Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 168

Draft talk:Verastem_Oncology
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 editor has been unreasonably harsh towards all my attempts to resolve publishing an article on a notable company. I followed COI as instructed. I made mistakes in the process - and was accused of "bs", "hiding to avoid the process", "lies" and many other offensive terms. I understand the editors are acting as watchdogs, however, this individual is attacking me personally, and this I believe requires an unbiased third party to review and make a determination on next step. The current editor follows subjective set of criteria, and rather than provide suggestions, plays decision-maker (which he is not) by saying - do not publish.

Goal: have a third party editor and volunteer community editors review and revise the article in question.

Of note, I beleive "Pipeline" section helps significantly, and listed all the trials for the company, sourcing everything from ClinicalTrials.gov. The editor removed the section, and then in the comments mentioned that article "failed to mention other drugs in development". I am very concerned that personal assumptions and accusations of alterios motives compromize the quality AND diversity of editorial on Wikipedia. I am a female editor and have contributed to biotech articles in the past.

dolcevikasf

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Multiple discussions where I was a subject to personal attacks and name calling. This is unacceptable.

How do you think we can help?

Third party unbiased review and editorial. Also, going forward, the editor should be requested to refrain from labels, libel and name calling that is unprofessional and borderline bullying.

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

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


 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the draft talk page, but it has not been extensive. The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their talk page.  There are two unusual features of this dispute.  First, the page in question is in draft space, having been draftified by Jytdog, rather than in article space.  This noticeboard is primarily for disputes about article content.  Second, the filing party is a declared paid editor.  This noticeboard does not have a specific policy against handling disputes brought by paid editors, but some volunteers will not moderate a case involving a paid editor because they oppose paid editing and cannot be neutral.  If this dispute goes to a conduct forum such as WP:ANI, it is much more likely that sanctions will be imposed on the paid editor than on the volunteer editor.  Yes, paid editors really are and should be held to a higher standard, because Wikipedia is not for advertising, and paid editors really are not likely to be good judges of what is neutral encyclopedic writing.  This case will probably be closed shortly due to inadequate discussion on the talk page.  The filing editor is strongly advised to try to listen to other editors, even other editors who don't like paid editing, and to make an extraordinary effort to be reasonable.  (Volunteer editors should make an ordinary effort to be reasonable.  Conflict of interest really does interfere with reasonableness.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - The filing editor says that they have been subjected to personal attacks. On reading their talk page, I see disagreement, but I do not see what I think are personal attacks.  Also, this noticeboard is not a place to report personal attacks.  Personal attacks should be reported at WP:ANI, but it would be a good idea first to read the boomerang essay.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Ant-Man and the Wasp‎‎
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'm trying to make some simple edits to the plot section but these edits keep getting reverted with no explanation.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried to get other editors (particularly Adamstom.97) to explain what is wrong with my edits in talk page discussion. I've been told that my edits were both too dramatic (requiring me to get consensus beforehand) and not different enough (so it's not worth changing). Neither answer clarifies anything. I haven't gotten an indication of how my proposed edits are actually problematic.

How do you think we can help?

Help prompt the other editors involved to articulate the issues they have with my edits so that I can adjust accordingly or respond. It also seems to me that someone here has a misunderstanding of the BRD process, so adjudicating that would be helpful going forward.

Summary of dispute by Adamstom.97
As I explained at the article's talk page, this user made lots of little changes to align the summary with their own personal preference. If everyone kept doing this then the summary would always be changing, which is why a consensus version was settled upon by multiple editors in the weeks following the film's release. Now, the summary should only be changed if there is an actual issue, not just because one user prefers slightly different phrasing. Basically, we want to avoid changes for changes' sake.

I am sympathetic towards this user because I have been in their shoes before, trying to improve a plot summary but being told that the consensus version should only be changed to fix and explicit, objective problem. I have come to agree with that interpretation since, which is why that has been my position throughout this dispute now. If the user believes that there is an actual problem with the summary that needs addressing, they are more than welcome to raise that issue at the talk page and propose a solution. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Favre1fan93
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Ant-Man and the Wasp‎‎ 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) 22:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

First statement by moderator
Okay. I will try to moderate this dispute. Please read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules and follow them. Following the rules is not optional. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion; I will ask for your statements. Address the community (which I represent) and not the other parties. Be civil and concise.

It appears that one editor rewrote the plot summary, and other editors disagreed. Is that correct? What else is at issue? Please answer in one or two paragraphs. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

First statements by editors
Yes, the plot summary was written by multiple editors and then one editor decided to rewrite it. There is no apparent value in their changes other than to change for change's sake, and if they believe otherwise then they have not shown so at the talk page. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

That is close. One editor (me) rewrote parts of the summary and tweaked other parts; this was met with opposition. The rationale for this objection is that the two versions are qualitatively identical; based on the vague rationale, I get the sense that the primary proponent of this argument has either not looked closely at the changes or is not in a position to make that judgment. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator
It appears that neither editor is trying to give serious considerations to the other editor's reasons. Both of the statements above have a quality of I didn't hear that or I don't like it. So: You are both admonished not to make dismissive statements such as "not looked closely at the changes" or "not shown so at the talk page". Consider that the other version may have its advantages.

So, my first question is: Do the editors agree that the two versions are qualitatively identical? If so, explain why your version is stylistically better. If not, explain how the two versions are qualitatively different. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Second statements by editors
My issue is that I do not think either version is better, I think they are both equivalent, so there is no merit to the change. Usually I would ignore such a change since it is not making the article worse, but as I have already explained many times now I am against changing a plot summary for change's sake. If a user was to improve the plot summary, rather than just change to say the same thing in a different but equivalent way, then I would have no issue with that. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

.

Overall, my version is better. Since I've already made brief justifications for this assessment in the article talk page, I've gone through edit-by-edit with each change and its merits. This will not be brief, but it is in list form to help with further discussion.

Paragraph 1
 * In the current version, the plot summary spends the whole paragraph (nearly a quarter of the entire summary) focusing on the movie's five-minute recap of what has happened in other movies. I changed it so that the information is given more efficiently and within the context of the actual plot (since this is, after all, a plot summary). The only thing I've taken out is the reference to the budding romance between the two principal characters, which seemed very minor in the scope of the movie.

Paragraph 2
 * In addition to moving some of the plot into paragraph one I:


 * 1) changed "Hope kidnaps Lang" to "They soon after kidnap Lang" - this helps clarify that both characters are behind the kidnapping, not just Hope.
 * 2) changed "Pym and Hope work to create a stable tunnel" to " the trio work to create a stable tunnel" - all three characters work on stabilizing the tunnel, not just Hope and Pym.
 * 3) changed "and retrieve Janet" to "and retrieve her" - Janet has already been named in that sentence. Pronouns are designed to avoid stilted overuse of the same noun and this would be a textbook case of a justified replacement.
 * 4) changed "Hope arranges to buy" to "They arrange to buy" - Hope isn't the only one orchestrating the deal.
 * 5) changed "from black market dealer Sonny Burch, but Burch has realized" to "from black market dealer Sonny Burch, who it turns out has realized" - Burch has already been named in the immediately previous clause and it sounds stilted to use his name repeatedly like this.
 * 6) added "Donning the Wasp outfit" to the penultimate sentence - in the movie, this is given as a revelation that Hope wears the Wasp suit, so it seems important to the plot to add that she was wearing said suit.
 * 7) removed the misplaced comma after "Hope fights Burch and his men off".
 * 8) changed "Pym's portable lab" to "the portable lab" - I was thinking that it was unclear in the movie whether it was solely Pym's or if it was both his and Hope's. Looking at this edit, I realize that there isn't enough emphasis on what the portable lab is so I would want to change this further.

Paragraph 3
 * 1) changed "Pym reluctantly visits his estranged former partner" to "The three reluctantly visit Pym's estranged former partner" - all three characters visit Foster, not just Pym.
 * 2) changed "restrains Lang, Hope, and Pym" to "restrains them" - I don't stand by this edit anymore, since it makes it seem like Foster was kidnapped, too.
 * 3) removed the incorrectly placed comma before "and reveals herself to be Ava Starr."
 * 4) changed "that caused Ava's unstable state" to "that caused her unstable state" - Ava Starr is already referred to in pronoun form in that sentence, and using her name this way makes for awkward writing.
 * 5) changed "Foster reveals that he has been helping Ava" to "Foster reveals that he has been helping Starr" - the main characters are all referred to by their last names, so it makes sense to treat Ava Starr this way as well. I understand that the convention is to use first names when characters share a surname, but the character who shares her surname is barely in the movie.
 * 6) changed "who they plan to cure" to "whom they plan to cure" - whom is correct here, since it is the object of the verb "cure."

Paragraph 4
 * 1) change "Pym and Hope are able to contact Janet to "the three are able to contact Janet" - again, Lang is helping them.
 * 2) removed the incorrectly placed comma before "but warns that they only have two hours."
 * 3) changed "before Woo can see him breaking his house arrest" to "before Agent Woo can see him violating his house arrest" - I wanted to reinforce Woo's role and "violating" is a more applicable verb when it comes to house arrest.
 * 4) changed "This leaves Pym and Hope to be arrested" to "This leaves Pym and van Dyne to be arrested" - this was a carryover from a name issue. I'm fine with keeping it as it was.
 * 5) changed "and for their lab to be taken by Ava" to "allowing Starr to take their lab" - in addition to referring to Ava Starr by her surname, as I've justified above, this also changes passive voice to active voice, which is generally a mark of stronger writing.

Paragraph 5
 * there are a handful of name changes, some of which are changing Hope and Janet to other things. I'm fine with keeping the names as they were unless otherwise noted below. Other name changes transform Ava to Starr, which I still stand by.


 * 1) changed "Luis, Dave, and Kurt help apprehend Burch, so that..." to "Luis, Dave, and Kurt help incapacitate Burch and his men so that..." - Burch is not alone, so it seems important to mention his men. Also, it is the police who apprehend Burch. The important thing to what is happening at that moment is the fact that they have stopped Burch and his men, not that they are in police custody. There's also an incorrectly placed comma there.
 * 2) changed "and Janet voluntarily gifts some of her energy" to "and she voluntarily gifts some of her energy" - this goes back to using pronouns when a character has been named already in the sentence.
 * 3) removed an incorrectly placed comma before the above clause.

Paragraph 6
 * 1) changed "Woo" to "Agent Woo" - same reason as above
 * 2) changed "Ava" to "Starr" - same reason as above
 * 3) the rest of the changes are small changes that are, indeed, qualitatively identical. I'm fine with keeping them as they were.

You will note that in some places, an individual edit might be qualitatively identical or worse than the earlier version. I'm fine with discussing any of these edits. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 18:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Third Statement by Moderator
I am making a minor change to the procedures for this moderation. Rather than discussing all of the issues here, discussion of the proposed reworking of the plot summary will take place on the article talk page. You may address each other on the article talk page. Do not edit the article. On this page, I will lead the discussion, and the dialogue will be between me and each of the editors, not back-and-forth. You may continue discussion of the proposed changes to the plot summary as long as that discussion is civil and productive (which means no empty negative comments). There is no need to comment in the space below, but you may comment in it, addressed to me, if you have any issues to raise. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Third statements by editors
I am all for discussion and sorting out the dispute, but this is just ridiculous. I am not going through all of those changes and responding to each one. As I have said before, I have no issue with fixing any issue that the summary has, but if your issue with it is that the whole thing needs to be re-written then that is where you just have to get over it. This is what happened to me in the previous issue that I have mentioned, and I believe it is best to continue following that approach here. If you are absolutely dead-set on making all of these changes, then perhaps you could attempt to continue the talk page discussion with the hopes of the wider community getting involved rather than just me. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Communion and Liberation
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

Undo vandaslim, unmotivated and unreferenced article template by user GioA90

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion in the talk page of the article

How do you think we can help?

Warning the user GioA90 to stop vandalizing

Summary of dispute by GioA90
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

User talk:Strand#Why_couldn%E2%80%99t_I_edit_my_own_talk_page_yesterday?
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 was banned from editing all of Wikipedia yesterday.

While I was banned Jauerback suggested permanently banning me on my talk page. This was the first comment hew left on my page.

I feel scared that this editor will construct a reason to prevent me from continuing to contribute to Wikipedia.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have requested that this editor review their comments for civility. They did not deem any comments uncivil, which made me feel further dismissed.

How do you think we can help?

I dunno man, this person has not demonstrated a willingness to consider my point of view.

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

User talk:Strand#Why_couldn%E2%80%99t_I_edit_my_own_talk_page_yesterday? discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse#Imageworks
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 updated the article Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse after realising that a source I had earlier added to the page included some information that I had missed and not yet added. I did not think much of it, until the edit was reverted by a user claiming that my change was unsourced. I have tried to explain to them that it is not unsourced, as the in-line citation that is supporting the content is already at the end of the altered line, but they have refused to accept this explanation. Additionally, the source they have provided to contradict the information I added makes no mention of the change that they want to make.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried discussing the issue, but have made no progress. Rather than allowing the discussion to continue its current decent into snippy comments and unhelpful remarks, I would like to try a different approach and am hoping that this is the right place to come.

How do you think we can help?

I am hoping that getting a third-party perspective on the issue will help clarify where the communication breakdown between us is, as I feel that I am being very clear in my explanations while they are obviously confident in their side of the story.

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

Before we we start it is worth noting two things. First has never once told me that, “...the in-line citation that is supporting the content is already at the end of the line.” He actually said it was “...with the information in the article's body, specifically in the section titles "Animation"”. He never said which one. Second, it was never at the end of his proposed edit. This is my first edit to this article and there was nothing “already at the end of the line.”

This editor has claimed on multiple occasions that he has a source where the directors are making some claim. Before we can even start this resolution, it would be nice if they picked a narrative from the two that that their claiming and provide their source. —AdamF in MO (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

As this has gotten no better and it appears that is doubling down on their mistakes, I will not be participating in this dispute resolution process until they provide proof both that they placed a citation at the end of the line of the disputed edit and that they informed me of this fact before coming here OR they retract their obviously false statements. Those are my terms. I'll not be engaging with a person who is this confused. --AdamF in MO (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse#Imageworks discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editor.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Not gonna call myself a volunteer because I'm "involved" in this dispute, insofar as I've been in contact with the two Adams in relation to recent disputes on two related articles, and have interacted with both in a number of discussions previously (including, surprisingly enough, here). I've found Adamstom.97's communication style somewhat difficult to penetrate at times, including here. I've expressed my opinion on the dispute on the article talk page here, but basically I am having a dog of a time trying to establish what Adamstom.97's problem is, specifically what "information" he was trying to add. Adamfinmo is wrong that Adamstom.97 "never once told [him] ... which [citation was being referred to]", since the latter did actually specify which source he was talking about here (he did so in a sub-optimal manner rather than linking the source directly, but credit where it's due; anyway, the source in question is this one, unless Adam misread the citation number or some such). I do not, however, understand how that source "supports" the "information" in question. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify (I was trying to brief when I set this up) my issue is that I updated the page to say that the animation company that worked on the film is Sony Pictures Imageworks rather than Sony Pictures Animation (the relationship between the two appears to be explained reasonably simply in the lead of the latter article, and note that we still say that Sony Pictures Animation is one of the production companies), after being alerted to the difference at my talk page by another editor. I did not add a new source to support the change because the source being used for the sentence in which we mention the company actually already supported the change, as it features one of the film's directors giving the name "Imageworks" in relation to the animation process for the film. That is obviously not the strongest source, but should be fine for a routine and uncontroversial change (little did I know...). I knew that since I did not add a new in-line citation with my edit it may appear that I was making an unsourced change, so I explained in my edit summary that the information was coming from the citation that was already there. Adamfinmo has since continued to insist that I have not provided a source for the change, even though I have, and believes that they have a superior source that says Sony Pictures Animation provided the animation instead. However, this source make no mention of the animation process on the film, and so does not contradict the director's statement in any way. I would not have come here so fast if we were merely having a misunderstanding over which company did what, but I was compelled to come here when Adamfinmo continued to insist that I had not provided a source for my changes even after I had literally copy-and-pasted the url from the article to the talk page and given him the time at which it is said in the video. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is inappropriate to talk about "the citation that was already there" with reference to a sentence in the article lead that had no citation; the article had dozens of citations, and the one you were referring to was nowhere near the text under discussion, so you definitely should have linked the source directly from the start; as far as I can see, you never did that, and I had to go to a fairly significant effort to click through to the version of the article that was live at the time you wrote the diff I linked above, go to cite 21, Ctrl+F the page to see if it mentioned Imageworks in print (it didn't) and then watch the video from start to finish.
 * I had not checked the Sony Pictures Animation article until just now, partly because no version of the text in question actually linked to that article. I still don't see how there is a substantial difference between the two, or how a source that says animation was done by Imageworks is good for the claim that it was "Sony Pictures Imageworks, not Sony Pictures Animation".
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not talking about the article lead, as we do not put citations in the lead. And there have been no new citations added to the article since I made that comment, so it is still #21. I'm not sure what you mean by there being no substantial difference between the two, as our own articles clearly illustrate that they are two separate companies. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well seeing as the only thing under dispute is the article lead, then WTF are you even talking about? --AdamF in MO (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is my edit which you took exception to. I updated the article, explained that the source for the update was already there (and so I was not adding a new one), and then I updated the lead to match. If this is not what you thought we were talking about then I don't know what you want. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What’s your problem? Do you have some sort of medical issue? Your edit to the Animation section is still live in the article. I’ve never even mentioned it. Are you fucking with me or what? —AdamF in MO (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, there is no need to talk to me like that. The lead summarises the body of the article, that's just how it works. If you challenge something in the lead then you are challenging it in the body as well as the two need to be the same. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * can you mediate for us? One of us has a serious misapprehension here. —AdamF in MO (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Tom O%27Carroll
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

This concerns the inclusion of information about a published paper by Tom O'Carroll, the subject of the BLP. Two editors have been involved in reverting this on different occasions, one of them doubting its notability and relevance and the other alleging that it is 'promotional'. I am unconvinced by their arguments and would like to receive help in obtaining an amicable settlement of this disagreement.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have not got beyond talk page discussion at this point, but the discussion that we have had has, I think, aired the main issues.

How do you think we can help?

I think we just need a third opinion at this stage to calm feelings down a bit and work towards a resolution.

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

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

Talk:Tom O%27Carroll discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page, but it has not been extensive and should be resumed. Also, although the filing party has notified the other editors that they wish to begin dispute resolution, they have not specified clearly that they wish to begin dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard.  Resume talk page discussion.  If it is extensive and inconclusive, provide clear notice of this filing.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:The Heritage_Foundation#Overstated_claims_in_%22Trump_administration%22_section_of_article
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I made 2 edits to better describe in the article's text what the cited works claim. I described my thinking in the edit descriptions. I view those edits as constructive.

User User:Snooganssnoogans reverted those edits. The user did not provide edit descriptions. I added a section to the Talk page (Talk:The_Heritage_Foundation) saying that because no edit descriptions were provided for the reverts, I would re-apply my edits. I did so. User:Snooganssnoogans reverted my edits again, saying only that the edits weren't an improvement.

On the talk page for the article, I asked User:Snooganssnoogans to work with me to come to consensus or compromise, but the user has refused.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None.

How do you think we can help?

I don't know. I haven't sought intervention before. I looked into mediation, but according to Mediation, mediation isn't appropriate when a user will not engage. That article says to take it to Administrators' noticeboard, but reading that page, it seems like the noticeboard is for bigger problems.

Perhaps weigh in on the talk page about who has the burden of proof, that the Wikipedia process requires working with other people, and generally where to go from here.

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

Comment by BullRangifer
Uninvolved. Only TWO comments and then here??? Really? This is a frivolous misuse of DR. Close this and discuss further. Solve it there. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:The Heritage_Foundation#Overstated_claims_in_%22Trump_administration%22_section_of_article discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

BullRangifer: You commented "This is a frivolous misuse of DR. Close this and discuss further."

In the talk page for the article in question, I wrote:


 * If you don't work with me here to come to a compromise or consensus, I'll be forced to add a "not in source" tag to both sources to get more visibility on the issue. Alternately, I will investigate mediation.

User:Snooganssnoogans responded:


 * I strongly encourage you to seek mediation.

Given that Snooganssnoogans refuses to engage about my edits, I don't know how to "discuss further".

I'm trying to follow the rules. The mediation article says that if a user won't engage, it should be taken to the Administrator's Noticeboard.


 * As above, the mediation process is unsuitable for complaints about the behaviour of other editors; these should be directed to a project administrator (e.g. at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard) for evaluation. Mediation equally is not suited to parties who are disagreeing "for the sake of disagreeing" or who have no intention of compromising or discussing the thinking behind their positions.

Shall I do that instead?

69.143.175.242 (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Jacksonville Landing_shooting
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 Jacksonville Landing shooting on Sunday was clearly a major event that many people are looking for information on.

Can it be described as a "mass shooting" with no other explanation? Several media sources have called it a mass shooting, and the number of people *shot at* may or may not be a "mass" even if the number of fatalities isn't.

Or, in light of the vagueness of the term "mass shooting" (as evidenced by the Wikipedia article on mass shooting), and the fact that official definitions of the term do exist which appear to exclude this incident, should we rephrase the sentence to avoid categorising it at all (with or without an acknowledgement that several media sources have used the term "mass shooting"?

My opinion is that the term should be avoided unless it's clarified. Cúchullain and Icarosaurvus's opinion is that if multiple sources have called it a mass shooting then it's a mass shooting.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed it on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I feel like I'm getting repeatedly slapped down with a policy (WP:VNT) that was removed 5 years ago. Can you give me some clarity on whether WP:V requires sources to explicitly state a fact like "this event was a mass shooting" if we're going to use them as evidence to expand our definition of mass shooting?

Summary of dispute by Cúchullain
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This is simple. The best available sources to date are calling this a mass shooting. Some of the sources cited so far include these, and dozens if not hundreds more are likely available: It passes the general definition of the term - a mass of people (13) were shot, and moreover, there are no sources disputing that it's a mass shooting. Different specific definitions of the phrase "mass shooting" are in use, and while this incident doesn't fit every definition, the reliable sources are perfectly correctly calling this a "mass shooting". If readers want to know about the definitions, they can click the mass shooting link. It would appear that a majority of the editors who have weighed in on the issue support the inclusion of the phrase; it would probably be good to tag them all here.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Talk:Jacksonville Landing_shooting 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 yet notified the other parties.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - I am not seeing much scopes of a compromise (and hence a DR-process).We don't second-guess sources and thus, if an abundance of sources refer to the incident as a mass-shooting, we call it so.To delve into the intricacies of whether the incident really satisfies the definition of mass-shooting is original research and . &#x222F; WBG converse 07:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Catholic Church_and_homosexuality
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 text a number of editors have suggested that in the sentence: "Catholic teaching condemns homosexual acts as gravely immoral, while holding that gay people "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity," and "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."" That the words "acts" and "people" should be put in italics to emphasise the fact that homosexual acts are problematic in terms of church teaching and not sexual orientation if not acted upon. Editor Meters argues this is a use of SCAREQUOTES.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on talk page

How do you think we can help?

Outside opinion needed to determine whether putting words in italics would constitute WP:SCAREQUOTES

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

Talk:2018 York University strike#Students Against Strike, Socialist Fightback, and York Federation of Students
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

Initially, all information on one of the several smaller parties was selectively removed from a civil conflict wikipedia page. The removal was under the basis that the citation conflicted with WP:UNDUE. A third opinion was called in who analyzed the sources and page, and said that the citation is a reliable source and didn't conflict with WP:UNDUE. Despite this, all information on the party was removed again (along with the removal of all information on several other smaller parties) under a different basis, WP:RS.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Contacting a third opinion, and also offering to compromise with the opposing position.

How do you think we can help?

Find a way that both positions of this dispute can compromise regarding the information of the smaller parties involved in the civil conflict wikipedia page.

Summary of dispute by Isingness
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The user in question is attempting to use the primary reference of Socialist Fightback (Marxist.ca) to add Socialist Fightback, and a student newspaper to add one of the other entities. None have WP:RS coverage. I have scoured the internet trying to find good enough sources, but can find none. There are plenty of other good sources that could be used to improve the page, but the user is only interested in adding small, non-covered student groups to the page. Happy to work to improve the article, but feel that this is an effort to WP:COATRACK. Again, this strike received many, many instances of in-depth coverage--none of which has mentioned what the individual is trying to add in a highlighted manner. Isingness (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

2018 York University strike#Students Against Strike, Socialist Fightback, and York Federation of Students discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. This is clearly forum shopping. Nearly five days and no reply from the editor that launched this discussion - they want someone to side with them or argue for them. An RFC would have been far more appropriate on the talk page than this, but the individual who launched this can't find a venue to agree with their wikilawyering. I'm sorry, but what was the point of this if the initial party has nothing to say but their initial launch statement? This is irregular. Isingness (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not yet notified the other editor.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Robert McClenon! I just posted a notification on their talk page as you instructed, please stand by. Thanks! SprayCanToothpick (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What? First of all, please WP:AGF of me, I have treated you with respect and good faith throughout this entire dispute so I fail to see why you can't do the same. This comment is highly disrespectful to be accusing me of improper conduct when discussion is solely supposed to be about article content. I didn't respond in five days since the initial statement, because I thought that the Dispute Resolution requires the filing party to wait for a moderator to take action. The reason why I haven't responded is because I was instructed to wait for a moderator to pick up this case first. I'll happily get this discussion started if that's what I'm supposed to do, but I've been under the impression this whole time to wait for a moderator before resuming discussion. Here I am, I'm happy to discuss. Where should my first response be? SprayCanToothpick (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Volunteer question - User:Isingness - If you are declining to participate in discussion, which is voluntary, please state that you are declining to take part in moderated discussion, and this thread can be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that I was supposed to wait for a moderator to take up the case before responding again to this discussion. If Isigness' issue is that I didn't follow up after 5 days it was a miscommunication as I asked what my next step in this dispute should be and I was told to keep discussion to a minimum until a moderator picked up the case. This is my first time using the dispute resolution noticeboard so I apologize for any miscommunication. I was just following what the volunteer (you) instructed me to do. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

First statements by editors
I'm assuming I'm supposed to respond in this section. To clarify your comment on there being other content about the civil conflict page that should be added instead, I have in fact contributed other content from other sources to the article as well. To start of this discussion, let's please shift the discussion off of user conduct and focus on article content only as that's what this board is for. Regarding the sources in question, I have read the WP:COATRACK policy and fail to see how their inclusion is a violation of them. It states "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article: The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it." That refers to content that's it's own article, mentioning it in another article is encouraged instead which is the case here. "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article." which is why those parties were mentioned in the civil conflict article of topic before it's removal. Furthermore Excalibur is a WP:RS. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Excalibur is a campus news weekly, not a true WP:RS. And only one of the parties is covered by the Excalibur in the first place; the other parties you want added have nothing to support them at all. Isingness (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:RS mentions nothing about forbidding university newspapers. Furthermore, Excalibur isn't just any random university newspaper, it's from the exact university of topic (York University) that the civil conflict article is about. Taking that into additional consideration, it's wholly relevant. If your concern is undue weight, would a compromise (WP:COMPROMISE) not be a fair solution? I think that classifying the group under a third parties header in the info-box to signify that it's smaller and leave it's mention in the article at two sentences (as it was prior to it's removal) signifies that it's a smaller player as the source claims. Outright removing it's existence entirely from the article is subjective when Excalibur is indeed a reliable source. Because we disagree on Excalibur's source validity, I think a moderator should take a look at it. He/she can help us come to some sort of an agreement on this impasse and ease tensions.


 * Now, regarding the other two groups that don't cite Excalibur and cite Marxist.ca instead. In our discussion on the talk page you claimed that Marxist.ca was not reliable because it is intended to promote something by it's own description. The citation was not of the website's agenda or promotions, the citation was of the group's actions and events with other groups during the strike. Would you mind clarifying your issue with the usage of this source in particular for me?


 * SprayCanToothpick (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

First statement by moderator
I will make one attempt to see if this can be brought under control. I am provisionally opening this case to see if civil discussion can be restored. Read the ground rules and follow them. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Now: Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, whether they agree to moderated discussion under the rules, and, in one more paragraph, what they think the content issue is about how to improve the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Second statements by editors
Having read the rules, I wholeheartedly agree to them. I've been encouraging the focus on article content rather than user conduct from the beginning. I think that a moderator will help the dispute move forward from its impasse and also ease tensions where the opposition and I disagree. I welcome these extra set of eyes to be brought into the discussion.

For the sake of improving the article, I strongly think that the parties removed from the civil conflict article (2018 York University Strike) should be restored. Initially the various parties I added remained present for a good while, had cited sources, and provided information for readers on what actions and positions students were taking during the strike. One of the several groups was selectively removed from the article under the basis of WP:UNDUE. A third opinion (WP:3O) was called in to analyze the cited source and concluded that the source was reliable and there were no UNDUE issues. Thus it was restored. Despite this resolution, the group was removed from the article again, but this time several other groups were removed as well under the basis WP:RS. The source used for the Students Against Strike group was Excalibur, which is a reliable university news outlet from the very university of topic (York University) and it was deemed reliable by the third opinion. I encourage the moderator to analyze Excalibur as well if that would help move discussion forward. The dispute splintered into a tangent as well regarding the other two removed groups that used a different source; York Federation of Students and Socialist Fightback. These two other groups cite Marxist.ca which lists their actions in the strike. I encourage the examination of that source as well if it will be helpful. Overall I strongly believe that the removed parties should be restored on the article as it provided helpful information and was subjectively removed. At the very least a compromise of some sort, which I am very open to as well.

SprayCanToothpick (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Chika_Nwobi
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 drafted an article about a notable tech entrepreneur in Nigeria named Chika Nwobi. The user that reviewed the page, GSS, has been trying to get the article deleted because they believe that the subject is not notable and that the sources that were provided are

Recently, they deleted almost all of the original sources on the article. I have also tried to resolve this issue on their talk page, but they aren't receptive. the link to the talk page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GSS

GSS petitioned to get the article removed, but the votes have been in favor to keep it, yet he is trying to persuade voters to change their votes. I'm wondering whether he personally knows the subject in question. It all just seems very odd to me.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have brought it up on the talk page for GSS

How do you think we can help?

I want someone else to review the page and make a fair decision about whether or not there is a COI and whether or not the sources provided are unacceptable. There honestly seems to be a bias with this user and I don't understand what the issue is. PLEASE review the conversation that I had with GSS on their talk page.

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

Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Chika_Nwobi discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Tom O%27Carroll
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

This dispute concerns an addition made to the BLP Tom O'Carroll describing a published article of O'Carroll's. The edit was reverted and this reversion was defended by User: FreeKnowledgeCreator, who claims that he can see no grounds for adding this information to the BLP. I argue on the contrary that the information is highly notable and also excellently sourced. I previously filed a request for dispute resolution but this was rejected on the grounds that there had been insufficient discussion on the talk page. Since then, there have been a number of additional exchanges and it now seems appropriate to make another application, as there is still no agreement.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the talk page, as described above.

How do you think we can help?

We need a neutral third opinion. The discussion is going nowhere at present. It seems like we're talking past one another.

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

Talk:Tom O%27Carroll 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 editor of this filing.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I did notify them but they deleted the message. Anotherultimatename (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:South African_farm_attacks
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 talk page of this article is getting heated. with accusations of racisim, and political debate.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have not really taken many steps as I have my own opinion too.

How do you think we can help?

Do your thing? I don't know really.

Summary of dispute by 93.142.87.34
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Summary of dispute by 77.227.136.106
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by I am One of Many
Billster156234781 has a total of 10 edits and has not interacted with anyone listed above. This looks more like trolling than anything else.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Talk:Dash (cryptocurrency)#Releases
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I have a COI so requested to add a release history infobox to the article on Dash (similar to what exists for the articles on Ethereum and Google Chrome). Jybobwaysf acted as an independent reviewer, providing feedback until we had agreed on suitable content to add.

Jytdog has then removed the infobox. In my opinion he is excluding good, neutral content based on an overly strict interpretation of the WP policy on self-published sources.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talked on talk page

How do you think we can help?

Please decide whether the release history infobox agreed by Technoir2 and jtbobwaysf is acceptable.

The article has been reduced in size since the talk discussion, so if you choose to exclude it based on WP:WEIGHT please say whether the box could be added later when the article is longer, or whether it should never be added.

Talk:Dash (cryptocurrency)#Releases discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:U.S. national_anthem_protests_(2016–present)
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 focuses on the "Goals" of the NFL Protests. The other editor lists "Ending police brutality and racial inequality" After repeatedly asking the editor to provide reference(s) to those goals - an authoritative source that states what needs to happen for the protests to end - the editor provided a reference to more reasons the protests started. The editor makes the assumption that since a protest started because of XX, ending XX is the obvious, and unspoken goal. That's a logical fallacy. S/he confuses causes with outcomes. For instance, if a protest is because Joe S. was killed, the goal is not the ending of killing Joe S. But it could be the arrest and conviction of the killer. Or gun control legislation. If a protest (as here) is over "police brutality," a goal of "ending police brutality" is meaningless and unmeasurable. Is it when no police killings of black Americans happens for a year? Is that when the rate of police killings of black and white Americans are at the same rate? The dispute is over making assumptions on what the protest's goals (not the causes) are, rather than finding a source that states what the goals are.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Explained to Drmies that the Talk section should be used to resolve the Dispute. That the Dipute should remain until actual goals are referenced. That the rules for resolving Disputes should be followed. S/he continues to delete the dispute without resolution.

How do you think we can help?

- Explain that goals and causes are not necessarily the same - Explain that when listing Goals, the source should state what a measurable desired outcome is - not what a cause was. - Explain that the Disputed content banner should remain until resolved to both editors satisfaction - Explain that a reasonable request for a reference to a goal is not the same as being "Disruptive" and to refrain from threatening action - Explain that WIkipedia rules should be followed

Summary of dispute by Drmies
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Yeah I don't really have anything to discuss with this user, who seems more interested in edit warring and wikilawyering than anything else. See also edits by. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Explain that WIkipedia rules should be followed": they're now at 6R. What a waste of time. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:U.S. national_anthem_protests_(2016–present) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note, IP editor, Have you considered that the protestors may not have a specific ending in mind? Nothing prevents someone from protesting against "police brutality" without defining what that means or when they would end the protest. Also, what rule are you accusing Drmies of breaking? the reason he said your editing was disruptive was because you kept undoing his edits, it is better to follow WP:BRD and discuss the issue on the talk page before restoring a disputed edit Tornado chaser (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ANI thread opened first There was an existing incident at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, which 24.8.22.172 was already notified of at 01:34, 5 September 2018 This DRN thread was opened after at 1:59. and  both use Comcast Cable and hail from Littleton, Colorado, and are likely the same editor.—Bagumba (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Desperate Measures_(musical)
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 Wikipedia article is for a stage show. There is a disagreement about the circumstances under which a cast list may be added. Wiki precedent routinely publishes cast lists from primary sources (same as for movies). There are some secondary sources here too.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on talk page, listing sources to cite, requesting assistance through OTRS

How do you think we can help?


 * Suggest any path to quick resolution
 * Comment on rules - when can primary sources be used?
 * Check the available sources
 * Help find a mutually agreeable way to edit

Summary of dispute by NYC4444
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. copied this from talk page  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)  :

Thank you, I would love to enter mediation. The proper crediting of the original New World Stages Cast with reliable citations is continually deleted by 3 users who all share the same biased skew towards to the York production. I added this last night to the talk page and the article: "The Original cast at the York Off-Broadway 2017 is not the same as the Original Cast at New World Stages Off-Broadway 2018. Any cast or team not involved in opening the production at New World Stages did not originate that production. Excluding the New World Stages cast in the production section misrepresents that casts' work creating that production. Please add the original cast off-broadway at New World Stages is The original cast at New World Stages starred Sarah Parnicky as Susanna, Gary Marachek as Father Morse, Lauren Molina as Bella Rose, Conor Ryan as Johnny Blood, Peter Saide as Sheriff Green, and Nick Wyman as Governor von Richterhenkenpflichtgetruber. Here is the citation: https://www.broadwayworld.com/shows/cast.php?showid=332658" and my article adjustment is already deleted from the page. No one is attempting to veil the York production, but these users (if not one person) are attempting to veil the New World Stages production despite copius reliable sources. NYC4444 (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bri28
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. copied this from talk page  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)  : An original cast creates and develops characters from which subsequent actors draw. It's a very big deal for an actor as it should be. To continually claim that the York production was not the ORIGINAL Off-Broadway cast is dishonest. Since the only cast member who was in the original Off-Broaway cast and is not in the New World Stages cast is Emma Degerstedt, it seems very specifically directed towards denying her the credit she deserves for having created the character that she portrayed. Sarah Panicky replaced her when the show moved to New World stages. It seems that somebody who has logged in under several user accounts has taken the exact same position as NYC4444 and I believe those edits all belong to one person. It its clear that this is a personal agenda from someone who wants readers to believe that Emma Degerstedt did not originate the role of Susanna, and that instead it was originated by Sarah Panicky. I wonder who would want to mislead in that way. My point is that the source is not objective and is self seeking. Bri28 (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Bri28

Talk:Desperate Measures_(musical) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note- DRN Volunteer Mark Miller is willing to accept mediation of this request.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note and question about the dispute - Before we begin, I need to remind the editors that this content dispute appears to hinge on the concept of Off-Broadway which has a very well defined meaning; "defined by the League of Off-Broadway Theatres and Producers as a professional venue in Manhattan with a seating capacity between 100 and 499 (inclusive) or a specific production that appears in such a venue and adheres to related trade union and other contracts.[1]". Our article states that many productions are subsequently produced on Broadway so my question is...was the second Off Broadway show produced before or after the Broadway Opening?--Mark Miller (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, so this production has yet to open on Broadway so, this is the catch of the situation, as both productions are original Off Broadway productions with different cast and production staff. However, it seems that the use of the term "original" is causing some of the issues. A lot of sources were left on the talk page but none of them seem to support the claims being made in the discussion, some that seem very specific and may boarder on what Wikipedia calls a "Biography of living Persons" concern. Claims about living people, whether in an article or on a talk page, must have multiple strong sources that support the claim directly. Please refrain from making any claims about any individual person or groups or people that are not supported by such reliable sources.

The musical production has yet to open on Broadway so the article is strictly about an Off Broadway play. As such it may be playing fast and loose to refer to either production as the "Original" when referring strictly to chronology. At this point I would say that a simple way to resolve this content dispute would be first to agree that the term "original" should ONLY refer to the fact that the production is a stand alone from the others and is original in that it is not the same as the others and has completely separate artistic/production staff and performers. I would do away with the list style using the template box and create, in chronological order, a unique section with header for each production.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Mark Miller, here is a reference in a review of the original York Theatre production of DM. You will find the following in the review: "But surprisingly, the York Theatre Company's world premiere production of David Friedman and Peter Kellogg's musical Desperate Measures manages to defy all expectations one may have going in. It's neither parody nor homage. It's a full-on reclamation of the musical comedy Western, and one that uses an unlikely source material: the bleak Shakespearean problem play Measure for Measure." Additionally the Playbill for the New World Stages production credits the World Priemier at the York Theatre Company. If you could refer to a place where I could upload a photo of that Playbill page that would be helpful. The dispute centers around the word "original" the role of Susanna was "originated" for the World Premier at the York, by Emma Degherstedt. Sarah Parnicky replaced her at New World Stages but Sarah Parnicky dir NOT originate the role. In the theater world, an actor does not get credit for origination a role simply because a production moves to another theater and the new actor replaces the original actor. That is the case here. By calling the NWS cast the original cast is misleading and false. These are NOT separate productions but a transfer with one cast member replacement due to unavailability of the original. This from the Playbill.com press release: "Desperate Measures, the musical comedy previously seen at The York Theatre Company, will begin an open-ended run May 30 Off-Broadway at New World Stages." And this press announcement published at TheaterMania.com states, "The York Theatre Company's production of the musical comedy Desperate Measures will transfer to New World Stages this summer. Performances begin May 30, with opening night set for June 13." The "transfer" of a show does not make it stand alone or separate. It does not justify crediting a replacement actor with "originating" a role that was previously originated by another actor previous to the transfer. The NWS production is the exact same production that has moved to a new theater and has replaced one cast member. Being non-profit or commercial is irrelevant. The term "original" is not used in the theater world when making reference to a replacement cast member in a show that has transferred. The reason this is never done and is objectionable is because it takes away from the actor who created the role that the replacement must emulate. Mamma Mia transferred theaters yet there is only one original cast and that is the one from the Winter Garden Company of 2001. This is an important distinction for an actor and in no way diminishes the replacement actor as a replacement simply because she cannot be credited as the original. From the Desperate Measures Home page: "NOW IN PERFORMANCES DIRECT FROM ITS SOLD-OUT RUN AT THE YORK THEATRE" Thank you Mark Miller. Bri28 (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)Bri28


 * Volunteer pinging participants -, , . Is there is there still a content dispute or have the parties decided on a compromise?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight - it's great to have a new eye on this. Yes, there are two separate productions and both are off-broadway: one not-for-profit off-broadway in 2017, one commercial off-broadway in 2018. Both have an "original" cast for those productions. For historical reference, the most similar show to this is A NEW BRAIN. This had one shorter production at the Public off-broadway and then another at Lincoln Center Theatre off-broadway 6 months later, and one actor from the original cast at Lincoln Center is not on the cast recording. The cast recording of Desperate Measures was made of the not-for-profit 2017 cast before the commercial production was planned. It is not grounds to discredit the original cast of the commercial 2018 production.

Also, the various productions listed in the article prior to 2017 were developmental.

I think the proposed solution fairly and consistently represents all involved and appreciate the suggestion.

NYC4444 (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

(Comment edited by mediator) - [S]o I would view her input with skepticism because it lacks objectivity, is laser focused and above all self seeking. The New World Stages production is identical to the original York production except for one cast member who replaced the original Susanna from the York because the original actress was not available. The productions have the same producers, the same creative team, the same set, the same cast (except for one replacement) the same book, lyrics, music, musical director and director. A new production company, which simply manages the daily business operations of a show does NOT make the show a "new stand alone" production. The New World Stages (NWS) production is identical to the original York production. Nobody is discrediting the original NWS cast, but it is just that, the Original NWS cast. Saying that Sarah Parnicky originated the role of Susanna Off-Broadway doesn't make it so. NYC4444 is attempting to discredit Emma Degerstedt as the original Susanna from the Original Off-Broadway production at the York. It is blatently false that the Original cast recording was made before a commercial run was planned. The producer was actively looking for a new venue well before the production ran out of time at the York, but no appropriate venues were available. This was specifically mentioned at a talkback that I attended at the York where the cast and team spoke both about the eminent recording of the Original Cast Album (within the week) AND the producer's attempts to find another venue to which they planned to transfer. The original cast recorded the Original Cast Recording, as it is called on the album title, and where those cast members are clearly named and credited! You shouldn't be calling someone an original Susanna when she did NOT originate the role. I have seen both productions and the role at NWS is identical to how it was originally portrayed at the York except that the actresses surely have differences in their deliveries, as one would expect, but the portrayal is essentially an attempted recreation of the original at the York. Emma Degerstedt should appropriately be credited with originating that role Off-Broadway. She should not and cannot be denied that distinction.

An example of a show moving from one theater to the other is Mamma Mia. In 2013 it moved from the Winter Garden to the Broadhurst. You will NOT find anyone claiming that the cast at the Broadhurst was the ORIGINAL cast. Ever. Once again, I point out that it is unfair to take credit away from the original Susanna, Emma Degerstedt, who originated the role of Susanna at the York, recorded the Original Cast Album, and was among the cast that was nominated and received so many awards as an original work. To discredit her role, especially in the Original Cast Recording by saying the "commercial" transfer wasn't being planned yet is false, insulting and diminishes her contribution to that work. It implies that had the team been planning (which they had) a transfer to another venue, they wouldn't have used her on the album. It seems NYC4444 is stuck on the York production being nonprofit, thus she believes it diminishes the venue as not being Off-Broadway. This is an argument that is really hard to follow. The facts that cannot be changed are as follows. Emma Degerstedt was the original Off-Broadway Susanna. She portrays Susanna on the Original Cast Recording. She was unavailable for the transfer to NWS and was replaced by Sarah Parnicky. It does not diminish Sarah Parnicky by saying she was the Original NWS Susanna, but she certainly did NOT originate the role of Susanna Off-Broadway. I don't understand why NYC4444 needs to minimize Emma Degerstedt to elevate Sarah Parnicky. It all seems very personal, don't you think?Bri28 (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Bri28
 * (Volunteer comment) - you are new to Wikipedia so I will try not to make a stink here but really....this isn't backstage at the theatre or the lobby after the show. This is an encyclopedia and if you are not here to build an encyclopedia you will be blocked. You may not attempt to guess at or point out to others who you think the real person is behind a registered Wikipedia account. You may not make claims about living persons on Wikipedia without multiple strong sources to back up all claims.

PRODUCED BY PAT ADDISS and MARY COSSETTE WILLETTE KLAUSNER CECILIA LIN BOOK AND LYRICS BY PETER KELLOGG MUSIC BY DAVID FRIEDMAN SCENIC DESIGN JAMES MORGAN COSTUME DESIGN NICOLE WEE LIGHTING DESIGN PAUL MILLER SOUND DESIGN JULIAN EVANS WIGS, HAIR & MAKE-UP DESIGNTOMMY KURZMAN CASTING CAROL HANZEL CASTING PRODUCTION STAGE MANAGER CJ LaROCHE TECHNICAL SUPERVISOR THEATERSMITH ASSOCIATES, LLC EXECUTIVE PRODUCER KEN DENISON MUSICAL DIRECTION AND ORCHESTRATIONS BY DAVID HANCOCK TURNER DIRECTED AND CHOREOGRAPHED BY BILL CASTELLINO
 * Now, first of all, this is the workshopping of a play in its infancy so to speak. While this is generally done prior to Off Broadway, the fact that it originated as a not for profit on the Off Broadway circuit IS of significance, especially if it is sourced. Yes, a production company change along with a new venue IS significant or is it your intention to minimize the roles of the new company? Of course the producers are the same. They are likely the same or some of the same since it was first staged, probably at a regional theatre. "Creative team"? Define that past the sets because it is the set designer that is the actual part of the "Creative team". Sets are regularly kept from one production version to the next. Can you tell me where the sets originated and who designed them and then if there is now a new, credited designer that is different from the last production company? Is there a different director? No, what you need to do is demonstrate your opinion with sources that clarify the needed information for EACH production whether you agree that this is a stand alone or not, it is in a different theatre with a different production company and that is a substantial change.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC) This is NOT the workshopping of a play in its infancy. It is NOT Broadway bound and there is no reference to that available. Here are the listings of creative teams from both productions. Set designer, Director, musical director, etc... all the same. From NWS:

From the York :Directed and choreographed by Bill Castellino (Marry Harry), and with music direction by David Hancock Turner (Money Talks), the creative team will include James Morgan (set), Nicole Wee (costumes), Paul Miller (lights), Julian Evans (sound), Deb Gaouette (props), Carol Hanzel (casting), Joseph Hayward (associate director), and Kevin Maloof (production manager). Christine Lemme will be the production stage manager, with Laura C. Nelson assistant stage manager.

From Desperate measure Home page: NOW IN PERFORMANCES DIRECT FROM ITS SOLD-OUT RUN AT THE YORK THEATRE This is a transfer of the exact same show from on venue to another with one replacement cast member. A replacement is NOT an original. Bri28 (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)Bri28

Talk:Dash (cryptocurrency)#Venezuela
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

Jytdog has removed content on Dash in Venezuela that in my opinion is referenced by reliable sources. In his opinion the sources are not good enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dash_%28cryptocurrency%29&type=revision&diff=857714258&oldid=857710742

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed on talk page

How do you think we can help?

Decide whether the Computerworld and Business Insider references are suitable to anchor content about Dash in Venezuela.

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

Talk:Dash (cryptocurrency)#Venezuela 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 is required to notify the other editor, and has not yet done so.  If and when this case is opened for discussion, it will cover all issues involving Dash (cryptocurrency).  We don't need multiple threads on one topic at one time.  The following conditions are required before this case can be discussed:  (1) the other editor, Jytdog, must be notified; (2) the other editor must agree to moderated discussion, which is voluntary; (3) a volunteer must agree to act as the moderator.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - The issue isn't only whether ComputerWorld and Business Insider are reliable sources, but also whether the items in ComputerWorld and Business Insider are reliable and independent. ComputerWorld and Business Insider, like general newspapers, publish stories that are based on usually neutral reporting, and also stories that are based on press releases.  The latter are not really secondary sources; they are really primary.  The question needs to be not only whether the publication are reliable, but whether the stories are based on neutral reporting.  It isn't a yes-no question.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Saint Patrick
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I am interested in the birthplace of Saint Patrick and was attempting to locate the original source of the various places that have been suggested. The current page has two places neither of which have a citation and I could not find any source. So, I started looking and the current information is completely ridiculous. There's no doubt that many ancient sources say that Saint Patrick was born in Strathclyde. There's also some pretty ridiculous suggestions as to his birth place such as Banwen (the source being what an 8 year old child was told by his grandfather in the 1930s).

However, I note that someone has already asked for a change - that was summarily blocked. Seeing that I therefore, provided a detailed request which numerous references backing up my proposed change. That was again summarily blocked. It appears that someone is sitting on that page POV pushing and it seems unlikely given the history and the blunt response, that it will be resolved through the talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have provided detailed citations and reasoning

How do you think we can help?

It's not a big change - I originally was just going to add "citation needed" - but I couldn't because - I presume the editor sitting on the page was blocking it to prevent their own POV being diluted.

Summary of dispute by Not named
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Talk:Tirupati Airport
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

>> Definition of International airport: An international airport is an airport with customs and border control facilities enabling passengers to travel between countries. > Tirupati aiport has got customs and border control facilities enabling passengers to travel between countries. Thus enabling international operators to start their flights. > It is an upgraded international aiport and cannot be termed domestic just because the international flight operators yet to start their services.

In a journey of upgradation of Tirupati aiport to International airport, > On 22nd October 2015 honb'le prime minister of India inaugurated international terminal at tirupati airport.Customs and immigration facilities were launched. > On June 17th 2017, President of India given the final consent marking the upgradation as complete.

Thus airport was declared international airport and here in it has to be referred as Tirupati International airport as per Indian jurisdiction. It is now one of the 20 public international aiports in the country

Please find below the references from official website of AIR AUTHORITY OF INDIA

https://www.aai.aero/sites/default/files/traffic-news/Mar2k18annex3.pdf - Passenger traffic information of international aiports

https://www.aai.aero/sites/default/files/press_release_news/press-release-triupati-kadapa-09092017.pdf - Please refer 2nd paragraph

Here is an environment clearance sought for tirupati international aiport from official portal

http://environmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/Online/TOR/24_Feb_2018_102040460KEAR1K7OAnnexure-BriefSummaryofProject.pdf

>> My request is: I am requesting the below modification in the article which is being reverted by user Leofrank:

Tirupati Airport is a public international airport at Renigunta, a part of Tirupati in the state of Andhra Pradesh, India.

>> Some example aiports: Sheikh ul-Alam International Airport and Vijayawada airports are similar ones with no international operators currently.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have discussed the matter on user talk page as well apart from the talk page of the main article.

How do you think we can help?

I appreciate the contributions of user Leofrank on various articles. In the process of contribution, I belive one should not come to a situation as such one thinks his/her knowledge on the subject is final and supreme. Integrity of wikipedia lies in the data availibility from valid sources.One might be Subject matter expert but that should always synchronize with the local jurisdiction definition. Thus I request you to review the same and help me restore article with correct data.

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

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

Talk:List of_IMAX_DMR_films#Request_for_comments_on_the_removal_of_digital_DMR_titles
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 List of IMAX DMR films is a longstanding article that contained a comprehensive list of all films released in IMAX theatres. This list was used as a reference by many readers for historical IMAX films and the different technologies used in IMAX theatres in different countries (by film). In August 2018, one editor (Barry Wom) pruned the list to only include notable IMAX DMR titles (ie those which were released on IMAX film and with an aspect ratio unique to IMAX cinemas). This was done to shorten the article length, and the reason given was that the difference between a digital IMAX conversion and a standard digital copy is negligible. This purge was done without advance warning or discussion, reduced the list to 1/3 of its length and a large number of movies released in IMAX theatres in other formats or filmed with IMAX cameras were removed. A number of other editors raised concerns such as the new article now has an unclear focus, is less informative, is more confusing and is incomplete. compromise solutions were proposed to highlight 70 mm IMAX films within the restored list. However, none of these compromises were accepted by Barry Wom, By stating that only 70 mm DMR IMAX movies are unique enough in their technology to warrant an article. Counter discussions revolved around the IMAX experience includes more technology than just 70 mm films, and that the most effective way to showcase this information is one list of the films released in IMAX with notes saying what makes each release unique (which is the previous version). To date, around 12 editors have requested the list be restored as it was or with some changes to highlight 70 mm IMAX films. Currently the TALK is moving towards statements such as Single Purpose Accounts, Disruptive Editing and arbitration etc. Barry Wom has agreed for this issue to be taken to arbitration, but it is unclear why a compromise solution cannot be agreed to without such escalation.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There has been extensive discussion on the talk page since mid August, and a request for comments since 24 August. So far Barry Wom is the only editor agreeing with the changes. Compromise solutions have been proposed but not accepted. proposals include: restoring the article and adding specific comments which IMAX films are 70 mm DMR, breaking the article into shorter articles (movies by decade), or at least restoring the article as it was until a reasonable discussion has taken place.

How do you think we can help?

Based on the current TALK, I don't think this matter is going to be resolved by waiting for more comments. Would appreciate if someone outside of the conversation could review the arguments of both sides, provide a fresh perspective, and help facilitate a compromise solution. Or provide an way forward on how best to resolve this matter.

Summary of dispute by Sandrobost
I am not sure how this works so I will copy the comment I made on the talk page. Barry Wom's main issue with the page was that no-one had mentioned a reason for why there should be a list for films released in IMAX, and not for other premium film formats, so I responded:


 * ...IMAX is the only premium large format with exclusive extra's like special countdowns, exclusive sneak-peeks/prologues/previews for other movies, 3D-remasters (like the one for Michael Jackson's Thriller coming out this month), different aspect ratios, shorter/longer runtimes and earlier release dates (Everest, The Walk, M:I-4), with special camera's and even films that are made for the format. This, to me, makes the format significantly more notable and a significantly different experience than other premium formats like Dolby Cinema or Cinemark, even if they have superior color space/resolution etc. The most effective way to showcase this information is one list of the films released in the IMAX format with notes saying what makes each release unique, which is exactly what we had before.
 * Not to mention that according to the wiki page it is "the most widely used system for special-venue film presentations", and it is the only premium format of which separate box office numbers are often reported on wikipedia pages because of the format's significance and popularity. (Examples: Mission: Impossible – Rogue_Nation, The Dark Knight Rises, List of box office records set by Avatar). In my opinion, plenty of arguments for why the current IMAX product should have special consideration.

Side note: Barry Wom has not contributed to the discussion in five days, even though more compelling arguments have been raised on the talk page. If he does not respond for another two days it will have been a week, and seeing how he is the only person in the discussion (out of seventeen separate users) who is opposed to reverting the page, I will restore the page to what it was before. Sandrobost (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Barry Wom
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:List of_IMAX_DMR_films#Request_for_comments_on_the_removal_of_digital_DMR_titles discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Majida El Roumi#Advocacy for Majida?
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I have been trying to edit Majida El Roumi's article to reflect an incident she made and make the article more neutral, as it seemed like a propaganda piece, while a user named Hullaballoo Wolfowitz tirelessly repressed my edit, despite having added the relevant citation which included the "original video" and the links of MEMRI, which has an English translation.

Majida a UN Goodwill Ambassador, while she believes and wants us to believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is an anti-Semitic fraud. I pointed out that the video of the conference was made in the past, while MEMRI only noticed it this year and there was an outpouring of negative responses to her on Twitter.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz made unfounded accusations against me. First, he didn't see what I added and he thought that I cited one tweet to claim that this one tweet is a controversy. Second, in order to save his face, he made a claim that I needed consensus, even though he was the only one who didn't like the edit and mentioned the BLP and labeled my edit contentious!

I haven't deviated from any terms of a biography: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR)

I used the most relevant sources. I included the original video. I didn't say that she was an anti-Semite, but made my edit and left the reader to decide. Needless to mention that I have brought the issue to the talk page.

He also misused the wiki system by not appropriately using the revert button every time, so that I don't get notified that someone reverted my edits.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page, e-mail

How do you think we can help?

A third opinion is needed to confirm that I haven't added any libelous opinions. Hullaballoo has been very insistent and likely wouldn't accept a compromise like changing the title of the section.

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

Talk:Majida El Roumi#Advocacy for Majida? discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:College of_Preceptors#College_of_Teachers
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Two users believe that College of Perceptors, College of Teachers and some other organisations from 19th century are linked to some current organisations with similar names. They believe that there is a link between them and that they are notable enough to be covered. I believe that there is no link between them and that none of them is notable enough. I believe that someone who established an organisation is trying to show link to some old organisations to gain reputation. Discussion has been going on for about a year.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion

How do you think we can help?

Other editors should look into it and decide.

Summary of dispute by Fayenatic london
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I first got involved in this page yesterday, as an independent reviewer, following a request from AuditGuy on my talk page. Here's what I've found so far.

The college was founded in 1846. There is evidence from University College London and the Institute of Education that the college, renamed to College of Teachers, operated continuously into the 2010s, within the premises of the IoE from 2003.

In Jan 2017 a WP:SPA,, added uncited WP:OR stating that the college's charter had been transferred to a new body in 2016, the Chartered College of Teaching, independent of the IoE. As far as I can see, this may well be true; it fits with the current college's charter, https://chartered.college/our-royal-charter

In Apr 2017, Topjur01 asserted that the College of Preceptors became extinct in 1923; so he moved the article to that old name. He states on the talk page that an American Prof Carl Lindgren established an unrelated College of Teachers in the 1993 or 1998, and Topjur01 objects to any mention of this in the article, even to distinguish one College of Teachers from another.

However, Topjur01 has ignored requests for evidence of the alleged closure in 1923, or of the alleged reopening in the 1990s, or of the alleged unrelated College of Teachers started by Lindgren. Instead of responding to requests on the talk page, he has now brought it here. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Audit Guy
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. As indicated in the talk page, the College of Preceptors has been in existence and had undergone a name change via a supplemental royal charter to the College of Teachers in 1998. Then in a new development in 2015, a new establishment (a Royal College of Teaching) was being proposed, initiated by the then existing College of Teachers and together with the Prince’s Teaching Institute, the Teacher Development Trust and the SSAT in collaboration with practising teachers and school leaders. See Claim your College campaign. This finally came to fruition in 2016, as can be seen in this link :. The Royal Charter was then transferred to the new Institution The Chartered College of Teaching (an article page for this does not exist at the moment). All this is being ignored in the current College of Preceptors article page. Audit Guy (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:College of_Preceptors#College_of_Teachers 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 spelling of the names of the other editors has been corrected.  The other editors have not been notified of this filing.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have placed additional information in the article's talk page. Audit Guy (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - The filing editor has not properly notified the other editors of this filing 72 hours after being reminded. However, the other editors have replied, and so discussion can begin when a moderator is available.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

First statement by moderator
I will try to conduct moderated discussion. Please read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules and follow the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors.

This article appears to be about a defunct organization. The issue appears to be about whether there is historical continuity between an organization that was founded in the eighteenth or nineteenth century and the current (or recently lapsed) organization. Are there any other issues? Will each editor please state, in one or two paragraphs, what they think the issues are? Do not reply to other editors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Just reply to me. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

First statements by editors
The organisation/College in question is technically not defunct. It has continuity via a change of names and my view is that for accuracy in an encyclopedic entry, these should be reflected clearly. I believe that the Talk-page comment on the decision to make is whether to move this page to the Chartered College of Teaching, or to move it back to College of Teachers and just refer to the successor body on this page for now, unless and until it gains sufficient notability to have its own article, is reasonable. Audit Guy (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Audit Guy. The organisation was not defunct at any point before 2016; UCL and IOE are reliable sources for its continuity. Topjur01 appears to be wasting other editors' time by reverting them & continuing with his allegations without providing any evidence. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, to answer your question: You are correct, this article is about a defunct organization. And, you are correct, the issue is about whether there is historical continuity between an organization that was founded centuries ago and the current organization. There is one more issue: I believe that this article should be deleted under notability rules. There are thousands if not millions defunct organizations, which were only mentioned two or three times in some old documents. These organizations are not notable enough to be covered by Wikipedia. Topjur01 (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator
Different editors have different views of the history. One says that the original organization became defunct, and that the new organization is not really its successor, but only claiming to be. Two editors say that the original organization never became defunct, and that it has an amended charter and a new name and continuity. Will each editor please provide a reliable source? Also, does anyone have a proposed compromise? (I don't think so, but have to ask.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Second statements by editors
This is a repetition but here are three sources that clearly indicate continuity (College of Preceptors - College of Teachers - Chartered College of Teaching): University College London, LGiU, an independent local government body , and the primary source Charter from the Current Chartered College of Teaching. Additionally please also see : Claim your College campaign and Secondary Education. As for a proposed compromise, to move it back to the College of Teachers and just refer to the predecessor and successor bodies on this page for now, until it (Chartered College of Teaching) gains sufficient notability to have its own article, as suggested by Fayenatic London on the article's talk-page is reasonable. Audit Guy (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The first source mentioned by the Audit Guy holds a collection of documents for both the old and the new organisation. It also proves my point: that the new organization is separate from the old organization. About the old organisation, it says that the College of Teachers was founded in 1846 and then incorporated as the College of Perceptors three years later. This source also proves that the College of Perceptors was an active organisation until early 20th century. There are many documents from the period between 1849 and 1930. It also proves that the last amendment to the by-laws was made in 1930 ("Amendments to by-laws are 1908-1930). It proves that membership records are kept up to 1891. It also proves that "In October 1991 the records of the College up to 1945 were acquired via Professor Richard Aldrich." . This same library collection also says that in 1997 the College of Teachers was founded. It says: Title: "Foundation", Date: "1997-1998", ScopeContent: "Papers regarding the foundation of the College of Teachers and the transfer of the College of Preceptors", AccessStatus: "Closed", AccessConditions: "All administrative records have been closed for 50 years from the last date on the file." Topjur01 (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * This source, therefore, proves that the old organisation was active up to 1930, and that its records up to 1945 were acquired in 1991 by a Professor. If someone acquires old records of an organisation, which has been inactive for 50 years, that does not make the organisation alive. Secondly, this library source clealy states that "All administrative records have been closed for 50 years from the last date on the file.". Thirdly, this source clearly states that the College of Teachers was founded in 1997. If it is the same organisation, the new organisation would not have been founded.Topjur01 (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * All other sources given by Auditguy are self-published sources by the new organisation. The new organisation clearly tries to present itself as a successor of the old organisation. Dear Auditguy and Fayenatic london, can you disclose your relation to the College of Teachers?Topjur01 (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The understanding of the circumstances by Topjur01 (talk) is incorrect. The 1st source quoted by Topjur01 itself shows that the College was founded in 1846 as the Society of Teachers and was incorporated by Royal Charter as the College of Preceptors in 1849. It also reads that The Chartered College of Teaching succeeds the College of Teachers, which was previously the body that held the Royal Charter for the teaching profession. The 2nd source quoted by Topjur01 shows that the scope of the archive is for Papers regarding the foundation of the College of Teachers and the transfer of the College of Preceptors.


 * The College of teachers was NOT founded in 1997 but was renamed from the College of Preceptors to the College of Teachers by a Royal Supplemental Charter in 1998. What is it about the Royal Charter that is so difficult to understand? Aside from the IOE and ULC documents that show that the College of Preceptors was renamed to the College of Teachers, the current Chartered College of Teaching itself clearly state on their own website to stipulate the continuity. The Claim Your College report is not a sole self-published document by the college, it was initiated by four organisations namely, the College of Teachers, the Prince’s Teaching Institute, the Teacher Development Trust and the SSAT. The LGiU document is also an independent report. The LGiU is the Local Government information Unit which is a London-based thinktank and registered charity, established in 1983 as a membership organisation for UK local authorities.


 * I would like to add this filing of the College of Teachers's Financial Accounts in 2013, where it states on Page 6 the College's initial Charter in 1849 (originally as College of Preceptors) and Supplemental Charter in 1988 . Further, look at this Financial Report, also filed with the Charity Commission of England & Wales . See the information on Page 4 (Trustees' Annual Report) - it again clearly shows the continuity of the two changes made to the Royal Charter leading up to the current establishment. Perhaps Fayenatic  L ondon can also review all the above information. Audit Guy (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Third Statement by Moderator
Is it possible that what we are really arguing about is not whether the new organization is the successor to the old one, but how to describe that relationship neutrally? Will each editor please propose some way of explaining that relationship neutrally that the others will accept?

We know that there was a nineteenth-century organization, and there is a late-twentieth-century organization. Can we find some way to describe this neutrally?

Address your comments to the moderator. Do not go back-and-forth with each other.

Also, do any of you editors have any affiliation or conflict of interest with the current organization? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Third Statements by Editors
Topjur01 accuses me of a conflict of interest. I have no connection to the College in any of its forms, indeed I had never heard of it until 27/8/2018. AuditGuy asked me to help as an independent editor, as I had helped him with an unrelated article years ago.

The "nineteenth-century organisation" continued up to 2016. The IoE archived cited by AuditGuy summarises the "ScopeContent" of the archive as "Administrative records of the College of Preceptors and College of Teachers, 1847-2008", and goes on to list various committees and other specific categories of records starting and ending in all decades of the 20th century.

– Fayenatic  L ondon 07:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, I am not connected in anyway with this oraganisation and my interest is only in a good faith edit. I saw this article page on 23 August 2018 and realising that there were errors, made an attempt to correct it. I had expected this issue to be resolved in the article talk-page. I had requested Fayenatic  L ondon to review this article page as an independent editor as it appeared to me that Editor Topjur01 talk did not seem to understand the developments of this particular organisation and misunderstanding the information provided. I did not expect this to come for a Dispute Resolution.

I have to-date provided various reliable citation references and believe that the weight of the evidence suggests that the current Chartered College of Teaching is the successor organisation of the College of Teachers which itself was renamed in 1998 from the College of Preceptors founded in 1849. I am of the opinion that Topjur01 who reverted all the previous edits, should consider at the very least to reinstate the article page back to the previous version where all relevant information on this Institution is shown that indicates its current form. This was also suggested by Fayenatic london and the fairest way forward given the referenced sources. In my view, because of the insistence of Topjur01's misinterpretation, I also believe that there must be a 3rd party opinion on the validity of all the cited sources so far with the understanding of the contents therein. Without this call being made, I can see no progress going forward. In the interest of accuracy, I hope that this can be done.

Audit Guy (talk) 08:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It seems that both Audit Guy and Fayenatic are mixing College of Teachers and College of Teaching. I am not sure if this is on purpose or by mistake. College of Teaching, to which they refer in their last posts, is indeed an important organisation of teachers in the UK. This organisation holds a royal charter and it surely deserves a wiki page. Its website is https://chartered.college/ . The wikipedia site discussed here has always been about the "College of Teachers, formerly known as the College of Perceptors." The wikipedia site has been edited for about ten years by a "RoyalHistorian" and his posts included a lot of information about "Carl Edwin Lindgren". See history of the page, for example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_of_Preceptors&diff=96461436&oldid=96445653 . This wiki site refers to the external College website as http://www.collegeofteachers.ac.uk. I agree with the other editors that the Chartered College of Teaching deserves a wiki page. But College of Teaching and College of Teachers is obviously not the same thing. Topjur01 (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The name of the current institution is Chartered College of Teaching. This has succeeded to the Royal Charter of the organisation formerly known as College of Preceptors and College of Teachers.
 * It is helpful that, at last, Topjur01 has given a link to edits that mention Lindgren and a website for an allegedly unrelated College of Teachers.
 * I was not aware until now of user:Royalhistorian. I cannot retrieve any versions of his link collegeofteachers.ac.uk from archive.org.
 * Topjur01 seems to be motivated by the need to exclude Royalhistorian's original research and conflict-of-interest material. However, he has gone beyond what was needed, and has made several incorrect assumptions, e.g. stating that the College was extinct in 1923.
 * I think all three of us (Topjur01, Audit Guy and I) agree that whatever Lindgren's institution is or was, there are no reliable sources for it, so it should not be mentioned in the Wikipedia article about the longstanding institution. Unless of course it was actually the same institution; perhaps we may find Lindgren mentioned in the IoE archive among the continuous records of the CoP/CoT up to 2008.
 * Is this the "compromise" that is needed? Once we agree to exclude Royalhistorian/Lindgren's WP:OR, we can go back to discussing the appropriate name of the article about the longstanding College, on the article talk page.
 * Why Topjur01 found it necessary to open a formal Dispute is beyond me. I hope he will accept a WP:TROUT for not conversing on the article talk page. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Fourth Statement by Moderator
I will caution the editors that I said not to reply to each other. Maybe that wasn't clear. Do not reply to each other.

I will caution the editors that it wasn't necessary to ask about conflict of interest. No one has been acting like a conflict-of-interest editor. If you did cast aspersions, you know who you are.

If the original College became defunct in 1923, is a reliable source for that?

If there are arguments about whether the continuity sources are reliable, we can take them to the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Are there any other anti-continuity arguments except to claim that the sources to the effect are primary or non-neutral?

One editor raises what they suggest is a compromise. Does it resolve the dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Fourth Statements by Editors
I agree with the comments by Fayenatic London. There is no confusion. I do not believe that we ever mixed up College of Teachers with College of Teaching. There is NO College of Teaching but rather a Chartered College of Teaching which continued the Charter of the College of Teachers (formerly known as College of Preceptors). If we can now also agree that the website indicated - http://collegeofteachers.ac.uk (link is no longer valid) was that of the bona fide College of Teachers (and not of any establishment by Carl Edwin Lindgren), then I think we can get on with this discussion. This British Qualifications (36th Edition) directory listing of the College of Teachers shows its website as that of what Topjur01 indicated above -. Also see this information retrieved from internet archive  and  - Audit Guy (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon, it has been necessary to respond to the additional evidence being produced by each other, as the evidence has been central to the disputed issue. The dispute was about whether Lindgren started a new unrelated institution and claimed continuity with an old one. From the talk page I had no idea where the mentions of Lindgren had originated, but now I see the edits that Topjur01 was rightly concerned about (by Royalhistorian).
 * Thanks to all the archived links retrieved by Audit Guy, we can now see that there has only ever been one institution, and it has been continuous. If all of us now accept this evidence and conclusion, I think the dispute is over.
 * As for conflict of interest, you did ask us about that yourself. It seems that Royalhistorian had a COI, but none of the editors called to this dispute. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, the Chartered College of Teaching is the successor of the College of Preceptors and of the College of Teaching? If so, then the dispute is mostly over. I agree that this organisation is notable enough to have a wikipedia page. However, I believe, that the page should be named Chartered College of Teaching. This is the current name and this is the important organisation. Both other names are history. If we all agree to this, then the dispute is over. And I apologize for taking your time. Topjur01 (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Fifth Statement by Moderator
One editor says that the Chartered College of Teaching is the successor to the College of Preceptors and the College of Teaching, and that the page should be renamed. Is there agreement?

If not, are there alternate proposals for how to resolve this dispute which has to do with naming and historical continuity?

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Fifth Statements by Editors
Based on all the records, I would like to reiterate : There wasn't a College of Teaching in the past. What we have is the Chartered College of Teaching (the current organisation & successor College) which continued the Charter of the previous College of Teachers (which itself was formerly known as the College of Preceptors).

For clarity, the sequence is as follows - Originally founded as the Society of Teachers (1846), it was incorporated 3 years later with a Royal Charter in 1849 as the College of Preceptors. Then in 1998, with a supplemental charter, it was renamed as the College of Teachers. As of 2016, it received a further supplemental charter for it to be renamed again as the Chartered College of Teaching. The Charter sequence can be seen here.

And yes, if we all can be in agreement with this (especially the proper college names), then the page should be renamed to the current organisation, the Chartered College of Teaching, with relevant historical information relating to the College of Teachers, and before that the College of Preceptors being indicated on the article page with all the information that has been made available here. This is my suggestion/request to Topjur01. I hope this can settle the dispute. Audit Guy (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure, this settles the dispute. Thank you Robert McClenon for moderating the dispute and thanks to Audit Guy and Fayenatic for helpful contributions and for helping me understand the charter sequence.Topjur01 (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Here (Alicia_Keys_album)#Replacing_Slant_with_AllMusic_score
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

One of the notable sources in the balanced ratings box of the critical reception section, which should neutrally represent the overall international reception of an album (giving due weight to the nature of its reception, in this case generally positive, not mixed or negative), is being replaced with another source by an editor who prefers it (and cites an essay, that itself says to maintain NPOV, which is policy) while undue weight is given, making the box read more negatively skewed than overall reception is. Editor also tendentiously removed several (positive) reviews from notable publications in the section's prose, which speaks to his non-neutral position here.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Clear explanation including citation of policy in edit summary; talk discussion with further explanations and differentiating between policy and essay; editor had already indicated in his first talk comment that he had no intention of further discussion without dispute resolution if I reverted his edit/disagreed again.

How do you think we can help?

Consider the NPOV policy vs the interpretation of an essay editor cites in the presentation of the optional ratings box in reception section. Ratings box & overall section should be a neutrally weighted, representative overview of overall international reception as available, not skewed toward an editor's bias and not tendentiously edited by removing unwanted notable reviews from prose as well.

Summary of dispute by Dan56
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Here (Alicia_Keys_album)#Replacing_Slant_with_AllMusic_score discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other party.  Is this a dispute where a compromise is possible, or is this a yes/no question that can be resolved by another Request for Comments in addition to the one that is now in progress?  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As Robert has said, there is currently an RFC running on the talk page. Per the We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. rule, I don't think there's a reason to keep this open, given that the dispute appears to be the same, and the RFC supersedes it. is there any part of the dispute which is not currently covered by the RFC?  Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  06:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This was created before. The RfC/vote Dan56 created (w/o previous discussion as pointed out by another editor) is another section for another issue (his removal of several positive reviews from notable publications in prose), but it relates to his general POV edits part of this dispute (giving undue weight; in ratings box, replacing positive review rating with negative rating, presenting overall reception with a less positive/more negative slant while album reception is generally positive per reliable sources). I've not used DRN before, so I'll leave it up to you whether it should be closed. Lapadite (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , can you please ask this person to behave? I'll go out on a limb and say it is a "he"... He is starting to scare me, with his compulsive reverting and admonishment of any change I make, his repetitive and unreadable diatribes at talk pages, his non-stop blanket accusations in the guise of vaguely defending neutrality, and hostile edit summaries labeling my editing "tendentious." (He has used this word seven times, not counting here, in reference to me the past few days:, , , , ) I really believe my changes are an improvement, and in line with the spirit of the relevant guidelines, but there has been no assumption of good faith. Dan56 (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * He is creating an environment that discourages communication and makes resolving differences without a formal proceeding impossible--constantly framing me as a villain in the equation while going off about the same things in an inaccessible manner: even, an editor involved in the discussion, found his most recent polemic too much to read. I understand he has an emotional investment in the article--what else would explain such behavior--but this is unacceptable, and ridiculous. I am afraid if I respond in the slightest way to his most recent rant there, it will be followed by another, and it will muddle the current RfC, more than it already has: his original input to the votes section of the RfC looked like this. Furthermore, I think there is a competency issue: this latest outburst indicates a lack of familiarity with WP:CITEOVERKILL. Dan56 (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems to overlap entirely with the current RFC, so I don't believe there is a point to keeping this open. Lapadite77 I must suggest you stop making personal attacks; personal attacks are personal attacks regardless of how shallow they may be. I also suggest you ensure you are being concise, as long paragraphs often appear to be drowning people in details rather than giving an actual argument (not an accusation, just a statement of what people tend to take from it). Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  16:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Sport in Australia#Participation
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

The other party has now been notified on their talk page. I thought some mechanism was automatic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 21:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The Australian sport section on participation has some dubious figures. I (Siento) tried to get better figures from bodies that push sport overall rather than a particular sport and from Roy Morgan, a research company that does polling and associated reports.

If anyone is looking at this dispute it would be useful to search for 'sport participation in Australia' in a search engine. The top hits provide links to various surveys and articles about these surveys. What the current wikipedia section has contrasts dramatically with the general web results.

Normally wikipedia provides a very useful overview of these sorts of stats. Participation in sport should be like that. Currently it does not.

I added a paragraph with these sorts of sources and it was simply removed by HiLo48.

It was then taken to the talk section.

An answer to this might be to add the top 10 items from the Roy Morgan Survey, the Ausplay Adult survey and the child survey.

It's also worth noting that the section already contains numbers. These numbers have no suggestion as to their quality.

Also, it is worth noting that HiLo48 has been accused repeatedly of pro-AFL bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 01:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The topic has been raised in the talk section.

HiLo48's concern is that surveys need to address child and adult participation. I suggesa table in order to do this. The table was added the table and HiLo48 then removed it.

It would be fine to have some editing made of the table or adding other external sources but simply removed edits is wrong.

How do you think we can help?

Some external oversight would be appreciated. Initially could the inclusion of what would appear to be NPOV articles be accepted. I.e. is it useful to refer to the Ausplay survey and Roy Morgan. Some suggestions from other similar issues would be much appreciated.

Summary of dispute by HiLo48
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Australia is a sports obsessed nation. Different cities and parts of the country have different sporting interests, and there is intense rivalry between them when it comes to being best at sport, most interested in sport, etc. That rivalry also naturally involves individual sports trying to demonstrate that they are bigger and better than others. Over the years a lot of this has been reflected in the article, and it has become a huge battleground at times. A lot of lies have been told in the article. I watch the article closely for those wanting to make significant changes. It has been quite stable now for some years.

User:Siento seems to have discovered the article couple of days ago, and decided to put their stamp on it in some dramatic ways. One example was removal of a statement in the article about Melbourne being seen by some as the sporting capital of the world. User:Siento removed it with an Edit summary of "Reduced overblown claim about Melbourne". Ironically, that claim was sourced very accurately to a newspaper from Sydney, Melbourne's biggest rival city. This edit alone made me feel the need to very closely watch User:Siento's efforts.

I have tried to get this editor to discuss proposed edits on the article's Talk page before making them, but their approach has consistently been (even after that advice) to make an edit, then argue when I revert and ask for discussion. And then bring the issue here!

My position on the particular piece of work he has brought here are clear on the Talk page and my Edit summaries. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Sport in Australia#Participation discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other party on their user talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - Notice has been given. Waiting for a response from the other editor, since participation is voluntary.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have responded above. HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

First statement by moderator
I will see if I can get start moderated discussion. Please read the rules for moderated discussion. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Are both editors, User:Siento and User:HiLo48, interested in moderated discussion? If so, will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think can be done to improve the article? (We are not here to talk about improving the behavior of the editors.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

First statements by editors
Discussion is continuing on the article's Talk page. I have written extensively on the matter there. I don't know if discussion here is still needed. HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

There has been discussion on the article's talk page. However, it would be very useful for another user to look at this dispute and moderate. The participation article of the Australian sport article could be improved by including some tables on participation gathered by bodies that do not push a single sport that are also up to date. The sources meet wikipedia's citation requirements. These tables should be prefaced by saying that measuring participation in sport is difficult because of the definitions of both sport and how much activity constitutes participation. In addition children's sporting activities may be need to be measured differently. --Siento (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Second Question by Moderator
Participation in any content dispute resolution process except RFC is voluntary. One editor says that discussion is continuing on the article talk page (which is true). The other editor says that a moderator would be useful. So my question, User:HiLo48, User:Siento, is this: Do you agree to take part in moderated discussion? No conditional answers or maybes, please. We need to know whether discussion will take place here rather than at the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Second Statements by Editors
I'd be happy to see moderated discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see a moderated discussion as well. Siento (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Third Statement by Moderator
Moderated discussion will take place here. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what improvements they think need to be made to the article? Comment on content (that is, improving the article) and not contributors. Any discussion at the article talk page is likely to be ignored, so do the discussion here. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in effect. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion; discuss with me, not with each other. Continue to be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Third Statements by Editors
It would be good to see the top 10 items from the tables called 'Adults top 20 activities', 'Adults through organisation or venue', and 'Children organised out of school hours' added to the participation in sport section from the latest Ausplay survey. Also the top 10 from the Roy Morgan Sports Survey should be included. In addition a paragraph on the difficulty of collection sports statistics could be added. Ideally the references to the Cricket Australia statistics should be prefaced by pointing out that they are figures obtained by the sports promotional body. Siento (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Fourth Statement by Moderator
One editor has proposed to include three tables from the Ausplay survey, which appears to be a product of the Australian federal government. Is there any objection to including these tables?

Are there any other specific changes proposed to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Fourth Statements by Editors
As described in the third statement it would be good to include the top 10 activities from the Roy Morgan data as well. Also to put something of a disclaimer before the cricket Australia figures. Siento (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Whenever I see tables like those it is being proposed to be used, I want to know where the numbers came from. Neither table gives any indication. As someone involved in organised sport for over 50 years now, I have never seen such information being collected. Registrations are not enough. Sports can (and do) fudge such numbers, and they never include everyone who plays a sport "unofficially". I am even more sceptical of participation numbers for activities such as walking, cycling, bushwalking, etc. How can any such numbers be accurate? Given that we know nothing of how the tables were compiled in the first place, combing them would be unacceptable synthesis. I am also concerned about numbers where they might include juniors (whatever age that means). It's well known in the footballing area that mothers put their kids in soccer, rather than a rugby or Aussie Rules, because they see it as a safer option, but numbers for soccer crash for adults. And that highlights the fact that junior numbers are the result of parent's choices, rather than the participants themselves. I also wonder if we are facing any copyright issues using numbers from commercial bodies. HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It is trivially easy to find the methods used by the Ausplay Survey by having a quick look at the site. A link could be included to the Ausplay methods. It's a standard large scale population survey. The page has been 'stable' for years with out of date and poor numbers including some collected by a body that promotes a particular sport. Roy Morgan would have methods included in their reports that you purchase, but not for press releases. Siento (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Fifth Statement by Moderator
I had requested that the editors not go back-and-forth in responding to each other. However, in this case, the exchange appears to be working. Please continue the discussion about whether to include tables as proposed by one of the parties. This discussion should continue for maybe three or four days, as long as it is productive. Be civil and concise. Comment on comments, not contributors. I will reserve the right to interject my comments, which should be neutral and consistent with policies and guidelines.

Exchange of Statements by Editors
The numbers from Ausplay should be reasonably close. They are the best available. If you go and look at their pages that include their methods you'll see that they call about 400 people a week for a year. By selecting people to match the demographic make up of Australia they'd get a reasonable survey. They'd be using the same sorts of techniques that are used to find out other demographics. Wikipedia includes lots of data on what people eat, where they work, the very sensitive (and really difficult to measure) subject of sexual preferences and many other things. Roy Morgan do these things for many consumer surveys.

The Ausplay Survey has, on page 16, a table that has adult club sports. This explicitly does not include children's activity. There is one below that is just for children in club sport.

For what it's worth I've played lower contact sports around the world over decades as an adult including in Melbourne and found people who played those sports who didn't watch them at all but didn't want the increase risk of injury of a higher contact sport. In Melbourne I played basketball with a number of ex-AFL players. Barely any of them watched the NBL or the NBA but did watch and attend AFL games.

Perhaps the really interesting thing in the overall numbers is that for exercise Australians now go to the gym, do fitness classes, run and do yoga more than they play competitive sport. Yoga was a sort of rare activity even in the 1990s. That it's now done by more Australian adults than play cricket is remarkable. This data is from page 14 of the Ausplay Survey.

Again, anyone who cares about the quality of the numbers should have a look at the survey results and methods directly rather than attempt to debate the merits in short paragraphs. The numbers currently in the wikipedia article are either out of date or from a particular sports promotion body. Siento (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "The numbers from Ausplay should be reasonably close. They are the best available." I don't find that convincing. And you seem to have digressed from the topic at hand there somewhat, with some obvious original research. That's the danger with anything like this. We all see a subset of society and tend to extrapolate what we see beyond that part of the population. That's unacceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for making statements from my own experience as you have at least three times in this exchange. I didn't realise it was unacceptable as you'd repeatedly done it. Why do you wish to retain the poor figures that are in the article and not use the best available? Or please point to figures that are better. Siento (talk) 11:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Sixth Statement by Moderator
We will return to replying only to me and not discussing back-and-forth. If an editor thinks that a table should be added to the article, please develop the draft table so that it can be discussed. You may comment on what tables if any should be added to the article. You may also briefly state any other concerns. I would like to get this wrapped up within a week. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Sixth Statements by Editors
Apologies for the back and fourth.

I'd like to see the following three tables from the Ausplay Survey.

Adults taken part in last year
Also, there should not be any copyright concerns. Similar lists taken from Ausplay have been published by online news sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 11:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Children organised out of school in the last year
Siento (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Seventh Statement by Moderator
One editor has proposed to add three tables. If there is agreement, this discussion will be closed. If there is disagreement, we can continue discussion, but the most likely step then should be a Request for Comments on whether to add the tables, since an RFC is binding and establishes consensus of the community. Please indicate whether you have anything to add, and whether you agree with the tables or wish to take them to a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Seventh Statements by Editors
It might also be worth adding another table from Roy Morgan that is similar to the Ausplay Surveys but perhaps that is too much. Also I'd like to preface the other cricket Australia figures on the page by saying that they are from cricket Australia. Siento (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:False accusation_of_rape#Percents_in_lead
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 recently made an edit in the lead on this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape that was merely aimed at encompassing the broader range of percents emerging from the perfectly reliable sources that had already been added and approved in the article, as had been suggested by other editors on the talk page.

I feel my edit contributes to curbing what was perceived, in my opinion rightly so, a possible biase, encouraging the user to read further in the article to discern the different studies that have yelded the different rates. My edit does not state that either the lowest or the highest rate is better than the other, it does stress that the lowest rates are generally agreed on without dismissing considerably higher rates as urban legend. I feel my edit perfectly complies with WP:NEUTRAL

I feel the discussion on the talk page with editor Roscelese has taken a nasty turn, I feel I am being personally attacked without assuming good faith on my part, and I personally find Roscelese’s comments to my edits like “nonsense” or accusing me of being unreasonable or inviting me to leave encyclopedia editing to others to be downright offensive and bordering on harassment and threat.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried the article’s talk page, extensively at that, only to be named nonsensical, unreasonable, accused of pursuing a personal agenda, etc

How do you think we can help?

Read my latest edit in the article False Accusation of Rape and confirm it does not disrupt the article and helps it complying with WP:NEUTRAL

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

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


 * Volunteer note - There has been extensive inconclusive discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other listed editor.  There have been other editors besides the editor listed.  When there are multiple editors, all of them should be listed and notified.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - The filing editor has also reported this dispute at the edit-warring noticeboard. This noticeboard does not handle a case that is also pending at another noticeboard.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Time series_database
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

We've been having ongoing issues with this page for over a year. The issues largely relate to the list of time-series databases on the page, but generally speaking we have an issue where one specific editor has blocked nearly all community contributions for something like 16 months.

The immediate goal is for us to establish clear criteria for inclusion into the list of time-series databases at the bottom of the page. There is an ongoing RfC that is going nowhere, as we don't have enough senior participants involved.

The criteria needs to be more specific than "reputable" or "notable" or "independent" as the editor in question rejects all contributions, even contributions from peer reviewed journal articles and academic conferences. Said editor often claims WP:SPAMHOLE as justification for removing any new list entries. Possibly opinions regarding validity of specific references could be useful to move the debate.

As a whole this article has a *lot* of problems. I was very surprised to find a page in this condition. For example the very first reference on this article isn't actually a citation. It's just the name of some company, in plaintext.

More recently Beetstra has taken to fabricating a narrative that the page is being vandalized, and has protected the page. The fabrications go so far as to misrepresent the nature of my own contributions to the page, making false claims that references havent been provided, false claims regarding various policies related to list inclusion, etc.

A substantial number of conversations on the talk page relate to this issue.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have personally spent over a year engaging with user Beetstra on the talk page, as have many others. We cannot agree on even basic things such as whether a peer reviewed journal article is suitable for referencing.

How do you think we can help?

We could use advice on whether there even should be a list on this page.

We could use advice on whether the page should be deleted given the condition it's in.

We need clarification and consensus building advice for inclusion criteria for an article list. Possibly contributions for the RfC would help.

We also need advice and clarification on whether it's appropriate for edits to be blocked, a decision unilaterally made by a single user under claims of vandalism.

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

Talk:Time series_database discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * The Dispute Resolution Notice Board does not accept cases which have an RFC currently running, as it supersedes any DRN case. The RFC does not appear to have been tagged per the instructions at Requests for comment, and therefore is unlikely to see any community engagement other than from those who watch the page itself. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  18:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

We need to decide whether or not the pseudo-medicine sidebar should be removed. Unfortunately, an CFCF has decided the issue cannot be discussed and refuses to engage constructively. Additionally they are removing any discussion from the talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asked CFCF to articulate and support their opinion.

How do you think we can help?

Ask the editor to participate in the consensus building.

Talk:Eugenics discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * There has been some discussion on the talk page, although a number of those involved in the discussion have not been listed here. Is there a reason that numerous editors, including, who started the conversation on the talk page, are not listed here?  Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  16:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * you must notify and any other editors involved in the case with the   template.  Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  16:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - There appears to have been disruptive editing of the talk page. A discussion should not be archived if any editor thinks that it has not been concluded.  Violations of talk page guidelines are a conduct issue and should be reported at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - As the coordinator said, when there have been multiple editors in a dispute, they should all be listed, not just some of them, and they should all be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Dornier Do_17#Restoration_of_File_talk:Do17z_20mm.jpg
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

Image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Do17z_20mm.jpg is a unique event that is reported in a books but rarely depicted in photos. After discussing by email with Robert Bruce in Permissions he judged the image is valid under the Fair Use, as the copyright status is not known, assumed valid. A new image with significantly better quality replaced the original, addressing the complaint from BilCat. However Bilcat is reverting to another argument the subject of the 20mm cannon is not about the aircraft, despite being mounted in the subject aircraft! By that logic, 1 image is not related, and 6 others are completely redundant and must be removed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Replaced poor quality image with much better one, given the source is approximately 78 year old film. Discussed with other parties the proper copyright for image. Edited the description with details of image and sources to support image. Asked BilCat to provide an alternate image of same subject matter, which he refuses.

How do you think we can help?

The image Do17 20mm is justified to be on the page. It has been on the page for 10 years, and I am addressing every question improving the description to insure its justification.

Alternatively, a better quality of image and/or removal of unrelated and excessive images on the Do 17 page.

Regards, Flightsoffancy (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by BilCat
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Flightsoffancy (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Image was uploaded 10 years ago under Fair Use, and has been in article that entire time.
 * First issue BilCat had was a poor quality of image. I replaced with the best quality image you can get from a 78 year old image.
 * Next issue was Non-Free. After discussion with other editors (cannot retrieve name now), agreed image was acceptable under Fair Use.
 * Then he argued there are plenty of free images. I challenged him to find another free image showing that particular feature.  BilCat never did.
 * Then he said image showed a "unidentifiable stick" and not what the name said. I provided source material that supported this object mounted.
 * Finally BilCat said the article is about the Dornier Do 17 and not the gun, but the image clearly shows a closeup of the cockpit of the Do 17 with the 20mm cannon mounted.
 * I also added the image to MG FF cannon because it is a far more exposed installation than example used, but he said "still a.poor quality image of a.stick)". Considering the image "MG FF/M as Schräge Musik in the Bf 110." shows only the very tip of the barrel protruding above the cockpit, that argument makes no logical sense.
 * I have listed sources and can provide yet more sources and images to verify this object, all of which are about the same quality.
 * Finally, BilCat has said "subject is the aircraft itself", suggesting that all non-aircraft image should be removed from any article.

Talk:Dornier Do_17#Restoration_of_File_talk:Do17z_20mm.jpg discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Rational: During the Battle of Britain the Do 17 was equipped with MG FF 20mm cannons, in particular was a mission on The Hardest Day which is considered the peak of the Battle of Britain, all of this is well documented, but images are rare. I can provide source data for any question you have regarding this. It is all documented. There is no question the image is valuable, photographic proof of one of the pivotal days in one of the most important engagements in WW2. Instruct me where to post requested data or images. Regards. Flightsoffancy (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)