Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 162

User talk:Telenovelafan215#Por_amar_sin_ley
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 problem is the following, I proceeded to eliminate certain actors from the list "Special guest stars" of the article Por amar sin ley, since they are not notable actors and did not play an important role in the series, many only say three words and it is a lot, others only participate as additional actors. And because it's a telenovela and, obviously, it will have too many episodes, and in each episode several actors are credited as guest actors, this would make this list too long and it would be full of names of people that are not very well known, that even They did not play an important role in the telenovela. I spoke with Telenovelafan215 on its discussion page, but he does not seem to agree, and says that they should be included only because they are accredited in the opening topic. What I am trying to do is to see if there is any way of ignoring this, these names of these supposedly not remarkable actors or if on the contrary they should stay there. but being sincere it seems unnecessary to include so many names in that section, since the article itself will become a long list of names, as the episodes pass, more invited actors are included.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've asked Geraldo Perez for help, and then he mentioned this to me.

How do you think we can help?

Trying to avoid introducing names of non-notable actors in the list of invited actors. But I do not know if it would be right.

Summary of dispute by Telenovelafan215
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

User talk:Telenovelafan215#Por_amar_sin_ley discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

List of Christian rock bands
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

Please review recent edit summaries and the talk page for List of Christian rock bands. There are multiple problems with this article from secular artists being added (and their articles not claiming they are even Christian which doesn't automatically make them inclusive), to individual singers (solo acts) being added who are not credited as a band/group, to poor or no sourcing/cites, to basic errors with capitalization and punctuation or not correctly linking to related articles, to WG reverting productive edits yet blaming others for the mistakes, poor "definition" of what is considered Christian rock, to over-linking genres, etc. etc. Unsourced bands should be removed. It amounts to nothing more than an article of favorite bands/people even though they do not qualify. Thank you for your time.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page topic and edit fixes per summaries

How do you think we can help?

remove unsourced bands and individuals or secular bands not technically "Christian rock"

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

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

Talk:Vladimir Peftiev
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

Anonymous users with Belarusian and Polish IP addresses have been removing properly sourced information from the article about the Belarusian oligarch Vladimir Peftiev. From their language and actions they pretty much sound like Peftiev's PR people (just like the article itself very much looks like written by his biographers).

The information being removed by the anonymous users has links to the following sources:
 * Official EU documents
 * Malta Today, one of Malta's largest newspapers
 * Wikileaks
 * France24, one of France's top media
 * Ogonyok, one of Russia's top magazines, namely an article written by late Pavel Sheremet, one of the most respected and best known journalists in the Russian-speaking world
 * Charter97, Narodnaja Vola, major independent Belarusian publications. France24 had a joint investigation with Charter97 about Peftiev which is also cited in the wikipedia article


 * Information of issue IS NOT properly sourced, and that seems to cause misunderstanding between parties., if you take a look at the article's talk, multiple users, both registered and IPs, including PhilKnigh admin, concluded that Czalex's article and sourcing represent BLP problem, Czalex is the one who doesn't care about consensus. I will now briefly describe what problems I see with Czalex's edits.
 * Exceptional claim requires exceptional, multiple sourcing. Czalex writes "He is being accused of having supported the authoritarian Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko, responsible of human rights violations" (speaking of article's subject) without providing any reference to that whatsoever. One can argue that this information may be mentioned somewhere in references, but a claim like that, which is exceptional, requires direct link to multiple reliable sources, which is not there.
 * This is directly being said in both the EU documents and many other of the articles referred to: Vladimir Peftiev allegedly is or was close to Alexander Lukashenka. We can't ignore that.--Czalex 22:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Misuse of sources is an issue. The question is, does reliability of sources correspond to seriousness of claims? Do sources have proper background of research and proper sourcing on their own? Are those sources easily verifiable? Answers are simply no. First, official EU documents are not the issue, Czalex seems to have that wrong, no one is removing them. Many of Czalex's statements link to numerous arguable reports and accuse Vladimir Peftiev of supporting human rights violations in Belarus, while The European General Court’s judgment of 9 December states that Vladimir Peftiev and his businesses are cleared of all accusations of supporting violations of human rights and backing Belorussian president Alexander Lukashenko. Czalex attempts to equalize decisions of European court and reports of arguable press, which is a problem. Second, quality of Czalex's arguable sources, which are an issue (Czalex nicely mentioned them above, minus EU papers that are not an issue). Most of them are newspapers that do not have proper recognition and weight to support claims of human rights violation, especially considering what I mentioned before. In every other aspect, Russian-language, politicized, no-name news are not a valid source for negative information on the subject.  93.84.50.210 (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As you can see in this version, the anonymous sympathizers of Vladimir Peftiev have removed every information, including links to EU documents which even they don't seem question. France24, Ogonyok, Narodnaja Vola, Charter97, Malta Today are serious and respected publications, and have all the proper recognition and weight, which means that their reports must be taken into consideration. Wikileaks, where Peftiev is also mentioned, is also a serious source. Peftiev was included in the EU's sanctions lists and was accused of supporting the regime of Lukashenka; the accusations were later lifted after he won a trial. He was also accused of arms trade and was mentioned in Panama Papers and Wikileaks - these things that should be in the article. --Czalex 22:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a version that was restored over again by registered users, and it includes everything about EU docs. If you feel like some EU links are missing, add them. Thing is, your edits are creating False balance of information. Conclusions of EU general court have much higher reliability and weight, and you cannot equalize opinion of EU court and opinion of questionable independent media, especially over exceptional claims such as violation of human rights and backing a dictator. Even Wikileaks, a reliable source on its own, holds lesser weight. You state that Vladimir Peftiev is being accused, while he was accused, and according to EU he is not anymore. So the end-of-day fact is no accusations. If you can't sense a difference, there is nothing that can help you maintain NPV. Getting back to quality of your sources: reliability of the source on a certain matter depends on the seriousness of a spoken matter. Something that is reliable for daily news is not reliable for serious political/criminal accusations. Here is a standard for BLP articles that was achieved through countless disputes: defamatory statements must be left out of the article unless backed by EXCEPTIONALLY reliable sources. Nothing that you present qualifies as such. 93.84.36.18 (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have been discussing with them on the Talk page but without any will to compromise from their side
 * Discussion indeed took place, with everyone but Czalex agreeing that his edits should be left out of the page. Discussion included both registered and IP users in equal proportion. Consensus was achieved that Czalex is wrong, and yet he's ignored it. 93.84.50.210 (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * From the side of the unregistered users (likely acting on behalf of Peftiev given their overall contribution to Wikipedia and the nature of these contribution - which limits to trying to remove negative but properly sourced information on the issue), there have been no substantial arguments, but rather simply trying to label the respected sources (see above) as not being valid.--Czalex 22:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There are more than enough arguments presented in talk from both registered and IPs, I suggest you pay closer attention. There is also plenty of arguments in current discussion. You label your sources as reliable without any attempt to prove it. Those sources are not world-credited publications and their reliability for exceptional claims is not obvious just because they were published. I also suggest your drop your empty rhetorics of users acting on behalf of the subject. 1). You have no reason to use words "likely" and "obviously" for something that is not likely or obvious, try with assuming good faith as everybody does towards you. 2). Anonymous users have reasons to remain behind IPs apart from your conspiracies. 3). If demands to remove defamatory statements comes from article's subject or representatives while properly supported with reason, it gives their arguments more weight, not less, consider that also for the future. 93.84.36.18 (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

Restore properly sourced information, block the article from editing - at least by anonymous users


 * Resolve issue with Czalex going against consensus and insisting on arguable and defamatory information to be presented in the article. 93.84.50.210 (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest blocking anonymous users, obviously acting on behalf Vladimir Peftiev, from editing the article about their client or boss.--Czalex 22:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See previous section. 93.84.36.18 (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 46.216.6.175
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by 93.85.46.104
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by 94.254.224.84
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Vladimir Peftiev discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - While the filing party has tried to discuss on the article talk page, I see no indication that the unregistered editors have discussed on the talk page. It does not appear that the preconditions are met for a case here.  If this is a case where the unregistered editors are editing but failing to discuss, see WP:DISCFAIL.  Semi-protection may be necessary as a last resort.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Please take a closer look at the talk page, where there are multiple both registered and IP users achieving consensus that Czalex ignored. 93.84.50.210 (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The consensus was that we should start a dispute resolution here. No substantial discussion of the sources has taken place. It has been agreed that France24 (which states exactly the same facts as the Belarusian independent media) is an authoritative source. It is well known to any Russian speaker that Ogonyok is a proper and well known mass media and that Pavel Sheremet was a respected and well-known journalist. Same about Narodnaja Vola and Charter97, and Malta Today --Czalex 22:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A little note: consensus was that Czalex's edits must be left out and he must start a dispute if he wants them to stay. Now it's happening the way around. Users concluded that Czalex is the one who needs to prove reliability of his sources, not others to bother with proving his wrong on using questionable sources for exceptional claims. But I would rather not edit war with Czalex until dispute is resolved, so hopefully we can do that. 93.84.36.18 (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Volunteer note - I have added additional registered users to the list of users. The filing party did not list them, but they have been involved.  The filing party should notify them and the unregistered editors.  Participation at this noticeboard is voluntary, but notice is required.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please add as many other experienced and unbiased users as possible - who may contribute to an objective evaluation of the situation--Czalex 22:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I can only support this. 93.84.36.18 (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Volunteer note - I added users to the list who had been involved in the discussion, because the purpose of this noticeboard is to continue previous discussion with a facilitator. However, the filing party has asked to add as many experienced and unbiased users as possible, which is not the purpose of this noticeboard.  Adding as many users as possible can be done via a Request for Comments and is the purpose of a Request for Comments.  Unless a reason not to do so is given within 24 hours, this thread will be closed to permit a Request for Comments to be opened.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Jungang line
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The dispute is over the naming of pages about named railway lines - many railway lines, including all railway lines in Korea and Japan, are given names much like roads are named in Anglophone countries. Per the rules of English, all words in a proper name, such as "Sunset Boulevard", should be capitalised. However, there are some who are arguing that this is irrelevant, and that the WP MOS regarding capitalisation should trump the rules of English spelling... there are several hundred pages about named railway lines in the "XYZ Line" format, and instead of having this argument at every page, I think a dispute resolution is needed, because I don't think the two sides are ever going to come to an agreement on their own. For my part, I think the rules regarding the capitalisation of proper names should trump our (arbitrary!) style guides; those in favour of decapitalisation have thus far refused to even acknowledge the possibility that railway lines can be named as streets etc. are.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried to explain the fact, numerous times in numerous ways, that these names like "Jungang Line" are proper names in the same way that "Sunset Boulevard" is a proper name; these explanations have for the most part been ignored with "MOS" being cited as being more important than anything else.

How do you think we can help?

I think the only possibility for a resolution to happen here, and to avoid this argument being repeated every time a proposal is made to move a page (there are hundreds of pages about named railway lines), is for a decision to be made by people not already involved in the debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Jungang line discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - The filing editor writes: "I think the only possibility for a resolution to happen here, and to avoid this argument being repeated every time a proposal is made to move a page (there are hundreds of pages about named railway lines), is for a decision to be made by people not already involved in the debate."  Having a decision made by people not already involved in the debate isn't the purpose of this noticeboard.  It is the purpose of a Request for Comments.  Also, having a decision made that applies to future articles as well as to the article in question isn't the purpose of this noticeboard.  It can be done by a paragraph in the Manual of Style, which is done by a Request for Comments.  Unless some other reason is given within 24 hours, this thread will be closed to permit a Request for Comments.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Fantasma (Cornelius album)#Microdisney
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

1. Almost all of the tracks on the album Fantasma are named after existing bands (sourced)

2. One of them is called "The Micro Disneycal World Tour" (sourced in liner notes)

3. One of the album's contributors is Sean O'Hagan, who offered a remix of "The Micro Disneycal World Tour" (sourced in liner notes)

4. O'Hagan was a member of a group called Microdisney (sourced)

If I try to add point #4 to the article, the other editor instantly removes it, calling it "original research". See this diff

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

none

How do you think we can help?

Determine: 1. whether it's original research to note a band that an individual musician hails from (with refs) 2. whether it's encyclopedic to note that O'Hagan was in a band called Microdisney, given the nature of the album's track titles

Summary of dispute by 153.205.69.164
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Fantasma (Cornelius album)#Microdisney discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - Is this a dispute that can be resolved by discussion leading to compromise, or is the filing editor asking for someone to provide an opinion? In the latter case, maybe a Third Opinion would be satisfactory.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I reached out to the music Wikiproject and got a 3rd opinion who agreed that the info wasn't synthesized.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Volunteer note - If there is no further comment in 24 hours, this discussion will be closed as resolved by the third opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario discusi%C3%B3n:Edugraph
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

Please read my page, Edugraph, for details. I feel that I'm being bullied by editors when talking about the Venezuelan president candidate Javier Bertucci. These user are involved in authoritative measures instead of embracing healthy logical discussions.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I wrote on my own page to start discussion. I tried to write in their pages, but they blocked me

How do you think we can help?

By bringing more editors that can argued logical arguments by reading the history of editing on my own page and recommend a solution.

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

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

Summary of dispute by tarawa1943
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario discusi%C3%B3n:Edugraph discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Aleksa Šantić
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

Editor Surtsicna insists that Aleksa Šantić should be described as "Yugoslav poet". They justified their position and consequent edits with consensus reached at talkpage and wikipedia guidelines Multiple other editors, in fact all editors who participated in discussion at talkpage, disagreed with Surtsicna and describing Šantić as Yugoslav poet pointing that there is actually no consensus for their position (on the contrary) and that wikipedia guidelines actually do not support their position.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion at talkpage and at talkpage of admin who blocked Surtsicna recently.

How do you think we can help?

I would appreciate if somebody uninvolved would be so kind to close discussion about the lede at above talkpage with conclusion if Surtsicna managed to gain consensus for their "Yugoslav poet" position and consequent edits or not.

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

Summary of dispute by 23 editor
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

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

Talk:Aleksa Šantić discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - Is this a 3-to-1 case, or a 2-to-2 case? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's 3-1, I think. PonavljamSe (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - Is the issue one where moderated discussion may result in compromise, or is this a case of "choose A/B/C"? Simple choice questions often cannot be resolved by moderated discussion and may be better resolved by Request for Comments.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

First statement by moderator
Okay. I will try to act as the moderator. Please read the rules and follow them. I haven't deep-dived into the history of this dispute; I expect the participants to explain the facts to me. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think needs to be done to improve the article, or alternatively what they think needs to be left as is in the article? The issue is only improvement of the article (or leaving it alone), not the other editors. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

First statements by editors
The first sentence is very important in every article. This article presents Aleksa Šantić as "Yugoslav poet". I think that multiple editors reached consensus that it is wrong and explained why on article talkpage. Therefore it is necessary to respect consensus and remove word "Yugoslav". The text of the first sentence should be grounded in wikipedia consensus, which is not the case with "Yugoslav" version..--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator
It is true that the first sentence, the lede, is important, and normally defined among other things the ethnicity or nationality of the subject. The nationality of Yugoslav didn't exist during his lifetime (only the pan-ethnic dream of unity of the South Slavs, a dream that he held). Should the lede describe him as a a Herzogivinian Serb poet? Either we can agree on some characterization of either his nationality or his ethnicity, or we can use a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Second statements by editors
Until the consensus is reached what is correct characterization (trough RfC or some other way), it would be good to close discussion at article's talkpage and remove wrong characterization (Yugoslav).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario discusi%C3%B3n:Edugraph
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

Bullying case from a group in Wikipedia ES (Spanish) in editing articles related to the Venezuelan presidential candidate Javier Bertucci / And the Wikipedia ES does not have a Dispute resolution noticeboard

Respectfully, I have to contact a Wikipedia administrator, because I noticed a bullying on Wikipedia ES. The pages involve are in Spanish, but I'm adding translations Link. Here was what I wrote to the user in his English Common page (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Taichi), he blocked me Spanish page and I couldn't talk in his Spanish page because he put in place restrictions such as blocking me or requesting more than 50 edits to edit in his page. Please read his discussion page that will direct you to the other pages with translations in English. I can explain more as you request it from me. Thanks

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Emeal some members but they haven't answered

How do you think we can help?

To aneble a Dispute resolution noticeboard in Spanish

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario discusi%C3%B3n:Edugraph discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Fantastic Mr._Fox_(film)#Cast_and_plot
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Dispute over plot and cast/character details.

P.S. If I have added too little info to start on then I am sorry about that.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We discussed this matter between the 26/2/2018 (Using day/month/year) and 8/3/2018 (likewise in the same format- no rudeness meant there) but since then we have not reached any further resolution than where things currently stand. I have tried to take into account the points of the others (notably 2668 bytes worth of disputed content was reduced to at most 683 bytes worth i.e. only 683 bytes worth of content is still being disputed) but as of the 12/3/2018 I am still confused of what is wrong.

How do you think we can help?

I understand that this is not a way to force anybody to do anything but if it could be encouraged but not compelled to get the other editors to explain what they are still concerned about where things currently stand, it would help greatly. If not at least get the opinions of others as to who is in the right which may help resolve the matter.

P.S. Not trying to force the other editors to say that I am in the right here.

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

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

Talk:Fantastic Mr._Fox_(film)#Cast_and_plot discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors of this filing. Notice on the talk page of each editor is a prerequisite to discussion here.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Landaulet
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

An editor 1292simon revised the landaulet page creating a number of careless errors. While they have been fixed this editor is anxious to have landaulet (in its true form, the carriage) covered on the landau page instead of on the landaulet page because he/she wishes it. While it is true there is a clear link between landau and landaulet just a link is all that is necessary on the landau page. However as an inclusionist (and wishing to 'lower the temperature') I have not removed 1292simon's insert.

Landaulet carriages used a body-style transferred (briefly) to motor vehicles. The carriage form of landaulet is more notable than the car form which had died a natural death by the end of the 1920s except for occasional parade vehicles for heads of state (now disused).

A landaulet is a landaulet and should be covered on the page named landaulet, particularly when it is the more notable horse-drawn not motorised form. 1292simon seems not to recognise this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page

How do you think we can help?

Don't know unless it is to explain to 1292simon that the subject landaulet should be covered in the article landaulet.

Summary of dispute by 1292simon
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Talk:Broadridge Financial_Solutions#Revised_edit_request:_History
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

Spintendo and I are in disagreement over the appropriate use of a staff writer's article from Forbes magazine and potential information to include in the History at Broadridge Financial Solutions. Our discussion has focused on a question over how the author of the Forbes article discusses moves by ADP (the company that Broadridge was a division of before its spin-off in 2007) that ultimately led to the creation of Broadridge. Part of Spintendo's concerns appear to be around what is considered WP:OR on Wikipedia, and whether this journalist's work is OR and therefore needs additional sourcing from the time of the events within ADP. My take is that an in-depth retrospective journalistic article about the company is a good source and supports inclusion of details about the formation of the company, prior to its spin-off. Spintendo's take (as I understand it) is that sourcing from the time is needed to show that the developments within ADP are important for Broadridge.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I asked editors on WikiProject Companies for their insight. Editors AmericanAir88 and Whoisjohngalt both replied they have used Forbes as a reference with no issues. Both also said that historical information can be used in company articles to provide the reader with background.

How do you think we can help?

Additional voices are needed to help Spintendo and I come to an agreement on how to proceed, especially thoughts from editors who can clarify what counts as OR and what sort of information is appropriate to include for a company history when that company was formed as part of another then spun off.

Summary of dispute by Spintendo
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
 * 1) Broadridge Financial Solutions was created as the brokerage services arm of New Jersey-based ADP in 1962 (aka a part of the entire ADP company)
 * 2) In 1979, a part of the entire ADP company expanded its U.S. securities processing business to include Canadian securities.
 * 3) In 1989, a part of the entire ADP company launched its proxy services business.
 * 4) A part of the ADP company expanded in the 1990s through several acquisitions.
 * 5) In 1992, the ADP company acquired the Independent Election Corporation of America, which processed proxies, annual reports and other corporate communications.
 * 6) In 1995, the ADP company acquired London-based Wilco International, a provider of multi-currency clearance and settlement services, reported that by 1999, the company was "handling investor communications for 90 percent of securities held of record by American banks and broker-dealers".
 * 7) The ADP company bought print centers in Dallas, Texas and Columbus, Ohio in 2001, and in 2002 began on-demand printing.
 * 8) ADP spins off its arm, which becomes Broadridge, on March 30, 2007.

I'm sorry for including all of that information in my comments, but it was important for others to see the breadth of what is being asked to be placed in the article, an article about Broadridge. Note that no less than eight events are desired to be added to Broadridge's article, all events which took place before Broadridge became an independent company. Forbes' counterfactuals notwithstanding, these events occurred in the ADP era, and there already exists a Wikipedia article for ADP.      Spintendo       23:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Broadridge Financial_Solutions#Revised_edit_request:_History discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. In the complicated times in which we live it is sometimes necessary to go back way before a company is formally created to get the true history of the company.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page, and the filing party has notified the other editor. This noticeboard may or may not be the right place to resolve the issue.  The filing party wants to involve other editors.  This noticeboard is a place where one volunteer acts as a moderator or mediator to facilitate discussion between the editors to achieve compromise.  Will that help?  If not, it might be better to go back to a WikiProject to get other editors to take part.  Getting multiple other editors to take part isn't what this noticeboard does.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * * I am one of those editors who tends to work quietly behind the scenes making helpful edits where I can. Usually do not become involved in any disputes. When they happen with one of my edits I tend to ignore to move on. That being said, I have been asked to comment. I see no problem with including the Forbes reference. I see no problem and including the history of Broadridge Financial Services going back to the 1960s.


 * * * I agree with Whoisjohngalt. To get real historic accuracy, you need to dig deep into the archives of the company. Find roots of growth and identities of the company(How it started, etc). I see no problem with the Forbes reference. AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I would ask that the commenters describe exactly what it is about the Forbes information that is useful. Just describing it as "Forbes = useful" is not helpful here. For example, what "false" history is being provided by not including this information? This would be helpful to know. Also, there is a great deal more than what Forbes is mentioning, yet the two comments have not touched on the other claims.
 * I understand the difference between forbes.com and Forbes Magazine. The website contains articles that are put there by paid contributors, but these contributors are vetted by the Forbes organization. If the article is about a living person I will find a secondary source or another source. If the article is about an organization, I tend to use the information from Forbes Magazine first and the forbes.com site second. I have no particular concrete example of any of my content being challenged because of a Forbes reference or citation.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * and you both have said that you "see no problem with the Forbes reference." Sometimes to identify a problem you need to have seen one in action in order to recognize it as a problem. Are there prior instances where either of you have encountered problems with Forbes? Please elaborate and advise.
 * mentioned how it has been necessary to do this sort of introspection before (i.e., "In the complicated times in which we live it is sometimes necessary to go back way before a company is formally created to get the true history of the company."). Would you be willing to provide an example of one of these other times when it was necessary to go back before a company was formed in order to get the true history of a company? That would be extremely helpful.
 * I am currently working on a major rewrite of The Villages, Florida article. This is a very complicated situation with the villages being both a census-designated place and a company that develops real estate. I am in the process of developing the history going back all the way to the 1960s and starting with a single trailer park that develops into the world's largest Retirement Community that covers three different counties in Central Florida. Although I have not published under the Wikipedia article as of yet, some of the history has been updated. Finding some of the references and citations will take a trip down to Florida and visits to three different local historical societies (not for original research, but for old local newspapers and records.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * mentioned "To get real historic accuracy, you need to dig deep into the archives of the company." I don't believe that this was ever a question of "real historical accuracy" because I don't believe anything inaccurate was being claimed, except perhaps, that ADP and Broadridge were two seperate companies. My question asks how is it that only one article from Forbes is able to assert historical accuracy and how is that not an example of original research? Please advise. And thank you again.      Spintendo       08:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

What I meant is that accuracy requires a ton of outside research in order to prevent "Original Research". The history of a company can be hard to find an accurate reading on. You need to find sources, then build off them to prove their accuracy. AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon: This is the first time I have used this forum, so however it works is fine by me. I came here as it was one of the suggested venues Spintendo had mentioned on Talk:Broadridge Financial Solutions.
 * I want to note that other sources have pointed to the moves within ADP as important to the history of Broadridge as a separate company.
 * Take, for example, this 2012 story from The Globe and Mail, which writes:
 * Based, believe it or not, in Lake Success, N.Y., Broadridge started nearly 50 years ago as the "Brokerage Services" division of Automatic Data Processing, processing stock trades (a business it still engages in - more on that later). It moved into proxy services in 1989; ADP spun off Broadridge in 2007.
 * This 2007 story from Securities Industry News mentions Broadridge's origins with ADP:
 * Broadridge Investor Communications, formerly ADP Investor Communications, which has about 800 bank and brokerage clients.
 * I appreciate everyone's participation. Any advice on the best way to proceed is appreciated. Thanks, Danilo Two (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Volunteer note - It appears to me that the discussion here, which is being done without volunteer assistance, is being productive. Unless there is an objection, I will let this discussion continue for about two days and then close this thread with instructions to resume discussion on the talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon: Since this discussion has not gone much further since your last note, and there is still disagreement between editors, what do you recommend? Is there another venue that might help move this forward or is this a situation where you would be able to review the details and offer a suggested resolution? I appreciate any guidance. Danilo Two (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

First statement by moderator
Okay. I will see what I can do. Please read the rules and follow them. Be civil and concise. I do not know much about the dispute, and I do not plan to do a lot of research. I expect the editors to provide me with all the details that I need. Comment on content, not contributors. Can each editor tell me, in no more than two paragraphs, what the issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I am re-opening this case as requested. I expect the editors to state, in no more than two paragraphs, what the issues are, within 36 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Danilo Two
Here's the easiest way I can describe the dispute: I have been proposing changes on the Talk page and not editing directly, because I have a financial COI with this company. Spintendo has been the most active responder. I proposed a new History section for this article, citing a Forbes magazine article (written by a staff journalist) that explains how Broadridge was formerly the proxy services division of ADP, and which recounts some important events that led to the spinoff in 2007. It's fairly straightforward, well-sourced, non-promotional information. The section as I have most recently proposed it can be found here.

Only Spintendo can say why they do not believe it should be accepted. I do not understand why they have insisted the Forbes article is WP:OR, I do not understand why they have asked for WP:PRIMARY sources from the time of the events in question, and I cannot make sense of their interpretation of Wikipedia's content guidelines, even after many rounds of going back and forth on the discussion page. At least one other editor on the page agreed with me that the source was useful, but did not take action. Because I do not edit pages where I have a financial conflict of interest, and Spintendo was unwilling to change his mind, this process has stalled. The opinion of an uninvolved editor is badly needed. Danilo Two (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Spintendo
From 1962 to 2007, ADP Securities Brokerage Services Group was a part of ADP, and any claims to its activities before 2007 belong in the article on ADP. The timeline here is what should determine claims made in the article, because the timeline is unambiguous. Let's say I work at a company. The work that I perform there, is performed in the name of the company. I have less of a right to ownership of that work than the company does. If I work for ADP and am paid by ADP, then my work product is "ADP-ian" in nature, because that is work which I did while in their employment. If I decide to branch out on my own years later, am I entitled to revist history, and claim that the work I performed years earlier under ADP is and always was "Spintend-ian" in nature? That is the crux of what is being said here.

The claim is that the events which occurred under ADP were so Broadridgian in nature that Broadridge — which did not become a company until 2007 — should now have claim to those activities, though these events occurred before the company was created. This is supposedly sourced by the Forbes article — and the author does use the term Broadridge exclusively in the article. But one must understand why those words were used. One explanation is that Forbes was using those terms because they know that the work performed in 1992 was so Broadridgian in nature, that they should now claim that work as their own. This would be work that the Forbes author did not witness, making it ultimately a hypothesis which exists only in the mind of the Forbes author. Another explanation is that the author used the term because it was semantically convenient, lessening the possible confusion for readers who may not be entirely aware of the period as having been under ADP. It certainly goes without saying that it would benefit Broadridge to suggest that interpretation to the Forbes author during their interview. Which possibility is the truth, the article does not specify.

If, 20 years from now, Broadridge sells a part of itself to the Tyler company, does the Tyler company get to claim work done in 1992? How long does the aggrandizement continue for, or is there a cutoff point? Sadly, the Forbes article doesn't specify that, either.      Spintendo       02:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator
I must admit that I am getting a little confused by the level of intricacy of the argument over whether a Forbes article is OR and whose history belongs where. I wonder if we are getting bogged down in incidental reasons and losing sight of the issue of what should be the article content. Can each editor please specify, in no more than two paragraphs, what they think is the article content issue? The question should be how to improve the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Second comment from Danilo Two
In short, multiple sources (of which Forbes is the most detailed, but there's also this 2012 story from The Globe and Mail and this 2007 story from Securities Industry News) document the origins of Broadridge Financial Solutions as a division of ADP, and the Wikipedia article currently lacks detail on this. Adding in a brief overview of how the company began as part of ADP would fill in some encyclopedic background on the company’s history. The present company did not just pop into existence in 2007, but developed from steps taken by leadership (mainly the same individual, the now-CEO of Broadridge) while the business was still a division of ADP. Danilo Two (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Second comment from Spintendo
Placing the information in Broadridge's article fills it with the aggrandized-encyclopedic information of a different company from a different era. The Forbes article documents activities concerning ADP Securities Brokerage Services Group. Broadridge became a company in 2007. Their NYSE ticker symbol, BR, was instituted in 2007. Any information regarding ADP belongs in the ADP article.      Spintendo       03:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator
I may have wasted the time of the volunteer editor, User:Spintendo, by trying to mediate this. On further reflection, I see that Wikipedia policies and guidelines create an awkward situation with regard to paid editors, by allowing paid editors to request edits to articles, so that then the paid editors may think that they have a right to have their requests granted, when in fact the volunteer editors who act on the requests are providing a voluntary service, and it is not appropriate for the paid editors either to ask that the first volunteer editor do more, or to ask that a second volunteer editor mediate. User:Danilo Two is asking User:Spintendo to edit the article on their behalf. Spintendo has no obligation, and does not assume any obligation by providing a service, and, if they decide that they have done enough, they have done enough. It is true that this places the paid editor in a disfavored position. That is exactly what is intended. Paid editors are being done a service by being allowed to make edit requests, and should not complain when the volunteer editors stop dancing to the music.

I will leave this open for comments, but this noticeboard should not be used as a way for paid editors to re-litigate edit requests that they have made that have not been fully serviced. They do not have a right to have their requests fully serviced, only a right to make requests. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Iteris
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 been working to improve the Iteris article on behalf of the company, disclosing COI appropriately and not editing the article directly, working via talk page suggestions + edit requests to implement changes.

Spintendo is stonewalling the addition of relevant, well-sourced information.

I have proposed replacing unsourced content with an overview of the company's products/services, including brief descriptions of specific projects that have received coverage in reputable secondary sources. Spintendo's response to my initial request asked for a long list of edits going well beyond what is needed to satisfy content guidelines. After I had made these edits, they replied with confounding new criticisms, and now have done so a third time.

After responding carefully and trying my best to address Spintendo's feedback, they have only added a couple of bullet points about the products/services, without explaining why they have ignored the rest. (I've noted to Spintendo bullet points are not preferred according to the MoS.)

It does not seem to me that Spintendo is willing to work toward a solution.

In short: I'm simply trying to expand and improve the existing article with appropriately sourced and neutral facts, but Spintendo keeps responding with increasingly complex reasons (with no references to any guidelines) why they will not accept it. I think a healthy skepticism about COI/paid editing is appropriate, but in this case, my requests to add simple facts are not being taken seriously.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried rewording content and explaining how my proposed additions follow content guidelines, without success. I have reached out to WikiProject Transport and WikiProject Agriculture to look for editors with knowledge of the topic area, but none have weighed in. (I suspect they are put off by the lengthy and confusing replies.)

How do you think we can help?

I would like a volunteer to review my suggestions and Spintendo's feedback and offer a clear way forward. I have a very successful history of working w/ editors to improve articles, but no progress is being made here. My goal is still for my proposed updates and improvements to be implemented as appropriate.

Summary of dispute by Spintendo
The edit requests that the editor opposite has had to submit are numerous because there are several different layers of approval which must take place. There is not one guideline, but many. If the information fits past one guideline, that doesn't necessarily mean it will fit past the next guideline, and so on and so forth. The editor opposite has taken this to mean "stonewalling" but I'm not the one who built the wall, I'm only the one who ensures that everyone equitably crosses it. The individual arguments for each request submitted by the editor opposite are well documented by numerous back and forth discussions, too many to list here and be placed under the text limiter. The reviewing editor will have to roll up their sleeves and dive into the diffs to see individual reasons. I stand ready to address questions over individual requests, if need be. Regards,      Spintendo       03:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Iteris discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - Here is my assessment of the situation, and it is only my assessment, not that of the Wikipedia community or even the DRN community. First, In Wikipedia, there is no deadline, and that in particular means that an editor should not merely be patient but be very patient if they are requesting a service from volunteer editors.  We have a paid editor who appears to be requesting to rewrite the Iteris article, which is a substantial task, and I see that they are making a lot of detailed edit requests, and they aren't getting the timely response that they want from User:Spintendo], partly because their requests are lengthy and detailed, so that now they are asking another volunteer editor, a mediator, to take the lead in rewriting the article.  If what they really want is an article that contains all of their edits, they can write the article themselves and host it on their own website.  That is what their website is for.  As it is, it appears that they are asking for a second volunteer editor, a mediator from this noticeboard, because they aren't getting their volunteer support fast enough.  Maybe what they are asking is more than they can expect.  So my question for the paid editor is to consider whether they are really trying to get volunteers to rewrite the article when they would be better off to write it themselves and host it on their own website.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contributing to this discussion. I understand and appreciate WP:NODEADLINE, but time is not the problem here. I'm patient when my requests are met with constructive feedback based on guidelines and policies. However, this is not happening. I'm not frustrated with Spintendo's untimely responses -- in fact, they reply very quickly and respond to the vast majority of edit requests lately. Instead I have been frustrated by the difficulty of getting follow-up responses after the initial decline (w/o submitting new edit requests), and these decisions being made on what seem like the arbitrary standards of one editor. Requiring additional volunteer time and resources is absolutely not my goal here. I'm filing a complaint because I believe what I've written to be neutral, well-sourced and appropriate, and it has been declined without a guidelines-based rationale. For this reason, I would like others to assess my proposed content improvements for the Iteris article. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - The above reply by User:Inkian Jason is deeply troubling, for the following reasons. First, it appears that User:Spintendo was making a special effort to assist a paid editor by acting as a neutral editor.  There is no obligation on any volunteer editor to provide any special service to anyone, including not to paid editors.  However, it appears that IJ is saying that, now that Spintendo started by helping, they are obligated to continue helping, even if the requests are becoming a timesink and even if it is becoming burdensome to respond in detail to the requests.  Second, IJ writes:  "Requiring additional volunteer time and resources is absolutely not my goal here."  That statement conflicts with this filing, which is a request for additional volunteer time and resources.  If you don't want to require additional volunteer time and resources, don't request additional volunteer time and resources.  Third, IJ writes:  "I'm filing a complaint".  Where?  Here, or somewhere else?  This isn't a complaint noticeboard, but a noticeboard to request dispute mediation.  If this is a complaint, take it somewhere else, I am not sure where, because I don't think that we have a noticeboard where paid editors can demand more service from unpaid editors.  Fourth, as noted above, it appears that IJ wants the Wikipedia article rewritten to their specifications.  If they want to write an article their way, they can do it on the Iteris web site.  I just verified that there is one.  Fifth, they write that time is not the problem.  Time is part of the problem, because it does appear that the issue is an excessive demand on volunteer editing time.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Money_emoji
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

Left wing bias and false accusations on Gavin Williamson article, I removed them, the user in question then made false comments and and reverted my edit, I then told him I would seek third party resolution, and he then said I made a legal threat(to which I did not) I am the second person to say the Gavin Williamson article is bias, therefore please could you investigate.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to agree a third party resolution to it, but the user money emoji got threatening and abusive.

How do you think we can help?

Look at the article, and read the article talk page, several concerns of bias. I fail to see how an MP's voting history is relevant to Wikipedia.

Summary of dispute by Money emoki
First of all, my name in Money Emoji. Second of all, I have no "Left wing bias"; I just reverted an edit where the above ip removed a large part of the article, which was entirely reliably sourced with stuff from The Independent and The Guardian, without a consensus. Third of all, the user repeatedly said that he was going to resolve this with a third party, which seemed like a leagel threat to me; I didn't realise he was talking about this place. Fourth of all, I'm American and have no bias when it comes to British politics. Fifth of all, The "False accusations" was me using the wrong twinkle template after I reverted the initial edit, accidentally saying that he provided no edit summary to his reversion; I meant to say that he didn't provide a legit reason for taking away so much from the article. Everything this ip has claimed is untrue or nonsensical exaggerations. This is frivolous, please dismiss; I have no prejudice against this editor. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 01:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Talk:Tattletales#Episode lists
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 Udar55 is adding lists of celebrity guests who appeared on a daily television game show which aired over 1,000 episodes.

The source for the list is a site that does not meet WP:V guidelines. Additionally, guidelines in WP:GNG and specifically WP:EPISODE address why a list like this is not appropriate for inclusion either as a stand-alone episode list article nor within a section of a television article. The content violates WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTCRUFT.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I posted both on the user's talk page and the article page links to WP guidelines why this content is not appropriate for inclusion. Following additional discussion at WP:AN3, I am submitting a request for additional feedback here.

How do you think we can help?

Provide determination of source presented as it relates to WP:V. Offer advice regarding list of episodes added as it relates to WP:GNG and WP:EPISODE. Offer advice regarding argument that this content does/does not violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTCRUFT.

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

Talk:Tattletales#Episode lists discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - The filing party has notified the other editor. However, the discussion at the article talk page has been minimal.  Discussion should continue at the article talk page.  It might resolve the matter.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Fantastic Mr._Fox_(film)#Cast_and_plot
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Dispute over plot and cast/character details.

P.S. If I have added too little info to start on then I am sorry about that.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We discussed this matter between the 26/2/2018 (Using day/month/year) and 8/3/2018 (likewise in the same format- no rudeness meant there) but since then we have not reached any further resolution than where things currently stand. I have tried to take into account the points of the others (notably 2668 bytes worth of disputed content was reduced to at most 683 bytes worth i.e. only 683 bytes worth of content is still being disputed) but as of the 12/3/2018 I am still confused of what is wrong.

How do you think we can help?

I understand that this is not a way to force anybody to do anything but if it could be encouraged but not compelled to get the other editors to explain what they are still concerned about where things currently stand, it would help greatly. If not at least get the opinions of others as to who is in the right which may help resolve the matter.

P.S. Not trying to force the other editors to say that I am in the right here.

Summary of dispute by Doniago
Not much for me to say here. ArchAngel made changes to the Plot section that I didn't feel were improvements. TOJ agreed with me on that. No other editor expressed an opinion to the contrary, and despite some effort by me to discuss why the edits weren't improvements AA continued to express confusion and potential WP:IDHT problems, and thus we find ourselves here. DonIago (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TheOldJacobite
I have nothing to add to what said above, except to ask why I'm here. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 12:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Fantastic Mr._Fox_(film)#Cast_and_plot discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Raju
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 Raju article doesn't reflect reality. It has a lot of non factual stuff. I am ready to provide evidence that conforms to wikipedia standards. I also admit that I didn't follow wikipedia rules initially as I was new to Wiki. I am in the process of learning wiki rules and I apologize for all the mistakes I did. I am willing to provide good sources and involve in civil discussions with the admins and work towards changing the content of the article so that it will reflect reality. I started a new section and requested a response but nobody has responded which is really painful. I promise that I will involve in a civil discussion and will provide sources that conform to wiki standards. All I need is responses from admins related to that page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I requested Sitush to respond but he/she hasn't bothered to reply to me.

How do you think we can help?

I request a response from unbiased wiki admins with a neutral point of view so that I can involve in a civil and meaningful discussion and explain to them the inconsistencies and mistakes in the present article and correct it so that it will reflect reality instead of some admin's personal POV. I beg you to give me this opportunity. I once again apologize for any mistakes that I might have committed uknowingly.

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

Summary of dispute by Kautilya3
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Raju discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page, which has included walls of text by the filing party, which are too long to read. The filing party has not yet notified the other editors.  All editors are advised to continue discussion on the article talk page until a volunteer editor opens a case here, and to be civil and concise.  Overly long posts do not clarify matters.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Mr. Robert, I have already written that I am filing this issue on both Sitush and Kautilya3s' walls. I have already apologized for making long posts. I will refrain from doing that. I request responses from the other editors so that I can explain my position.Sharkslayer87 (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Black people
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There have been previous concerns in the talk page archives about this article; namely that:

a) Information about the diversity of sub-Saharan African people is missing. The consensus found here at the infobox supports this.

b) The article is entirely focused on the "slavery" narrative. See

In this regard, I attempted to clean up and rationalize the entry viz adding new material and merging some text into the appropriate category. I also attempted to insert images of Bandar bin Sultan, Ivan Gannibal and Raphael Hadane in the appropriate section.

-The edits were reversed by an editor. There is prima facie evidence of WP:TAGTEAM with the other editor here -There is prima facie evidence of an editor attempting to delete previous consensus unilaterally and attempting to subvert the process of consensus here

--Citations from the University of Alabama and Pulitzer Prize winner Jared Diamond have been dismissed by an editor as "Afrocentric".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

-Extensive discussion on the talk page has not resolved the issues.

-I filed a mediation request which was rejected because the aforementioned editors refuse to accept mediation. There are elements of WP:OWN and WP:TE as evidenced in the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I request administrators to consider and adjudicate / decide on the following questions:-

1. Should the article be balanced with more information about black people other than slavery?

2. Should photos of Bandar bin Sultan, Ivan Gannibal and Raphael Hadane be added to the appropriate sections of the article?

3. Should the article have more information on the diversity of peoples within Africa, e.g. Khoisan, Bantu, Pygmy, etc?

Summary of dispute by Soupforone
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. (a) The regions in Africa where a "black" social construct exists are already discussed. There was also no consensus for the phrase on "Khoisan...", which was actually appended without discussion back in 2007.

(b) As noted on African diaspora, slavery was the primary mechanism through which most of the global "black" populations dispersed.

The files of Prince Bandar, Raphael Hadane and Ivan Gannibal are inappropriate since they are not examples of the "black" social construct in their respective global regions. Bandar is instead officially recognized in his native Saudi Arabia as ethnically Arab, Raphael Hadane is likewise officially classified in Israel as an ethnic Jew as per the 1973 Law of Return , and Gannibal's ethnic origins are unknown.

The claim of "tag-teaming" is unfortunate and untrue given that WP:APPNOTE specifically allows messages "on the user talk pages of concerned editors[...] who have made substantial edits to the topic or article", such as Jamie Tubers and myself. As explained above, there was also no established consensus for that "Khoisan..." phrase in the first place.

Additionally, the claim that the Jared Diamond url was dismissed as Afrocentric is false; neither I nor Jamie Tubers even mentioned Diamond. On the other hand, the Journal of Black Studies is indeed an advocacy publication, whose founding editor is the Afrocentric writer Molefi Kete Asante ("The department also serves as home to several Afro-American Studies/Afrocentric journals: The Journal of Black Studies, edited by Asante" ). Such publications are not considered reliable because they are Template:Partisan sources (ex. ).

Discussion on the talk page is ongoing and actually has not been extensive, which is partly why I declined the earlier voluntary mediation attempt. This voluntary dispute resolution process is for the same reason superfluous. WP:CIVilized dialogue should instead continue on the talk page until it naturally reaches its conclusion. Soupforone (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Talk:Black people discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - The filing editor writes: "I request administrators to consider and adjudicate / decide on the following questions:-"  That raises two questions.  First, most of the volunteers at this noticeboard are not administrators.  (Also, administrative forums such as WP:ANI, WP:AN, and Arbitration Enforcement do not handle content disputes.)  Second, this noticeboard does not adjudicate content issues and does not provide binding rulings, but tries to facilitate editors in arriving at a compromise.  Please re-read the dispute resolution policy.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Robert%27s Rules_of_Order
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

Robert's Rules of Order is a parliamentary authority which has a history going back to Gen. Henry Robert in 1876. As such the copyright has long since lapsed and there are numerous current versions. One version claims without foundation to be the official version of this public domain work, which has no official version, and has made the entire article about this one version, referring to the other works only to briefly denigrate them, while frequently parroting in the article their unsubstantiated claim to official status. This seems quite contrary to the Wikipedia ethic of neutrality and balance.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This is my first action to appeal the matter after some reverted edits.

How do you think we can help?

There is a commercial interest involved here and based on my experience in discussing the matter on the Talk page it doesn't seem that RONRuser is interested in compromise. I think ultimately it will need to be adjudicated.

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

Summary of dispute by Ronruser
Robert's Rules of Order is a book on parliamentary procedure. Henry Robert wrote the original book and then later revised it several times. After his death, his family took over his work and published further revisions. The latest edition of this series of revisions is stated as the official edition. Independent experts on parliamentary procedure have stated that this edition is the official version of Robert's Rules. Ronruser (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Robert%27s Rules_of_Order discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer's note: There's been plenty of talk page discussion, but it's the filing editor's obligation to notify the other parties on their user talk pages. A note just on the article talk page will not suffice. At the time of filing, the filing editor was IP-only (2604:2000:1481:C1D1:1C66:3ABF:A680:B0AE at the time of filing), but has now registered the account noted above. This request will be closed if no notices are given within 48 hours after this note; see the top of the page here for a template which can be used for that purpose. I am not either "taking" or opening this filing for discussion, other than filling in the sections above, at this time. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

>> Thanks for your assistance. I have placed notices on the user talk pages as requested. Sakuranohi (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Sakuranohi
 * Volunteer note - The filing party wrote: "There is a commercial interest involved here and based on my experience in discussing the matter on the Talk page it doesn't seem that RONRuser is interested in compromise. I think ultimately it will need to be adjudicated."  This noticeboard does not adjudicate disputes, but assists in resolving them by moderated discussion.  If the filing party wants compromise, this is a right place.  If the filing party wants a conflict of interest adjudicated, they should make a request at the conflict of interest noticeboard.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

>> I've made proposals. I haven't heard any indication of compromise from the other editor. If there is no movement I will move to the COIN noticeboard. I'll give it a couple of days. Sakuranohi (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I have provided independent secondary sources (from subject matter experts) which clearly and directly support the statement that there is an official version of Robert's Rules among the many versions. I have repeatedly requested for sources which support the statement that there is no official version. So far, two sources have been provided, but neither source clearly states that there is no official version. I would like to see references which directly support the other side of the argument. I can provide more references which support the official status.

As for the suggestion of conflict of interest, I am a layman with no involvement with the Robert's Rules Association. My username was chosen based on that I have read the RONR book and have found it to be a useful source of information on parliamentary procedure. Ronruser (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

>> I suggest you find your additional sources. The multitude of alternate publications speaks volumes, and your citations are few. - Sakuranohi2604:2000:1481:C1D1:F19A:4807:D0E7:8963 (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

And once again, I request providing sources which support your argument. No such sources have been provided. Ronruser (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer
Okay. I will try to work with the editors. Please read my standard rules. Please do not engage in back-and-forth discussion with each other; that already has been tried, and merely results in more back-and-forth. Be civil and concise. Now: It appears that one user says that "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised", which is maintained by an organization, is considered by various authorities to be official or authoritative. I would like each editor to state, in one paragraph, what the issue is. Wikipedia relies on what reliable sources have written. Will each editor please state, concisely, what they think the issue is? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

First statements by editors
Robert’s Rules of Order is a set of parliamentary rules first published by Henry Robert in 1876. There were two revisions in his lifetime. All three of these publications are out of copyright and in the public domain. As such, there have been numerous revised versions, including by his grandson and his associates who claim to publish the “official” version, “Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th Edition” (RONR). Among the other versions of Robert’s Rules of Order, in addition to the publications by General Robert which are still widely sold, there are “Robert's Rules of Order - Masonic Edition”, “The New Robert’s Rules of Order”, “Robert’s Rules in Plain English”, “Webster's New World Robert's Rules of Order Simplified and Applied”, and “Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised in Brief” (from the same publishers as “Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised”). Robert’s Rules of Order properly applies to all of these books, most particularly to the original editions from Gen. Robert (who btw retired as Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers). While RONR may be the most prominent and for many people the most authoritative modern update, since the original text is public domain, there is no such thing as an “official” version. The article about Robert’s Rules of Order tries to suggest that RONR is the only legitimate version, and denigrates and doesn’t even individually mention the other publications, going so far as to state right at the top of the article that RONR is synonymous with Robert’s Rules of Order. The article heavily uses the word “official” to try to buttress the claim, and makes reference to the “official” website etc. Because RONR is a respected publication, there are a couple of neutral parties (among the large number who cite the publication) who have signed on to the claim of “official” status pushed by the publishers. The only legitimate such claim is that it is the official version of RONR, not Robert's Rules. This theme is propagated in many other wikipedia articles with contributions from Ronruser, which cite Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised but only link the Robert’s Rules of Order part of the name, showing the consciousness of the editor that the two are not, in fact, synonymous. Sakuranohi (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources, who are also subject matter experts, have stated that there is an official version of Robert's Rules. Ronruser (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator
I asked the editors to be concise. One was. Just a comment.

I will point out that there is a legal reason why it may be important to know what is the official version of Robert's Rules of Order. Disputes between two factions in a (usually non-profit) corporation, both claiming control of the organization's property, are not uncommon, and sometimes have to be decided by courts. If, as is usually the case, the organization's bylaws state that Robert's Rules of Order is the parliamentary authority, that determines whether action that was taken, such as to sell the property, or to fire the officers and appoint new officers, was legally valid. So it is important to have an official version of Robert's Rules of Order.

Now, will each editor please explain how their view on this content dispute relates to the occasional need to know what is the official version of Robert's Rules of Order?: Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Second statements by editors
Since there is an official version of the book, the Wikipedia article should state so. Having some of the content of the article based on the official version seems to be reasonable. Ronruser (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

>> The need for a formally designated version of Robert's Rules is addressed by the Robert's Rules Association, editors of RONR, here: http://www.robertsrules.com/authority.html. Calling for "Robert's Rules" is insufficient specificity when there are so many versions, which is why an authority such as RONR must be specifically adopted. The Wikipedia article doesn't address the need for a specific authority to be officially adopted, confusing Robert's Rules with RONR, a mistake the RRA website doesn't make. Sakuranohi (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator
It looks as though the above statement about the need to specify a particular version of the parliamentary authority almost resolves the question. Do we agree then that the Wikipedia article should acknowledge that there are multiple books that are called Robert's Rules, just like there are multiple dictionaries that are called Webster's, and that it is important to specify a particular version (just like specifying a particular dictionary)? Can we focus on how to word that clarification of the need for precision? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Third statements by editors
I am comfortable with this statement: "The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is considered to be the authoritative work on Robert's Rules according to professional parliamentarians, the American Institute of Parliamentarians, the National Association of Parliamentarians, and the Robert's Rules Association." I think the article should retain the essence of this statement. Ronruser (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

>> I don't think the Robert's Rules Association should be a source of authority for its own book. But I think Ronruser's proposed text can be worked with, and appreciate the willingness to compromise. I expect we still disagree on how to characterize other works and how to place RONR in context with them, but one step at a time. With verifiable citations, I would be comfortable with "The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is considered to be the most authoritative work on Robert's Rules, according to the American Institute of Parliamentarians and the National Association of Parliamentarians." (I haven't seen the appropriate citation from the AIP, and would want to review the citation from NAP but I think it's sufficient to support the NAP claim). If supported by strong enough citations from both organizations I could be persuaded to drop the word "most". -- Sakuranohi 2604:2000:1481:C1D1:A4FE:7FD2:9CBE:9B0C (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

>> I think this statement is supportable based on the provided reference: "The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is the most widely used reference for Robert's Rules." http://www.parliamentarians.org/about/faq/ Sakuranohi (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator
Are the editors willing to agree to either the Ronruser wording or the Sakuranohi wording? Is there an even more middle wording that can be used?

Fourth statements by editors
To find better wording, I want to look at what the sources have said:

1. http://www.jimslaughter.com/roberts-rules-of-order.cfm As noted on the website, the article is excerpted from the following book:

2. https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Parliamentary-Procedure-Fast-Track/dp/161564220X/ref=sr_1_11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1521870365&sr=1-11&keywords=parliamentary+procedure The excerpt containing a statement on the book could be found on page 3.

3. http://www.dummies.com/careers/business-skills/what-are-roberts-rules-of-order/ The author of this article also wrote the "For Dummies" book:

4. https://www.amazon.com/Roberts-Rules-Dummies-Alan-Jennings/dp/1119241715/ref=pd_sbs_14_3?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1119241715&pd_rd_r=NFR0A09FS3NYK3JDEYCH&pd_rd_w=3BFd7&pd_rd_wg=WToWN&psc=1&refRID=NFR0A09FS3NYK3JDEYCH On page 2, the author makes a strong statement about the book.

5. https://www.nancysylvester.com/articles-scripts and the article, "The New Version of Robert's and Why You Should Care", which is a link to this: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/671d4f_2d064ad497c94168abca4131f8803ab3.pdf

In addition, there are professional parliamentarians who have made RONR synonymous with Robert's Rules of Order: see page 6 of this issue (https://issuu.com/parliamentarians/docs/nap_np_76-3-d) of the magazine from the National Association of Parliamentarians. Looking through the available issues, Robert's Rules is referred to exclusive as RONR. Also, the American Institute of Parliamentarians mentions "Roberts" and then lists "Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised": https://aipparl.org/member-benefits/.

I think what I wrote earlier is a fair statement given these sources. Ronruser (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I wanted to add the credentials of the authors used: http://www.jimslaughter.com/credentials.cfm, http://www.alanjennings.com/?page_id=68, https://www.nancysylvester.com/about Ronruser (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

>> #1 and #2 are from the same author. I think we can consider them to be one source. Likewise with #3 and #4. The authors are knowledgeable but not authoritative. I will list some objections.

Starting with #5, the author states that "If the bylaws of an organization state that the organization’s parliamentary authority is “the current edition of” Robert’s, then the 11th edition is now that organization’s parliamentary authority." This is really bad information. As the previously discussed RobertsRules.com page makes clear, the authority should be indicated as the "current edition of RONR" since there are multiple versions of Robert's Rules. Claiming clarity where it doesn't exist reflects badly on the author and is potentially harmful to anyone relying on the claim.

The author of Dummies states "The Robert’s Rules Association, the National Association of Parliamentarians, and the American Institute of Parliamentarians recognize Robert‘s Rules of Order Newly Revised as the authoritative work on parliamentary procedure whenever Robert’s Rules is designated as the parliamentary authority." This statement at least doesn't go so far as to make the wrong claim that Sylvester makes, but it's bad form to quote the RRA as an authority on their own book, and the other claims are not supported. Again, if you provide actual support from the NAP and AIP for this claim, I won't object to using it, but please provide a direct source.

Slaughter, your first author, claims official status for RONR, while the RRA properly states that RONR has to be specifically cited as an organization's authority (implicitly acknowledging that the claimed "official status" lacks practical meaning).

If you can produce a strong statement from the NAP and/or the AIP it would be very helpful. In my view, two of these authors make claims that are unsupportable, while the third (Jennings) is unsupported. Sakuranohi (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

>> I want to find language that properly recognizes the important status of RONR. The language I proposed was adapted from NAP. Sakuranohi (talk) 05:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator
The above statement is lengthy. Please be concise. Will each editor please provide one or more statements that they consider satisfactory, without any explanatory language? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors
Highly qualified experts in parliamentary procedure regard the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised to be the authoritative work on Robert's Rules. Ronruser (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

>> "The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is the most widely used reference for Robert's Rules." Sakuranohi (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

>> "The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is the most widely used Robert's Rules authority." Sakuranohi (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator
It was already noted above that sometimes it is important to know which version is considered authoritative. Will either editor agree to any of the other wordings? If not, the answer is a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors
I am willing to combine our statements: The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is regarded by experts to be the authoritative work on Robert's Rules and the most widely used reference on parliamentary procedure. Ronruser (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

>> The authoritative version is the one which is adopted by the assembly, according to General Robert himself, according to RONR, and according to the RRA. RONR is a well-regarded work, but it is not the only respected update to Gen Robert's work. It is one version of Robert's Rules among many: Robert's Rules of Order, the Modern Edition, for example. We should find language that provides due respect to the other works. It seems that Request for Comments is the appropriate next step.Sakuranohi (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

>>How about this: The original works by Henry Robert are now in the public domain. There are many updated versions of Robert's Rules, most having been composed to provide a briefer and more accessible manual of rules. The current edition of RONR, a work of over 700 pages published by Robert's grandson and associates, is widely considered to be the most authoritative version.Sakuranohi (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator
Since it appears that the editors won't agree on a single compromise wording, we will use a Request for Comments. Each editor will provide their own wording, and then we will go from there. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors
The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is regarded by experts to be the authoritative work on Robert's Rules. Ronruser (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

>> The original works by Henry Robert are now in the public domain, and remain in use. There are a number of updated versions of Robert's Rules, including Robert's Rules of Order Modern Edition and Robert's Rules of Order in Plain English, which have been composed to provide a more accessible manual of meeting rules. The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, a reference work of over 700 pages, is widely considered to be the most authoritative version, but draws criticism for being difficult to use. All sources agree that adoption of a specific chosen authority for meeting rules should be formalized by the organization using them. Sakuranohi (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Angels (Robbie_Williams_song)#Writers_for_the_song
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

IP and another user wants the line ''however this is contested by the songwriter Ray Heffernan, who claims he wrote a significant portion of the song himself. '' removed from the article. Myself and Jonie148 think it should stay as it is the lead and covers the section in the actual article that talks about the dispute in writing credits as per MOS:INTRO.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page is only bit. I did leave a message on Ritchie333 page as I made a mistake thinking IP and MAXXII12 maybe the same person as MAXXII12 was banned. Ritchie333 has protected the page in the mean time

How do you think we can help?

Decide if the sentence should be in the article.

Summary of dispute by MAXXII12
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by 124.106.139.19
The content regarding the dispute over who actually wrote the song is not very notable, and consists mainly of some "he said, she said" claims. As such, it is not notable or reliable enough to be on the lede.

There has been no legal action regarding this situation and no proof offered by any of the involved parties. All we have to go on are the official writing credits.

If you look at the Stairway to Heaven article (a song that actually had a court case over copyright claims) there is no mention of these claims in the lede, despite the media attention to the court case and it being a far more notable song.

We can't give content the prominence of being in the lede, every time someone makes an unsubstantiated claim - it's a borderline BRD issue, it's undue weight.

If at some time in the future, there is a court case that decides someone other than the officially credited writers wrote the song, then it might deserve to be in the lede. Until such time there is no need for anything more than a sentence or two later in the article. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Angels (Robbie_Williams_song)#Writers_for_the_song discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors of filing this request. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Robert McClenon. First time I've done one of these notices and I thought by listing other users in the notice they would automatically get a message. Have put one on talk pages now. NZFC  (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The IP user does a good summary but as far as reliable sources say, Heffernan was paid off by Williams and had signed an agreement with Rob's management company for the rights to the song for £7,500 so there is unlikely to be a court case. Robbie Williams has himself discussed the history of the song, and mentions Heffernan's claim to authorship explicitly numerous times if you watch the following video (goo.gl/gkGcPS). Its hard to compare to Stairway to Heaven as that article has a lot more content, so the lead can only summarise so much, the Angels article doesn't have quite as much and the dispute about the writers credits is part of it, so at least I feel deserves some mention if only one line. NZFC  (talk) 08:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It does deserve a mention as long as it is sourced, notable and doesn't fall foul of BLP or other similar issues. I does not however deserve any space in the lede, it's a very very minor detail of a very popular song. Actually, the section regarding this issue later in the article should be made shorter. This is all an undue weight issue. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment You claim that this is an undue weight issue, but I have to strongly disagree with you here. In the video linked by released late last year, Robbie discusses the writers dispute around the song, as well as the content of the writers section on the Wikipedia page itself, for twelve minutes or so. I hardly see how that qualifies as it being "a very very minor detail" of the song's impact. Surely the fact that the artist himself has felt he needs to narrate his own narrative, and then release this narrative to the public in order to correct what he sees as the Wikipedia page misrepresenting that dispute, is highly notable. Rarely do writers disputes drag out for over 20 years, and are then still publicly stated to be on the artist's mind (cf. Williams' claims in the interview that he has tried to change the page himself, and that an older revision of it pissed him off), to the extent of my knowledge. P.s. you're consistently misspelling "lead" --Jonie148 (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Jonie148 I've removed your thinly veiled attack. Please try to remain constructive on this noticeboard, thanks.


 * Secondly, moving on to the content - the mere fact the issue isn't resolved between Williams and Heffernan doesn't give it any more weight, neither does the fact that Williams commented on it, in this day and age of social media comments come thick and fast.


 * Finally, thank you for caring about my spelling - some may call that a particularly petty thing to comment on, but I will assume that you're doing it with the best of intentions. Of course you're wrong, the spelling "lede" is just fine. "Definition of lede: the introductory section of a news story that is intended to entice the reader to read the full story" but don't worry about it, we learn new things every day. I wouldn't be overly concerned that you confused "lead" and "lede" - apart from the different spelling, the different meaning and the fact that one is a noun and the other is a verb, they are kinda similar, I guess. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi 124.106.139.19. I didn't realize editors were permitted to remove each others text from discussions on non-mainspace pages. I believe there is currently no consensus on [] as to whether you are or aren't engaged in sock puppetry? I'll take you at your word and assume innocence until proven guilty.


 * I'll also note that, while you ask me to be more constructive, your comment here added 180 words to the discussion, with only 46 (or, roughly a quarter) of them being further discussion of the article's lead itself. If you're claiming to be contributing to the discussion, please could you further elucidate a response to what I or others have said in our comments in support of the lead being maintained as is. That's the only way we're going to keep this discussion moving forward, as I don't feel you've made any significant contrary point to mine in this case, mostly just a lot of "thinly veiled" antagonistic digs at me. I'll respond further regarding the article dispute itself when you have. Additionally, the burden of proof lies with you, as you're the one attempting to change consensus on the article - I refer you to the "edit warring" section of the following linked talk page for corroboration of this from a user other than myself; []


 * Regarding lede/lead, yes both are correct. I'm genuinely not being sarcastic when I say, thanks for the heads up! I'm not American, so I hadn't ever heard the version you use before. Dialectical differences, fun eh? --Jonie148 (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have been involved in past removals of this sourced information and most of the edits in the article are IP addresses and newly created accounts removing the sourced information without edit summaries or talk page discussion and then a handful of longer-historied editors reverting this removal with edit summaries and talk page discussion. In the past, the removals were of the half-sentence in the lead and all of the sourced information in article. Since the discussion here is only about the half-sentence in the lead, I feel it should stay per MOS:INTRO. The first half of the sentence (the credited writers) are listed in every song article and the second-half is notable and represents a large sourced section of the article that should be represented in the lead. I do not think it is right to use new editors doing drive-by deletions of sourced material without edit summaries or talk page discussions as an argument to show that there is not a stable, consensus version of the information since they never explain why they make the edit, never try to build a consensus and could easily be sock/meatpuppetry edits and/or conflict of interest edits from someone close to Robbie Williams. Aspects (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Jonie148 removing comments that are harmful (including personal attacks) is allowed, of course it's all subjective.
 * Consensus regarding me not being a sock account? Not required. No one is a sock account, until it's proven that they are.
 * "your comment here added 180 words to the discussion, with only 46 (or, roughly a quarter) of them being further discussion of the article's lead itself" that doesn't matter, it's the quality not the quantity of my comments that matters, being succinct isn't a bad thing.
 * "Regarding lede/lead, yes both are correct. I'm genuinely not being sarcastic when I say, thanks for the heads up! I'm not American, so I hadn't ever heard the version you use before. Dialectical differences, fun eh? " - I'm not American either, I didn't learn about "lede" until I started editing Wikipedia.
 * Aspects sorry, but I don't care about which IP editor has been active on that article and what they did, that is nothing to do with me and my edits.
 * "could easily be sock/meatpuppetry edits and/or conflict of interest edits from someone close to Robbie Williams. " hahaha. No. But that's funny.

124.106.139.19 (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * 124.106.139.19 Once again, you aren't even remotely contributing to a discussion of the article's lead, which is the sole purpose of this discussion thread. Actually, there's being succinct, and then there's entirely failing to address the points made by three editors who disagree with you. You just seem to want to antagonize everyone who disagrees with your conception of how the page should look. By all means, prove me wrong, and address the counter-points that have been made to your own in regard to the page. --Jonie148 (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Did you read my comments under the "Summary of dispute by 124.106.139.19" title? Does that not discuss the article's lede? 124.106.139.19 (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, as do all our opening statements and/or comments. My contention is that you aren't substantively responding to "the counter-points that have been made to your own in regard to the page", hence you aren't contributing to developing the discussion in a productive manner. --Jonie148 (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I responded where necessary. I'm not about to repeat myself and respond to every single point. Especially when most of them are just commenting on previous editors or the fact that they don't like IP editors. If any of the comments had made my points less valid then I would have addressed them, if I haven't addressed them, please assume that I don't consider them to be relevant. Besides, all you're doing is complaining about my short replies, trying to say my spelling was wrong and suggesting that I am an IP sock. So please don't come across all high and mighty, when you're making comments such as P.s. you're consistently misspelling "lead" - did you consider that to be "contributing to developing the discussion in a productive manner"? 19:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)124.106.139.19 (talk)

First statement by moderator
I will try to act as the moderator for this dispute. Please read the ground rules and follow the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content only, not contributors. Now, will each editor please state, in no more than two paragraphs, what they think the issues are? I do not have any particular knowledge of the subject matter and do not intend to research it. I expect the editors to provide me with any background information that I need. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

First statements by editors
Thanks for agreeing to mediate this dispute Robert McClenon, I can see from having watched this page for a few days that you have a large workload. As stated above, I believe the current article lead (which reflects the fact the song's authorship is disputed) accurately summarizes the sourced content in the 'Writers' section of the page. The page has been subject to drive-by deletions of this consensus and well-sourced material for years now, with the parties who seek the deletion of the content usually being unwilling to engage in discussion. In my opinion, another relevant piece of background information is that Robbie Williams gave a recent interview corroborating that Ray Heffernan was involved in the song's writing process. Please see goo.gl/gkGcPS to watch the relevant section of the interview. Finally, would you mind notifying the other involved editors that this discussion has now been opened please? I would do this myself, but I don't want to open myself to accusations of playing the system, etc. --Jonie148 (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you Robert McClenon for mediating. There isn't a lot more I can add that Jonie148 has already stated. My main issue was the comment about the dispute of who wrote the song was being removed from the lede despite MOS:INTRO meant to summarise the article and the article contains quite a section on the dispute. There had been users trying to delete the comment on the article form the lede and sometimes users would also try remove it from the infobox and the whole writers section as well. Which is why the hidden text Stop! DO NOT remove writers or the 'see below' template from this infobox without first contributing to the discussion on the article's talk page was added to the article to discuss on the talk page but is quite often ignored as well.

Second statement by moderator
It appears that the real question is whether to leave the sentence in the lede paragraph that says that the authorship of the song is contested. Are there any other content issues?

An interview on an unreliable video source is, well, unreliable. Interviews are normally not considered reliable secondary sources anyway.

Is any editor willing to propose a compromise? (I don't know what one would be.) Also, are all of the editors willing to submit to a Request for Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

If the contested authorship is well-sourced, and it appears to be, then it seems that those who want to delete that material need to provide a policy-based reason for the deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Second statements by editors
It does seem the most deleted part of the dispute is about taking it out of the lede. My feeling is the dispute is still well sourced in the article and the lede is suppose to be summarising the article then this is part of it. I'm not sure really what a compromise here would be, as it says officially says who are credited with the writing and its just that it is disputed by someone else. Then you can go into this further in the article writers section. I'm happy for a request for comment to be submitted. NZFC (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Ditto. Although the editors who were contesting the need for the sentence in the lead seem to have decided not to engage in the mediated aspect of this discussion, I feel like an RfC would help to more firmly establish consensus. --Jonie148 (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator
It appears that there is agreement that a Request for Comments will be used concerning including a statement about the question about authorship in the lede. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Third statements by editors
Yes I'm happy with a RfC on the articles talk page. Doesn't appear that the other two users that disagreed with the lede are participating in this discussion but I'd like to get a clear consensus either way so in future we can avoid the content warring on the page. NZFC (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of South Asia#Initial alphabetical sort
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 think the first table in this article should have initial alphabetic sorting, which according to Help:Sorting seems to be the preferred way of sorting. But the user Fylindfotberserk says that the initial sort should be according to the date in which the research study pertaining to each row was published.

I do not understand how sorting it according to the study's published date could be helpful to any reader. Fylindfotberserk gave many arguments but I don't understand how any of them makes sorting it by the article date more beneficial than initial alphabetic sorting, whereas initial alphabetic sorting has various benefits: (i) if the reader doesn't know to sort manually (ii) even if the reader can sort manually, still groups like Bengalis would not appear together because some of them are labeled as West Bengalis, but in initial alphabetic sort they can be put together (just like how Kosovo Albanian is mentioned at the start with all other Albanians in the article Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic group) - this article has such groups throughout the article, for example Indian Shia vs Iranian Shia vs Shia, Madhya Pradesh Gonds (India) vs Uttar Pradesh (South) Gonds (India), Gujarat Bhils, Sunni vs Indian Sunnis.

Most other articles on Y-DNA frequency in ethnic groups use Initial Alphabetic Sort:
 * Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic group
 * Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of Europe
 * Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of the Caucasus
 * Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of the Near East
 * Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of Sub-Saharan Africa
 * Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of East and Southeast Asia
 * Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of Oceania
 * Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of Central and North Asia
 * Y-DNA haplogroups in indigenous peoples of the Americas

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We discussed extensively.

How do you think we can help?

Please allow me to edit it so that it has initial alphabetic order.

Summary of dispute by Fylindfotberserk

 * Why I am not in favor of sorting based on "Population"
 * 1) The word Population has multiple meanings when it comes to South Asians. For others it means "ethnolinguistic" groups and thus can be much more easily sorted alphabetically. South Asians have complex social stratification. Genetic tests have been done on the basis of Castes, Sub-Castes, Tribes, Clans, Religion, Language-families, Zones, States, Districts, Countries, etc. How is it reasonable to bring together e.g. Marathas(an ethnic group), Marathi Brahmin(a caste), Marathi Konkanastha Brahmin(a sub-caste), Marathi Tribals, Marathi Muslims when they belong to separate tiers on top of that we have entries like New Delhi(a city), India(West)(a zone), Hindus, Indo Aryan Low Castes, Sri Lanka(country) adding to the confusion. A reader ignorant of South Asian society might think Marathi and Marathi Brahmin to be separate "populations".
 * 2) There's a lot of ambiguity in some entries/sources. e.g Rajput, Chamar, Maharashtra Brahmins, Andhra Tribals are ambiguous groups since they have sub-groups and are multi-regional. We don't know from which specific ethnic group the samples have been taken. It is important because researches sometimes are revised and they sometimes refer to older papers. What if the name of sample population change in the new edition or in a newer research? As an example, Underhill 2009 referred some data from Battaglia et al. 2008. But it changed the name of some sample populations.
 * 3) If we sort (Indian Shia, Iranian Shia, Shia), (Madhya Pradesh Gonds (India), Uttar Pradesh (South) Gonds (India), Gujarat Bhils) or (Sunni vs Indian Sunni) together, the table wouldn't look alphabetically sorted defeating the whole purpose. I've explained that in the talk page.
 * 4) It is extremely tedious to put "Populations" Manually Alphabetically into table down to the last alphabet especially if the "Referenced Scholarly Article" has high number of Sampled groups and most of the time, the papers don't arrange sampled groups alphabetically in their tables.
 * 5) There seems no rule on how we should sort a table as per WP:SORT, so I don't see a need to consider other tables as a Standard for this table when there are a lot difference between them.

So either we get ethical and build an "All Encompassing" table with columns like Country, Caste, Tribe, Region which will only make our work cumbersome and future edits more difficult. Or we can sort as per Time of Publication and rid us of unnecessary hassles like this. After all, the sources are mostly primary and it is better to represent them as it is as per WP:PSTS.


 * Why I am in favor of sorting based on "Time of Publication"
 * 1) It is easier to put new research data into(based on year), easier to put whole tables almost as it is from the published sources, easier to put missed data into as it is(based on research) and is easier to refer to this article if it is based on month/year. And yes, I believe most readers have basic know how of genetic researches.
 * 2) It is much easier to cross verify entries with the source data.
 * 3) The table is sortable, alphabetic sorting is just one click away. There is no need to make it permanent when it has all the problems I listed above.

Summary of dispute by A145029
I don't understand how Fylindfotberserk's arguments about the complexity and ambiguity of South Asian groups are related to sorting the list in a certain way. I think he is bringing in arbitrary arguments to support his point. Besides, ethnic groups in other parts of the world mentioned in other articles also display the same amount of complexity and ambiguity as South Asians do and those articles still use initial alphabetic sort. These are some examples from Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic group: It is reasonable to bring together "Marathas(an ethnic group), Marathi Brahmin(a caste), Marathi Konkanastha Brahmin(a sub-caste), Marathi Tribals, Marathi Muslims" because they are all linked to the Marathi ethnicity which is a very strong type of connection in India. Even if they all had different origins, they have mixed with each other making them all somewhat linked, and ethnolinguistic ties tend to be very strong in India. I stand by what I said earlier: sorting it in alphabetical sort is a standard employed in most other articles about Y-DNA groups, and it is easier for the reader to read (for example, if someone doesn't know how to use sort). Also, it makes Wikipedia look more organized if all articles on Y-DNA haplogroups are sorted this way.
 * Why I am in favor of sorting based on "Population"
 * 1) Arabs (Bedouin): there are so many different types of Bedouins. They are just as diverse or more diverse than Rajput and Chamar groups.
 * 2) Turks (Istanbul): there are many different types of people in Istanbul, it is a multiethnic country just like India (New Delhi).
 * 3) Turks (Southeastern) is a ambiguous region just like India (West).
 * Why I am not in favor of sorting based on "Time of Publication"
 * 1) It does not benefit the reader (at least not as much as initial alphabetic sort) which I think should be the primary focus.
 * 2) This way of sorting is non-standard as it is not employed in other articles.
 * 3) It does not make the editing process that much easier than an article with initial alphabetic sort. You can easily put the data from the study into a spreadsheet software like Excel, and then copy and paste it into tab2wiki, sort it alphabetically there and then merge that into the article. Tab2wiki was suggested by Help:Sorting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A145029 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of South Asia#Initial alphabetical sort discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor of the filing of this request. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't notified but I saw in the article talk page that the other editor filed a request in the DRN.Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Volunteer note - Has a Third Opinion been requested?
 * Volunteer note - Is this a binary question (e.g. Yes/No, Sort by A, Sort by B), or is there a middle ground? If there is a middle ground to be found, a volunteer mediator may be able to help.  If it is a binary question, then either a Third Opinion or a Request for Comments is more likely to work.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is mostly a binary question. The middle ground I recommended was that if we sort according to name of the "study groups", we have to take care of things like Country, Ethnicity, Caste, Religion, Tribe, Region, etc as well by adding separate columns which would be an ethical thing to do. But then again, I am aware of the inconvenience a more complex table would cause as well as the potentiality to get into WP:OR territory. Since there are a lot of hassles and also the fact that most sources in this case tend to be primary, I think it would be better if we add info "almost as it is" from the source and let the sorting be based on "Time of Publication". A Third Opinion wasn't requested since I thought I'd be able to convince the other editor of the problems that a simple sort on "Population" would bring to this table which I've discussed extensively in the talk page. I also pointed the fact that the table is sortable and alphabetic sort can be had with just a mouse click if that's that much important for a reader.Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Volunteer note - If no one offers a Third Opinion within 24 hours, this dispute will be resolved by a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - In light of most sources being primary and considering the complexity/ambiguity of reference populations in different sources, it is better to represent information as it is as per WP:PSTS and sort it based on "Time of Publication", my Primary Standpoint. "Time of Publication" because it is static and non-ambiguous and secondly, I believe most people interested in genetics typically want to check the accompanying research/publication and compare data between different groups studied in that very research which becomes so much easier if presented as a "block". Not to mention, it becomes easier to edit as per source as well. If Sorting the first column is a must then we can have some sort of ranking system.


 * I also want to clarify a little more on the "middle ground" I suggested.
 * I don't know why A145029 is downplaying the Obvious Phenomenon of Caste/Clan/Tribe system of South Asia especially when a lot of genetic studies on South Asian populations are based on it. I believe it is much more important to present the truth than doing a half-baked alphabetical sort on something ambiguous called "Population". I believe we do it fully or we don't do it(ie keep it based on "Publication")
 * Reiterating the example, Marathi(an ethnic group), Marathi Brahmin(a caste within Marathi), Marathi Konkanastha Brahmin(a sub-caste within Marathi Brahmin) should not be kept under the same column since they belong to separate tiers. A reader ignorant of South Asian society might think Marathi and Marathi Brahmin to be separate "populations". I've seen these kind of assumptions a lot across the internet. So we need to build a table with more columns like Country, Linguistic group, Caste/Subgroup similar to this table and sort it accordingly, something like this:
 * {| class="wikitable sortable" style='text-align: center;

! Country ! Ethnic group ! Caste/Sub-group/region ! Afghanistan ! Bangladesh ! India ! India ! Pakistan ! Sri Lanka
 * Pashtun
 * Kabul
 * Bengali
 * Dhaka
 * Marathi
 * Marathi Brahmin
 * Tamil
 * Tamil Brahmin
 * Pashtun
 * Sinhalese
 * }
 * or have a more complex table like this if necessary.
 * I'm willing to convert it into a table like the one you made. The initial sorting would be in alphabetic listing of the country, followed by alphabetic listing of ethnicity (just like the sample table you made), can we agree on this then? A145029 (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Assessing some points raised by the other editor -
 * You can easily put the data from the study into a spreadsheet software like Excel, and then copy and paste it into tab2wiki, sort it alphabetically there and then merge that into the article. - Seems incorrect/irrelevant here. tab2wiki is used to generate "wiki codes" from spreadsheets/tables. It is a valuable tool when creating the table for the first time, but I can't think of its usefulness when we have to enter rows in a pre-organized table one by one. The table presented in a study most likely is not going to have the same number and order of header columns as in the wiki table.
 * Arabs (Bedouin): there are so many different types of Bedouins. They are just as diverse or more diverse than Rajput and Chamar groups. - Uneven comparison. Arab is an ethnicity which speaks the Arabic language. It is comparable to any other ethnicity. Rajput and Chamar on the other hand represent castes within linguistic groups. There are Rajasthani, Punjabi, Bihari Rajputs which make the terms ambiguous.
 * Turks (Istanbul): there are many different types of people in Istanbul, it is a multiethnic country just like India (New Delhi) - Incorrect. Turk is an ethnicity and the study clearly points to that. India on the other hand is a country.
 * Turks (Southeastern) is a ambiguous region just like India (West) - Same as above. Turk is an ethnicity not a region or country. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Turks (Istanbul): there are many different types of people in Istanbul, it is a multiethnic country just like India (New Delhi) - Incorrect. Turk is an ethnicity and the study clearly points to that. India on the other hand is a country.
 * Turks (Southeastern) is a ambiguous region just like India (West) - Same as above. Turk is an ethnicity not a region or country. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Lithuania#Corruption
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 an edit dispute about one small paragraph where accurate, encyclopaedic and well referenced material is continuously removed. We are talking about Lithuania. As far as the dispute is concerned, the primary question seems to be *not* if the paragraph's content is accurate or appropriate, but whether it should be included or removed.

Reasons to keep the paragraph are:
 * 1) Content is highly relevant. Corruption is not "one of many types of crime" but rather an issue that permeates many layers of the society.
 * 2) Corruption, unlike other crime types, is also included in various country rankings, e.g. WEF competitiveness report or EU's membership assessment for prospective members. That shows that topic's relevance is universally established.
 * 3) The corruption paragraph in it's current form makes around 1% of the total article length, 3825/(278655+3825). Given topics importance and relevance, 1% is a bargain.
 * 4) The content is verifiable and uses reliable sources. Claims that many sources are "unreliable" are flat out false.
 * 5) Complaints that the paragraph includes "cherry-picking" are unsubstantiated. Such complains resemble character assassination attempts, rather than honest argumentation.
 * 6) The fact that other country articles do not include corruption is not a reason to remove. With this logic, most new information could be removed. It is also a slippery slope – we should remove "topic A", because another article does not talk about "topic A". Then we remove "topic B" and soon we stripped down most of the text...
 * 7) I do not object to reasonable changes to the paragraph. My issue is only the censorship, i.e. removal for no good reason.

All in all, while this paragraph (like any other) can be improved by rewriting, any attempts to remove it resemble censorship under the disguise of "Wikipedia standards".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page. However, one of the disputing parties (Ke an) explicitly requested involvement from an external party.

How do you think we can help?

Provide your opinion if the paragraph is be included or removed.

Summary of dispute by Ke an
The issue involves improving the structure of the content according to Neutral point of view and avoiding frame in or Spin methods. I see 2 main points here: 1.

Uncooperative behaviour of "Detektyw z Wilna" demonstrating no intention to dispute this or another issue. Facts: look at "Lithuania" "Talk" page "Lithuania - Legal page" and look at "Detektyw z Wilna" "Talk" page. Not only me wanted to start a dialog regarding various issues. Alas, it was in vain. Attempts to discuss the issue and change a structure were written off to the simple edit wars. I doubt it is simple edit wars. Therefore I insisted on a third party participation as the work on the content was disrupted and reached the dead-end as the changes were reverted and deleted multiple times undisputably with arguments - "nothing has changed since 2014", "flat out wrong", "it's a censorship".

2. frame the issue or Spin methods(cherry picking) were applied to the content. I firmly believe section names must have as much neutral abstractions as possible. Otherwise we may end up with practice creating sections such as "Economy and poverty", "Economy and wealth", "Military and defeats" or "Demographics and sucide". You can see how it looked before https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithuania&diff=831095300&oldid=830941639 It had a name "Law and crime" with subsections "Legal system", "Corruption", "Crime". About 8% of sentences were about Legal systems, ~5% were about Law history and that was left - ~88% was Corruption and Crime. I have counted at least 8 weak sources (i.e. serious lack of direct support of the claim) from which contextual statements were elevated to the general conclusion. Sources are in Lithuanian, half of them in a poor quality articles, and foreign reader can not verify the claims. At least, those Neutral point of view (Neutral point of view) aspects were neglected: I have asked to add a warning for the reader regarding the poor or unfinished content (Ke an 20:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)). It was ignored. Solving: I suggest to move "Law" under "Politics" and "Law enforcement" under the "Law": So it should be - "Politics"->"Law"->"Law enforcement". Law enforcement will contain information about law enforcement forces and facts about the law breach. -- Ke an (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Good research
 * 2) Good sources
 * 3) Balance
 * 4) Direct support of the statements

Summary of dispute by Pofka
Corruption covers only three articles in the Criminal Code of Lithuania: 225, 226, 227 (http://www.infolex.lt/portal/start_ta.asp?act=doc&fr=pop&doc=66150) out of 330 articles. So comprehensive analysis about each crime genre would result in about 100 separate sections. This would definitely be too detailed for a country-level page. In my opinion, such comprehensive analysis of each crime genre may only be discussed in a separate newly created article Crime in Lithuania (other countries has this one, f. e., Crime in the United States). I have rewritten this section and integrated two important sentences about corruption from the Detektyw z Wilna "Corruption" section to the newly created "Lithuania" section, which was based on the "United States" section (named as a Good Article). These sentences are: "According to a European Union Anti-Corruption Report, Lithuania had the highest proportion of citizens - 29 percent, who have been asked or expected to pay bribes in the preceding 12 months of any EU country, with 95% of citizens considering corruption to be widespread and a major problem.[176] Though, according to local branch of Transparency International, corruption levels have been decreasing over the past decade.". Also, part of the information from the old section was split to the newly created "Lithuania" section, which is based on the "Germany" section (named as a Featured Article). Highlighting of problematic fields and boasting it over other less problematic fields (f. e., contrabanda, which in 2017 decreased by 27.2% from the 2016 numbers) in a separate extensive section in a country's article qualifies more as a Black propaganda for me than a censorship. In conclusion, I think two sentences about corruption, together with other popular crimes in Lithuania, is enough and comprehensive analysis should be done only in a newly created Crime in Lithuania article sections (similar to "Crime in the United States" and "Crime in the United States"). -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Lithuania#Corruption discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - The filing party has notified one of the other editors and needs to notify the other editor. The statements by the editors are lengthy.  Once you have made one statement while waiting for a mediator, that is enough until mediation begins.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:John Hunyadi
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

In the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hunyadi he is described as an hungarian, even tho there is no proof, reference anything that links him to being a hungarian. Other articles on the wikipedia with references and proof that he was a romanian like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunyadi_family where John Huniad is described as

Voyk's son, John Hunyadi, bore the nickname "Olah", meaning "Vlach", in his youth, which implied that he was of Romanian stock.[2][3] The court historian of Voyk's grandson King Matthias Corvinus, Antonio Bonfini, explicitly stated that John had been "born to a Vlach father".[6][7] Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III likewise knew that King Matthias had been "born to a Vlach father", and a Venetian man, Sebastiano Baduario, referred to the Romanians as King Matthias's people.[8][9]

The world vlach is an exymonim, like calling an iranian persian.

So calling John Huniad a romanian is backed by some references. Calling him a hungarian is backed by nothing, the only refenrece is linked to the Kingdom of Hungary... like all KOH kings were automaticaly hungarians, which was not the case.

But the article is agresively protected with fale information by the wikipedia administrator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Norden1990 and other brigaders that cannot understand that a wikipedia historical articles should have some historical proof, and references should be allowed, not only brigating your nationalistic agenda.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I cannot take any steps, all are ignored and reverted by the hungarian nationalists.

How do you think we can help?

Im new to wikipedia overall, i just hope other administrators would at least put a warning message on paragrafs with no proof or disputed. Just brigating your opinion into articles with no references what so ever will make wikipedia lose credibility.

Talk:John Hunyadi 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 no discussion of any kind on the talk page. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  13:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Criticism of_Christianity
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved
 * Talk:Criticism of_Christianity,

Dispute overview

In Greek wikipedia a user posted two sections that are clearly an Original Research in the Greek version of the article Criticism of Christianity. He then tried to translate these sections and post them in the English article as well but they were removed as OR. However the admins in the Greek Wikipedia have not only refused to listen to my and other user's pleas to remove the sections but have also protected the article. I threatened them with legal actions and now I am blocked for 2 weeks and the OR remains in the article. I am aware that this is a different wikipedia project but I really don't have anyone else to report this issue to. Could you help me deal with this issue please? ΕρΚιλλ (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to discuss it in Talk Page and in the Community portal

How do you think we can help?

You could help me deal with this situation or contact a global admin (if such thing exists)

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

Summary of dispute by Skylax30
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Glucken123
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

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

Talk:United States_involvement_in_regime_change#1959_Iraq and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#1963_Iraq
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

An editor removed these two entire sections, 1959 Iraq and 1963 Iraq, from the "US Involvement in Regime Change" article. As can be seen on the Talk page sections, numerous sources are cited. The editor alleged that these sources are "fringe" and "garbage" or based on unreliable sources, and posted these sections on the WP Fringe Theories Noticeboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#NYCJosh_on_CIA_activities_in_Iraq There, the editor was told by the administrator that no fringe issue has been raised and the discussion on that Noticeboard was closed by that administrator. I then re-added these sections to the article. The editor again removed them. The editor claims that s/he has gone through the scholarly literature on the subject and that the scholarly consensus refutes the statements of all the sources I posted. He cites no source for the proposition (1) that the scholarly consensus is what the editor claims, Or (2) that the sources I provide are refuted in any way. So as I see it, the editor has done some major OR which in the editor's mind renders as "garbage" or "fringe" such sources as PBS Frontline, UPI, Boston Globe and several scholarly works cited and others. The editor cites sources that state that based on their review of US govt documents and other sources, they have no evidence that the US was involved. But given the nature of US covert operations, including the important doctrine of plausible deniability to protect senior US officials, one would not expect to find readily available documentary sources or other "smoking guns." Given the covert history, the fact that I could find a single RS should be sufficient.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion, WP Fringe Theories Noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#NYCJosh_on_CIA_activities_in_Iraq

How do you think we can help?

Provide clarity on usability of sources cited for the sections and whether they support the 1959 section and the 1963 section. Provide clarity on whether the sources provided by the editor in the talk page section refute the sources cited or refutes the content of the two sections.

Summary of dispute by TheTimesAreAChanging
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There are well-documented cases of U.S. covert intervention, notably in Iran and Guatemala. This isn't one of them. I'm not going to rehash my arguments from here and here, other than to reiterate that there is a large gap between what scholarly sources say about this matter and what NYCJosh's preferred, er, "sources" say. NYCJosh cites a New York Times op-ed prominently labelled "opinion," a url ending in .org, a Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq mailing list email by a random person, The American Spectator, ProCon.org, a deadlink to Salon's "35 Countries Where the U.S. Has Supported Fascists, Drug Lords and Terrorists," and a Boston Globe op-ed by two nonspecialists while entirely ignoring and dismissing academic sources like the following: NYCJosh compounds his use of poor sources like ProCon.org by asserting that "Given the covert history, the fact that I could find a single RS should be sufficient." This extraordinarily low evidentiary standard for FRINGE, EXCEPTIONAL claims—which has been characteristic of NYCJosh's edits for many years—is something that he should be corrected on. BTW, contrary to NYCJosh's statement, the "1959 Iraq" and "1963 Iraq" sections are still in United States involvement in regime change, albeit without the citekill to ProCon.org et al. I would consider the former section, at least, to be clearly UNDUE given the scope of the article and the quality of the source for the uncorroborated allegation, but you may decide differently.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * (emphasis added)
 * (emphasis added)
 * (emphasis added)

Summary of dispute by GPRamirez5
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

As far as quality sources on the scholarly consensus, we need look no further than the Cambridge University Press textbook for the International Baccalaureate Diploma:

"As early as February 1960, the CIA had begun to plan Qasim's assassination...The US...helped coordinate the plotters, in return for their promise to destroy the Iraqi Communist Party."

—Mike Wells, Nick Fellows, History for the IB Diploma, Paper 2: Causes and Effects of 20th Century Wars (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), p. 222.

Talk:United States_involvement_in_regime_change#1959_Iraq and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#1963_Iraq discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * An appropriate amount of discussion has taken place on the talk page, and all parties to the case have been notified by filer. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  16:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - I see that lengthy sections were removed from the article, presumably as not adequately sourced. Has the question of the reliability of the sources been discussed at the reliable source noticeboard?  This noticeboard usually works out compromises about wording, but it isn't clear what compromise there is concerning the removal of a section.  Do the parties want to discuss some compromise about mentioning possibly unreliable sources?  Is this a question that can be answered here?  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Robert McClenon. I should clarify that a few days before I posted this discussion on this Noticeboard, watered down versions of the two sections were posted to the article, as noted by TheTimesAreAChanging, and I had not checked that when I posted this discussion. The watered down versions omit all but one or two of the many original sources I had posted for each section, and also omit a lot of the substance of each section. Also, the watered down versions have a wishy washy he said/she said style for some key points. So the question now is whether my sections are an improvement over the watered down versions.
 * In answer to your question, we have not tried the RS Noticeboard. Are you saying I should go there first to work out whether the sources I posted are reliable and whether the texts of the two sections I posted are supported? --NYCJosh (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * TheTimesAreAChanging has not addressed the veracity of the Cambridge University textbook I cited above, so the issue isn't the sourcing. (He also relies disproportionately on the book Sold Out?, published by Palgrave Macmillan/Springer. That's a decent academic publisher, but not in the same league as Cambridge University Press. And the book isn't particularly respected—it's had only 14 citations, according to Google Scholar.)-GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "TheTimesAreAChanging has not addressed the veracity of the Cambridge University textbook I cited above, so the issue isn't the sourcing." The first part of that statement is true, but the second is misleading. To tediously repeat myself yet again, NYCJosh cited a New York Times op-ed prominently labelled "opinion," a url ending in .org, a Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq mailing list email by a random person, The American Spectator, ProCon.org, a deadlink to Salon's "35 Countries Where the U.S. Has Supported Fascists, Drug Lords and Terrorists," and a Boston Globe op-ed by two nonspecialists for all sorts of crazy, FRINGE nonsense about the CIA's supposed "operations center in Kuwait" and its alleged role in personally recruiting Saddam to facilitate the Ba'th Party's famous October 1959 assassination attempt on Qasim. None of that is supported by any serious scholarship whatsoever—certainly not by the textbook cited by GPRamirez5. When I said that ProCon.org should not be cited for EXTRAORDINARY (and extraordinarily controversial) allegations stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice, that point should have been readily conceded. Instead, NYCJosh and GPRamirez5 edit warred the defective content back into the article over and over again in violation of WP:BRD, because GPRamirez5 (who appears to have done no research on this topic besides typing "1963 iraq. cia" into Google Books) can't distinguish between the carefully hedged allegation that "As early as February 1960, the CIA had begun to plan Qasim's assassination" and NYCJosh's FRINGE assertion that the CIA arranged the botched assassination attempt of October 1959. It's hard to believe that taking each one of these sources to RSN individually would be ideal, not least of all because NYCJosh would interpret anything less than a blanket prohibition as vindication, whereas competent editors already know not to use sources such as these for contentious historical facts.
 * "As far as quality sources on the scholarly consensus ... " While there is no reason to believe that the single cherrypicked snippet from the background of the Iran–Iraq War chapter of the Causes and Effects of 20th Century Wars textbook by two authors with no demonstrable expertise on this specific subject reflects any sort of academic "consensus," I obviously accept it as a RS—and have no particular objection to citing it. If that's all that this dispute boils down to, then I'll gladly restore that citation myself, and call it a day. Somehow, however, I doubt that doing so would appease NYCJosh—who seems determined to force the minutiae of every obscure opinion blog he can find into the article, and to declare it as fact in wikivoice, without any "wishy washy he said/she said" in-text attribution.
 * "He also relies disproportionately on the book Sold Out? ... " From the back cover: Salim Yaqub cites Gibson as "the most detailed and comprehensive study to date of U.S.–Iraqi relations from the late 1950s to the 1970s". If GPRamirez5 is not satisfied by the three sources I listed above, he should also consider Barrett 2007, cited by 55, which states (p. 451): "Washington wanted to see Qasim and his Communist supporters removed, but that is a far cry from Batatu's inference that the U.S. had somehow engineered the coup. The U.S. lacked the operational capability to organize and carry out the coup, but certainly after it had occurred the U.S. government preferred the Nasserists and Ba'athists in power, and provided encouragement and probably some peripheral assistance."
 * BTW, while it may be a RS on its face, Causes and Effects of 20th Century Wars is almost certainly wrong to speculate that "As early as February 1960, the CIA had begun to plan Qasim's assassination." This allegation derives from CIA documents that were revealed to the public all the way back in 1975 (although the full documents have never been declassified), which discuss an unrealized "'special operation' to 'incapacitate' an Iraqi Colonel believed to be 'promoting Soviet bloc political interests in Iraq.' ... The approved operation was to mail a monogrammed handkerchief containing an incapacitating agent to the colonel from an Asian country." (Although this operation was initially broached in February 1960, it was not approved until April 1962.) Crucially, one document defines what the CIA meant by the word "incapacitate": "to prevent the target from pursuing his usual activities for a minimum of three months." Now, I could give you a long, long list of sources (both unreliable and nominally reliable) that declare—with no reservations or hedging—that these documents prove that the CIA attempted to assassinate Qasim. However, that is unequivocally false, even if the interpretation is not excluded by the source: In context, the plain meaning of the text does not suggest that "incapacitate" means "assassinate," and at no point is the "Iraqi Colonel" ever identified as Qasim (who was a brigadier general, not a colonel) or the Iraqi head of state. Both Gibson and Citino believe that the openly pro-Soviet head of Iraq's "People's Court," Colonel Fahdil Abbas al-Mahdawi, was the intended recipient of the poisoned handkerchief. In fact, Citino notes that Mahdawi actually was incapacitated by a serious case of influenza in mid-1962, although he concludes (p. 219) that "the timing of the illness does not correspond exactly to that of the 'incapacitating' operation as described in the cited testimony." The more you know ... TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As exhausting as that post was to wade through, at least there was something worthwhile at the end: ... Now, I could give you a long, long list of sources (both unreliable and nominally reliable) that declare—with no reservations or hedging—that these documents prove that the CIA attempted to assassinate Qasim. However, that is unequivocally false, even if the interpretation is not excluded by the source... So User:TheTimesAreAChanging admits that most secondary sources, including high quality ones, contradict him, but he wants Wikipedia's voice to report his WP:OR interpretation of a primary source. At best his edit is WP:FRINGE (ironically) putting WP:UNDUE weight on a minority of sources while marginalizing the majority view. That is completely unacceptable.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Like Robert McClenon, I would suggest first consulting either WP:RSN or WP:FTN, since the issue seems to be that one party believes that most of the evidences given by the other party are either fringe, or are inadmissible due to lack of merit. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  14:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, I will try WP:RSN (the "fringe" allegation against the sources already got kicked off WP:FTN) as you suggested. Then depending on whether any issues are left unresolved, I may return here.--NYCJosh (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)