a restatements of the sentence in the lead, which said "In Tamilnadu the Balijas are called Kavarai".
 * p.189: Tamilized Balijas, known as Kavarais.
 * The PRG Mathur source, which also the filer claimed supports his own objections, says:
 * p. 12: Balija, a Telugu speaking migrant caste to Kerala, is segmented into two sub-castes, viz., Gavara Naidu and Gajalu Balija (Vala Chetti). These communities styled themselves as Kavara/Kavarai and managed to get community certificates so as to avail of all the benefits exclusively earmarked for the Kavaras, the Scheduled Caste.
 * p. 341: Section titled Kavara/Gavara -- Balija: Similarly too [sic] the Balija community, with two sub-divisions, Gajalu Balija and Gavara Balija, migrated originally from Tamil Nadu. The Balija Gavarai are popularly known as Naidus and the others as Chetties, Valai Chatties, Chettiars. It is said that they originally spoke Telugu. (This suggests that Tamilnadu Gavarai were not a subclass of Balija, but rather a superclass. These Gavarai migrants to Kerala apparently claimed a scheduled caste status that was meant for the Kerala Kavaras, just by using the same name.).
 * The Tamil Nadu government OBC list, which also the filer used to buttress himself, says:
 * Gavara, Gavarai and Vadugar(Vaduvar) (other than Kamma, Kapu,Balija and Reddi), which again suggests that Gavara was a superclass of Balijas. (But this reference doesn't clinch the issue because it is also talking about Vadugar, which is a generic term for all Telugu people.)

The references are unanimous that all Balijas in Tamilnadu engaged in trading are called Kavarai. The exceptions might have been the non-trading warrior classes, who were pretty much gone by mid 19th century. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

response to Kautilys's note above
Hello, Yashovarshan, quick note. Firstly, all of Kautilya's sources refer to the Gavara/Kavarai section. He claims it is a "Superclass". Whatever that means, It is not for him to decide or create terms. He is doing WP:OR. Superclass is just subdivision. Some of his own sources state subdivision, wish he numbered his sources to make it easier. He really fails to understand the regional peculiarity. I request Kautilya to refute the sources I have given, which state they are a separate subdivision or subcaste. Rao & Subrahmanyam source (Symbols of substance book) mention how the social group was formed by collapsing traders and fighters (gathered from different castes by Krishnadevaraya during Vijayanagar period) into one group under a cover-title Balija. Additionally, changes happened with Kavarais registering into Madras Army as Tamils; after TElugus were barred from joining Madras Army as per 1890 GO of British Government (as detailed in my talk page). Finally, if he is going to prove all Balijas are Kavarai/Kavara/Gavara in Tamilnadu, then lot of people will thank him. Since only Gavara/Gavarai/Kavarai (other than Balija) get reservations. Everyone can start claiming they are Gavara/Gavarai/Kavarai. Thanks to the fact that wiki sources can be used to contest elsewhere too. Thankyou.

Addition: Kautilya claims "non-trading warrior classes, who were pretty much gone by mid 19th century". How many warrior classes exist in the same feudal setup (as "warrior classes") in India today? All are gone. Does that mean they do not use subcaste divisions socially? Sorry, but Kautilya is bent on trying to prove things which do not apply; with tendency to assume, selectively quote and create superclasses! For further discussion, will be back after a day. Am really sorry internet access will be difficult to have until 5th Apr evening. Hope, these notes now suffice. --Anon&#61;us (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)anon=us

Volunteer's note
Please keep the discussion structured and put new discussion under old. You're advised to avoid personal attacks against each other or I'll be forced to contact an admin for sanctions against you. I'll go through the comments by tomorrow and then decide upon the further course of action. If any comment is found to violate WP:CIVIL or any other policy, I'll be forced to remove it and it won't be taken into consideration either. I'll remind participants not to contact me outside the DRN. All discussion should take place either here or at the DRN talk page. Anyone found violating this will be strictly dealt with. If any party has any objection to me as a volunteer for this case, please mention it here and ask for another volunteer on the DRN talk page. Remember that in most cases, compromise is necessary. I don't have any personal enmity against either of you so my decision will be strictly based on the facts presented here. Comments which do not help the discussion but only produce meaningless arguments will be struck down. No further comments are necessary now. I'll put this case on hold till I go through all the discussion. I might take more than 24 hours to come up with any reasonable decision. Thank you. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC) the filer is being investigated for sockpuppet. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC) an SPI takes precedence over the DRN. As the SPI was filed my an involved editor, the case is no longer under the purview DRN. Yashovardhan (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Day Without_a_Woman#Organizers.3F
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There is a dispute whether and how to include the information that one of the Day Without a Woman event organizers was convicted of terrorism. A further complication is that one of the cited sources for this information apparently calls into question whether or not this person was actually an organizer of the event. There is also a dispute over whether or not consensus has been reached regarding the inclusion of this information

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the article talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Help decide whether consensus has been reached, and whether including this information is in line with Wikipedia policies, BLP in particular.

Summary of dispute by E.M.Gregory
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. A straightforward matter of a widely-covered aspect of a political protest (the fact that one of the protest leaders was convicted of participating in the 1969 PFLP bombings in Jerusalem. To me, it seems clear that coverage of this fact is sufficient to merit inclusion in this brief article. Some of the coverage is detailed on talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think WP:RFC would be/would have been a more logical step. And suggest that we close this and start an WP:RfC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sir Joseph
A person helped in the organization of the strike. This person is being identified and there is absolutely no reason not to include that she's a convicted terrorist. Simple as that.Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by Hennesseyvebss
In my opinion it is not an issue of whether the individual is listed as an organizer. The issue is characterizing the individual as a "convicted terrorist" in a 40 year old completely unrelated matter is an obvious way to color the article, and the Day Without a Woman event, as somehow a fringe, terrorist-related event. In my opinion, it is a NPOV issue and the "convicted terrorist" part should not be included on this page.Hennesseyvebss (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

We were having a discussion about whether we should add the information about the organizers and their names. One of the alleged organizers, Rasmea Yousef Odeh is a convicted terrorist, although there are also sources that say she claims it was a false confession. Adding the info was considered a potential BLP violation by some editors. However, there is another issue: and that is whether she was one of the planners or was just a vocal supporter. I just went back through the sources and here's what I've found:

The source originally used to add Odeh by Haaretz states she wasn't one of the organizers at all. The official website doesn't list her either.

However, other reliable sources do discuss her as an organizer, though many of these are a reaction to this article, which is a letter of support for the strike in the Guardian where she (and other women) call on feminists to mobilize on March 8. But the Guardian letter doesn't explicitly say she (or Angela Davis who is now listed in the Women's March article) were part of the planning and a link to her profile does not state she is part of the Women's March.

Because of this letter to the Guardian, sources like Fox News, and Snopes make it clear that this is their source for describing her as one of the planners of the Women's March. The letter to the Guardian only asks for feminists to take part in the march. It doesn't state that the writers are planners.

I propose that if she's added at all, it be done so under a controversy section since it's not clear that she was a planner or just a supporter. The idea that she was a planner did cause controversy. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * March 8 has been celebrated by women's marches and strikes since 1911, a number of leftist/feminist groups in the U.S. had planned marches and protests before the Feb. 14 twitter announcement by the organizers of the Jan. 21 demonstration that you cite.  It would certainly be unusual for there to be a single tightly defined gorup of organizers for a movement of this type, progressive protests are usually more like that Jan. 21 event, i.e., a group may issue a call, but groups act as a coalition, often with the kind of reservations expressed in the call to participate that Odeh signed in The Guardian, certaily a reliable source for understanding how leftist mas protests are organized. Here is that call , Note that it is dated Feb. 6, an entire week before the organizers of the Jan. 21 Women's March issued their call for participation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I get where you are coming from, . Maybe it would be better to talk about the groups rather than the organizers themselves. I hate arguing with you about this, since I have a ton of respect for you. I'm just not convinced that we should put in Odeh and Davis, etc. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I left a pair of comments on the talk page today, pointing out that the conversation of the impact of the participation of Sarour and, especially, of Odeh, has had on participation and on progressive alliances: people and groups pulled out of the Day without a Woman because of the attention she brought.  When progressive coalitions include supporters of terrorism, these controversies get covered in the paper (and both individuals and groups leave coalitons).   (I am reminded of the conversation that swirled around A.N.S.W.E.R.'s support for terrorist groups; included on their page.)  Similarly, Odeh's conviction for terrorism is a longstanding part of Arab American Action Network's page.  Odeh role as co-signer of the call for the strike, is significant and I continue to think that it should be mentioned.  Perhaps we need an RfC? to bring some fresh eyes to the quesiton.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is very significant,, but might we be promoting the very same thing if she's not actually a bona fide organizer? Is the fact that the Arab American Action Network was involved what makes her an organizer? Like I mentioned above, she's not listed as an organizer on the official page and all of the sources I've read that say she was an organizer source that from that Guardian Post where she was one of the writers of a letter of support. I'm cool with an RfC. I think that both sides here are engaged in good faith editing where we have interpreted the information differently. It might be good to have someone fresh to sort out the issue! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As best I can figure out, while March 8 is a traditional date for women's protests, the first call for an American women's protest strike on March 8, 2017 was issued by Odeh, Angela Davis, and 6 other activists on Feb. 6, with the organizers of the Jan Women's March endorsing that call on Feb. 14, and putting up an "official" page.  Although darned if I see what makes it "the" official page, since there is at least the "International Women's Strike USA," (Here: ) and perhaps others.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Doom777
The real issue behind having or not having "Organizers" section, is Rasmea Odeh. She is a convicted terrorist, and if she is an organizer of the march, it would hurt the march's image in view of many.

As wikipedia editors, we're to be neutral. We're also not to judge whether or not she was an organizer, but rather if second sources consider her as such. There are a dozen sources saying she was. There is also at least one saying she wasn't, and the march's website doesn't mention her.

I think that we should list the organizers of the meeting, not in a special "organizers" section, and not in a controversy section, but just insert it somewhere where it fits, maybe in the head section. The organizers should be listed in order of imprortance, so maybe Linda Sarsour should be first, however Rasmea Odeh should also be mentioned as an organizer, since there are so many dependable secondary sources that include her. I don't think that Rasmea's terrorism conviction should be mentioned in the 'organizers' list.

I think maybe there is a place for a Controversy section too, and Rasmea's involvement should be mentioned as one of the controversies, again, only because there are many secondary sources writing about it, and it is notable

Summary of dispute by Another Believer
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I have worked on the article some but have not followed this discussion closely and don't plan on getting involved. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Day Without_a_Woman#Organizers.3F 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, and proper notice has been given by the filing party to the other editors. Based on the number of editors involved, this might not be the best forum.  Either formal mediation or a Request for Comments might be better.  This case can be accepted by a moderator.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with going the RfC route at this point if no moderator will take on this case. (I believe we now have a quorum of involved editors though, as User:Another Believer responded that he does not intend to participate in this discussion.) Funcrunch (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I note that has now created an RfC, though there are already objections to the wording. Funcrunch (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - There is widespread objection to the wording of the RFC. If moderated discussion is desired, a moderator is needed.  Alternatively, a neutrally worded RFC should be started.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have requested formal closure of the RfC. I would like to have that issue resolved before starting a new one. Though I would still prefer the help of a moderator if anyone is willing to take on this case. Funcrunch (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The RfC has been closed. Per this latest edit, I personally have no objection to how the names are currently listed in this article. Funcrunch (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - Is someone willing to moderate? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - I am willing to moderate this request if there are no objections. The name "Another Believer" and "Funcrunch" sound familiar so I will need to check interactions. I believe User:Another Believer edits the Women's March article so I may have seen the name there and is also a member of Project Genealogy (although I am not active there) as well as having common interests in art/sculpture so I may be familiar with the name from Feature image discussions. User:Funcrunch is a member of LGBT studies and has interest in transgender issues so I am sure I have seen the name through those subjects. If there are no objections I am still willing to mediate the dispute.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - If there are no replies to the offer by Mark Miller to mediate, it will be necessary to close this thread as abandoned. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with Mark's offer, but as I'm one of the editors mentioned as familiar to him, I don't know if my assent is sufficient to proceed... Funcrunch (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Sierra Leone
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

Bengali is reported as an official language of Sierra Leone, in addition to English, according to many sources on the internet, including but not limited to, mainstream newspaper articles, top USA universities such as New York University, and law handbooks. (The sources can are listed in the talk page section 'Official Language'.) (The discussion also continues in a number of other sections on the same talk page, see the table of contents at top of talk page).

Despite the overwhelming evidence, which according to Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_referencing_with_Wiki_Markup/4  ) is credible enough, there are admins on the page who consistently reject Bengali as an official language of Sierra Leone, because they cannot find an official source from the Sierra Leone government itself. The problem is that the Sierra Leone government does not even have a source saying that English is the official language, but they accept that English is official based on sources that are NOT the Sierra Leone government, which is inconsistent. Basically the admins on the page are okay with the lack of documentation from the Sierra Leone government regarding English being official, but when it comes to Bengali, they are not okay. They are unfairly denying Bengali as an official language and they are not being consistent with regards to both Wikipedia guidelines and also relative consistency with the English case.

Note: some of the admins will claim that there is only 1 source which is an old Pakistani newspaper article, but this is false since on the talk page, there are at least 3 sources (universities in the US, published books) and many more if you google.

Enforce WP rules!

Below are some of the sources that state both English and Bengali as the only official Languages of Sierra Leone:


 * New York University.
 * Vanderbilt University, USA.
 * Sierra Leone Business Law Handbook.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page arguments. Edit wars. Article Protection. Account/IP blocking. It got pretty ugly.

How do you think we can help?

Put Bengali as official language based on evidence on Sierra Leone page and also on Bengali language page.

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

Summary of dispute by Gamesmaster G-9.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Talk:Iranian presidential_election,_2017
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
 * (added by Yashovardhan (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC). See comment below)
 * (added by Yashovardhan (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC). See comment below)
 * (added by Yashovardhan (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC). See comment below)

Hello,

We have an user (TheSimorgh) who constantly adds an unsourced individual, as a candidate for the Iranian presidential election 2017.

This user claims that this individual has founded a political group related to Iran.

Two other editors (myself and Pahlevun) removed multiple times the said individual from this page, considering the information to be unsourced, and unreliable (and as for myself, as some sort of hoax/scam).

Please read the talk page to see the arguments from both side, and the edit page to see Pahlevun arguments.

I tried to open a mediation, but it seems the link was blocked by administrators (while the page itself isn't, which means that we'll all continue to edit the page).

Thanks for your help.

Cheers

EDIT: the case have been solved by Jupitus Smart]. I have also noticed to the two users the presence of this specific page, as requested.[[User:Reza Fariborz|Reza Fariborz (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to open a ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation ) mediation for this page, but the link didn't worked.

How do you think we can help?

By asking user TheSimorgh to stop adding content to this page, unless proven by valid (and various) secondary sources.

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

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

Talk:Iranian presidential_election,_2017 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There doesn't appear to have been any relevant discussion on either of the two listed article talk pages. Is there an article specifically about the 2017 Presidential election in Iran?  Has there been discussion there?  Either there has not been adequate discussion, or this case is not being filed with accurate information.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - i figured out the relevant discussion took place at Talk:Iranian presidential election, 2017. I've corrected it above. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. It has mostly consisted of complaints about editor behavior.  Comment on content, not contributors.  Please resume discussion on the article talk page.  The filing editor has not notified the other editors, and must do so after there has been adequate discussion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)