Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 196

Rhea Chakraborty
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

Hi, This is regarding the edit that I made on section 3 of the article with an intent to re-write few lines in accordance to WP:NPOV and while I was in the process of adding appropriate citations backing my edit, my fellow User:NedFausa reverted my edits with this summary: " Undid revision 976665033 by Special:Contributions/ÆCE Encyclopedic content must be verifiable – cited source does not identify her as "prime suspect" – this is a serious WP:BLP violation" without discussing whether or not I'm done editing the article or his concern with me beforehand. Within a minute or two,(not knowing of the revert then) I added reliable sources(these sources were already used for other citations on the same page.) verifying exactly what I wrote.

But just after adding the needed citations, when I explained myself to User:NedFausa he completely disregarded everything I said and started posting edit warring and WP:BLP violation templates on my as well as on the article's talk page even after I added all the needed citations.

I reverted the article once and he started claiming that I was indulged in an edit war which in actuality did not happen. Then came another User:Cyphoidbomb who again reverted my edit with the summary: (No.) and in response to that when I reverted his change with a summary: (Undid revision 976719161 by Cyphoidbomb (talk) Reverting unexplained content removal) he then proceeded to revert the article again with a summary: (everted 1 edit by ÆCE (talk): BLP violation and poor grammar. (TW)).

Please have a look on my revisions on the page and all the conversations I had with both the mentioned users, and kindly decide whether or not my edits violated any of those policies.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Rhea_Chakraborty

User_talk:%C3%86CE

User_talk:NedFausa

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like to know If am at fault here, as they're saying? Please let all of us know your decision and if I didn't do anything wrong, please suggest them to allow me to restore my edit and further improve it if needed.

Summary of dispute by NedFausa
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I have made four edits involving User:ÆCE, all on 4 September 2020. In each instance, I adhered to Wikipedia policies and guidelines to the best of my understanding. NedFausa (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 14:15: I undid his revision that included "Rhea being the prime suspect in the case." My edit summary explained, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable – cited source does not identify her as 'prime suspect' – this is a serious WP:BLP violation."
 * 15:07: I created a new section at his user talk page warning him of his edit warring to restore disputed content at Rhea Chakraborty.
 * 15:30: I created a new section at Talk:Rhea Chakraborty alerting editors to the edit warring and BLP violation by . I noted in particular that Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.
 * 15:54: I replied to his attempt at his user talk page to conflate the source I had disputed by substituting a different source.
 * By the way, as a procedural aside, the filer failed to deliver a notice on my user talk page when he added me to this case. NedFausa (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Reply to summary of dispute by NedFausa
14:15: I undid his revision that included "Rhea being the prime suspect in the case." My edit summary explained, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable – cited source does not identify her as 'prime suspect' – this is a serious WP:BLP violation."

That's because I didn't use it to cite the "accuse" part and was in the process of adding another citation but things were judged and reverted a bit too quickly. I have mentioned all of this in the discussions made on talk pages. I wish I was given like 10-20 more seconds from the time it was reverted to add another source.

15:07: I created a new section at his user talk page warning him of his edit warring to restore disputed content at Rhea Chakraborty.

It was not edit warring, after you reverted my first revision saying the source I cited didn't mention her of being accused anywhere, I changed it only to add the needed citation which you demanded and I was also going to add anyway.

I noted in particular that Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.

You did the right thing there because it would have definitely looked like what you're saying, at that instance of time, But I did not intend to leave it that way and was in the process of adding another source, which I also explained to you later.

I replied to his attempt at his user talk page to conflate the source I had disputed by substituting a different source.

I didn't use it as a substitute, in fact if you see my very last edit on the page, you could see that I've left both the citations, as I originally intended. I just told you about this another citation which I was about to use that would have had also relieved your concern which it did. If anything, it was you who blamed me for "playing games".

I still can't understand how these people can call it a "game", while discussing such a serious topic! ♠ ÆCE | Talk | 04:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Cyphoidbomb
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Totally bogus dispute resolution issue. Note that every conversation that ÆCE points to relates to other editors telling them how problematic their edits are. Note that in the How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? section, ÆCE didn't initiate any of those discussions. Three editors, none of whom agree with one another 100% told this editor that their content was inappropriate for inclusion. Which content? this "minor" edit, this "minor" edit, and this third reversion, along with other comments on other talk pages.

ÆCE's poorly-conceived content suggests VERY strongly through lack of context that Chakraborty killed Rajput. That's INDEFENSIBLE. This is a sanctionable behaviour covered under ArbCom General sanctions as they pertain to Indian subjects broadly construed. Or by WP:BLP in general and WP:BDP in specific as the topic in "dispute" has to do with the recent (2 months ago) death of Sushant Singh Rajput. For context, check Twitter and other social media outlets for #justiceforSSR, so you can see the attempts to coerce Wikipedians to change the suicide "determination" at Sushant Singh Rajput, and at other Wikipedia articles (Sushant Singh Rajput, Death of Sushant Singh Rajput, Rhea Chakraborty, even Sadak 2...etc.) are continuously assailed by these new accounts who have an agenda to push. ÆCE's greatest defence thus far is that Hindustan Times called Chakraborty a "prime suspect", but HT didn't even identify what she was a suspect of. So newbie just copied the content and is hiding behind that as justification, rather than identifying what Chakraborty is a suspect of, which is what they were challenged to do. This DR case should quickly result in editors explaining to ÆCE the basic rules of libel and defamation, and how we're not going to be party to vague suggestions that someone is a "prime suspect" in a person's death when that person has not been charged, and there has been no determination that a crime has been committed in that person's death. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Reply to summary of dispute by Cyphoidbomb
ÆCE's poorly-conceived content suggests VERY strongly through lack of context that Chakraborty killed Rajput.

I didn't say she killed him, I only said that she is "a prime suspect" in the case and here is the citation : coming from the exact same source which is currently being used in the article.

ÆCE's greatest defence thus far is that Hindustan Times called Chakraborty a "prime suspect", but HT didn't even identify what she was a suspect of.

This is written on very top of the article, clearly explaining what she's being a suspect of.

"The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has questioned a number of people in connection with the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput. The CBI took over the case after a recommendation from the Bihar government on request from Rajput’s family.

In the 78 days since he passed away (since June 14), the CBI has narrowed down its probe and is now focussing on 14 people."

This DR case should quickly result in editors explaining to ÆCE the basic rules of libel and defamation, and how we're not going to be party to vague suggestions that someone is a "prime suspect" in a person's death when that person has not been charged, and there has been no determination that a crime has been committed in that person's death.

I believe you should let them decide what "should" be done, which is why we have this board in the first place.

So newbie just copied the content and is hiding behind that as justification

This is kind of upsetting how some of the users on wikipedia treat new users. It's even more upsetting when something like above comes from one of the administrators of the website. ♠ ÆCE | Talk | 09:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, for the record please list all the things that you are accusing me of here on this thread. That will also help me understand your concerns as they have been shifting quite frequently since we started this conversation. ♠ ÆCE  | Talk | 09:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

ÆCE didn't initiate any of those discussions. Three editors, none of whom agree with one another 100% told this editor that their content was inappropriate for inclusion.

I don't see any of these revisions        been discussed before they were published, anywhere on the article's talk page, for consensual agreement. So, why now it's suddenly a problem in my case? I just followed what NedFausa, you, and others did. I also explained everything later with all the proofs for every single questions you and others had, but they were all denied without any consideration. ♠ ÆCE | Talk | 11:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Rhea Chakraborty discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. To anyone looking to mediate this dispute, I would also have a look at Talk:Death of Sushant Singh Rajput. (Rhea Chakraborty is a person of interest in Rajput's death, and both the Death of... and biography articles have been slammed as of late with users unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies making unreasonable requests.) —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 19:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the addition. On that page they will also find all the personal attacks made on me. ♠ ÆCE  | Talk | 21:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Note - I will make a few comments at this time, but am neither opening nor closing the case. The filing editor writes:  'Please have a look on my revisions on the page and all the conversations I had with both the mentioned users, and kindly decide whether or not my edits violated any of those policies.'  The key policy here is the policy on biographies of living persons, and Wikipedia practice is that we avoid repeating unproven or unsubstantiated statements about living persons.  It isn't enough for a reliable source to have said that third parties say that Rhea is a prime suspect.  We don't need to repeat unproven statements, which would be churnalism.  It appears that multiple editors have tried to advise the filing editor that they should not repeat unproven statements.  So this is a one-against-many dispute, and mediation doesn't normally help with those.  Also, the filing party claims that there have been personal attacks.  I didn't see personal attacks, but this noticeboard doesn't normally do well with allegations that involve personal attacks.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - The filing editor writes: 'This is kind of upsetting how some of the users on wikipedia treat new users.'  It appears that other editors, including an administrator, are trying to advise a new editor about BLP policy.  That looks reasonable.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, Robert. Thank you so much for volunteering.

Note: With due respect, I'd like to answer the comments in segments as I have with others, I believe it makes thinks more clear and precise, especially in such conversations. I hope you don't mind.

The key policy here is the policy on biographies of living persons, and Wikipedia practice is that we avoid repeating unproven or unsubstantiated statements about living persons. It isn't enough for a reliable source to have said that third parties say that Rhea is a prime suspect. We don't need to repeat unproven statements, which would be churnalism.

Please watch this interview and this tweet  of Subramanian Swamy who's an Indian politician, economist and statistician who serves as a nominated Member of Parliament in Rajya Sabha, the upper house of the Indian Parliament. The the information regarding Rhea starts from 16:00 in the video. For more context, you may start watching from 9:00 as it is all promotions/advertisements before that. He's a high positioned member of Indian Central Government, under the supervision of which CBI including all other involved investigative agencies in the case work.

Also, the filing party claims that there have been personal attacks. I didn't see personal attacks, but this noticeboard doesn't normally do well with allegations that involve personal attacks.

I understand, which is why I didn't mention about it in my dispute overview until User:J%C3%A9sk%C3%A9_Couriano made a comment here, whom I didn't even mention to be involved in this dispute.

I'd like to bring your attention to this comment from Talk:Death_of_Sushant_Singh_Rajput:

I was, and am, calm. And once again, we go by what the sources are saying, and the sources are saying it's suicide. We do not, and should not, make such determinations ourselves, which is why we cite sources. Honestly, your arguments would be a lot better if you calmed down from your paroxysm and actually read the contents of this talk page and Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput; most everything you're saying has been addressed in one way or another on one or both of them. And the only reason the autopsy is under scrutiny is because of pressure from the family and hardcore fans who side with the family refusing to believe it's suicide (or at the very least, that there should be someone to blame, given the outsized focus of the family on Chakraborty as shown by multiple reliable sources). "did you read what the CBI has said?" If you'd actually read the quoted section of the article instead of just reflexively being denialist you might realise that it makes clear the excerpt follows from the CBI's statement and isn't a non-sequitur to it, and again the article only ever mentions suicide in the headline (which is misleading as the excerpted portion directly contradicts it) and in a section regarding Chakraborty (in the form of discussing an abetment of suicide charge). I have already addressed the questioned section here and on Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput. Please start reading talk pages instead of just yelling louder. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 19:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Paroxysm: a sudden attack or outburst of a particular emotion or activity: Where exactly I outbursted throughout the conversation?

Denlaist: a person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence: Where did I deny to accept anything that was said very initiallyabout the case? I only said that there has been new revelations which should also be mentioned in the article since they have so far nullified at least the "suicide" POV. None of the sources are calling it a straight up "suicide" showing the reports that were previously used as a proof.

Yelling louder Where did I do that?

As it's patently clear you're not reading what I'm actually writing (as I included the sources in my argument) it's also patently clear you're looking to win by attrition. We don't play that way. And again, no source has EXPLICITLY contradicted the suicide claim yet and several are reporting Chakraborty is being targeted for abetment of suicide, not murder. I suggest you start listening to what people are trying to say to you. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 19:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Here, I'm being accused of playing games. For the record : I take someone's death and wikipedia very seriously. So, NO I am not playing any games here as I've also replied to this comment Talk:Death_of_Sushant_Singh_Rajput

This comment, made by User:Cyphoidbomb hereTalk:Rhea_Chakraborty :

I don't have time to answer all of this. We do not include potentially defamatory content, which is what you did when you added poorly-written content that heavily implied Chakraborty killed Rajput. That is egregiously bad judgment. You called her a "prime suspect", but didn't indicate what she was a prime suspect of. That ambiguity is very problematic. Police have not charged her with any crime 'as far as I know. They are investigating complaints raised by the family. A journalist calling her a "prime suspect" without indicating what she was a prime suspect of, is bad journalism. Repeating that without providing sufficient context, is no better. While Wikipedia relies on what reputable secondary sources say, when they say things that are downright stupid or irresponsible, we are not obligated to include that. As for the rest of your response, feel free to read the entire Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput page, where some of your other questions have been asked and answered multiple times. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

egregiously bad judgment: That was not my judgement or anyone else's for that matter. I only mentioned what the very sources currently cited for "commited suicide" has reported on their website.

Police have not charged her with any crime 'as far as I know

As far as you know?! You and others involved dispute discarded may sources including those that are currently in use in the articles itself but is it okay to go by what you know? Is there can't be a slight possibility that a person, might have missed something? Should we only consider something to be true only when you know about it, regardless of what's actually out there?

Please have a look at these:, not coming from any media this time but from a reputed member of the central government of India.

This one is fromTalk:Rhea_Chakraborty :

The only topic of discussion here is your sloppy implication that Chakraborty is a suspect in a crime that you failed to identify. This is potentially defamatory content that you didn't bother to treat with the seriousness that it warrants, and you submitted it multiple times, even though it was disputed, and even though you were told that it violates our BLP policy. That's what we're discussing here. Do you not see that it is a problem to say "her boyfriend Shushant was found dead at his residence in Bandra ... with Rhea being the prime suspect in the case"? Do you truly not see the problem here? Do you not see what you are potentially implying that could be gravely defamatory? You can't call someone a suspect in a crime when you don't identify the crime. It's also just sloppy writing. You know about the Five Ws, don't you? And even if I put back the "The cause of death is still being investigated by CBI with Rhea being the prime suspect in the case" this doesn't sound odd to you? The CBI (according to you) doesn't know how he died, but Rhea is a suspect? What? That's ridiculous. Believe it or not, we actually have to employ some common sense when writing articles, and if a bad journalist says something ignorant or poorly-conceived, we can opt not to publish that. That is an option, you know. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

your sloppy implication that Chakraborty is a suspect in a crime that you failed to identify" : False, I have Identified it to be true several times. As far as sloppy writing is concerned, I was not done with the editing which was interrupted by that first revert.

"It's also just sloppy writing.": I also said if you didn't find it up to the mark, please fix it or at least mark it for clean up like on other pages on wikipedia with writing or grammar issues, instead of reverting the entire revision. But, it was ignored.

Believe it or not, we actually have to employ some common sense when writing articles, Here he is commenting on my common sense, even though It was not my opinion but what was being said by the sources that were currently used on the article for citations.

I've also mentioned that since there is an entire team of experts working on the case and still have not released any statement thus far, calling it a suicide OR murder, how can we or any news source declare it to be a suicide or "murder"? in response to the "common sense" comment.

"So newbie just copied the content and is hiding behind that as justification"

I only stated what I felt and many others will feel as I don't have a unique psychological response system. Calling a new user a "newbie" in this age is another way of saying what they call "noob" which is a disparaging word used for a new member, on any social forum/games/platforms on the internet these days. Also, I have been answering and providing all the citations for everything they challenged so I don't think it's fair to say that I'm Hiding behind anything here.


 * 1) My main concern : Instead of being a part of all of this, why can't wikkipedia call it "found dead" instead of "committed suicide", at least for the time being until we hear from the experts themselves which both the sides are agreeing to accept?
 * 2) If the article remains in a state as it is right know, unfortunately it IS being biased by declaring it a suicide citing indiatoday which now has withdrawn themselves from calling it a suicide.
 * 3) I'm also willing to accept to have the involved articles deleted, until at least there is something we can add after the investigation is over.
 * 4) The points I've made thus far can't be called "unsubstantial", and I strongly believe that the senior members who are volunteering in Dispute resolution would agree with me, at least in this regard.
 * 5) I Never wanted to change it to "murder", I only wanted it to be changed to "found dead" (not going for either side).
 * 6) Rhea Chakraborty is a "prime suspect" in Shushan's death case, which at this point can not be denied either. If anyone says something otherwise, they have not probably been keeping up with what's going on.
 * 7) Wikipedia can not go for what an individual "know of" as facts and does "not know of" as hoax, disregarding what's actually happening.
 * 1) I Never wanted to change it to "murder", I only wanted it to be changed to "found dead" (not going for either side).
 * 2) Rhea Chakraborty is a "prime suspect" in Shushan's death case, which at this point can not be denied either. If anyone says something otherwise, they have not probably been keeping up with what's going on.
 * 3) Wikipedia can not go for what an individual "know of" as facts and does "not know of" as hoax, disregarding what's actually happening.
 * 1) Rhea Chakraborty is a "prime suspect" in Shushan's death case, which at this point can not be denied either. If anyone says something otherwise, they have not probably been keeping up with what's going on.
 * 2) Wikipedia can not go for what an individual "know of" as facts and does "not know of" as hoax, disregarding what's actually happening.
 * 1) Wikipedia can not go for what an individual "know of" as facts and does "not know of" as hoax, disregarding what's actually happening.

♠ ÆCE | Talk | 02:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Be prepared for nobody to go through this text wall to address every point. The scope of this dispute resolution filing was the potentially defamatory content you added at Rhea Chakraborty. You can't file a dispute resolution case about a specific issue and then perpetually expand it. It is perplexing that you still don't understand why you can't call someone a suspect without quantifying what they are a suspect of. If you still can't understand this, and don't understand how your phrasing introduced content that could be inferred in a severely negative way that could be defamatory to Chakraborty, then I think it is very problematic for you to be editing biographies and I may explore whether you should be disallowed from editing articles related to Rajput, broadly construed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I'll take my chances here, thanks for the heads up. It was you guys who started from "sloppy writing" and kept shifting your concerns from there up to BLP violation, I was only answering your questions, explaining myself and providing all the citations that were asked from you all.

First off, please make it clear if it's about Rhea being a prime accuse or my edit changing "shushant committed suicide" to "shushant found dead" or "sloppy writing" or "lack of proper citation" or violation of BLP? because none of these were told about to me, at the same time, in fact they started coming up as I answered the previous ones from 3 different people who are basically "owning" the page because while they do warn other users from adding anything without seeking consent, they themselves have been adding a lot of things to the article without even discussing about the revisions they made before and in most cases even after they were published. Are administrators and their friends are exempted from seeking consensual agreement before adding anything to an article?

  ♠ ÆCE'''  | Talk | 05:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 'You don't want to add about rhea being an accused, I'm fine with that but you must also change shushant "committed suicide" to "found dead" to balance the article. This way it will be neutral and wikipedia will also be kept out of any controversies or other mess surrounding it. '
 * 'I've also proposed to 'delete the articles' until we hear from the experts working on the case which both the sides are willing to accept. '
 * 'I do not see wikipedia to be under any compulsion to have these articles for the time being until we actually have something to write about after'' the investigation is over.
 * 'I do not see wikipedia to be under any compulsion to have these articles for the time being until we actually have something to write about after'' the investigation is over.
 * 'I do not see wikipedia to be under any compulsion to have these articles for the time being until we actually have something to write about after'' the investigation is over.
 * These articles thus for only diminished the reputation of wikipedia, since the beginning and served no positive purpose at all what so ever.
 * So I suggest to either make the article to be neutral or just delete them for now, which will ensure that wikipedia is neither favoring nor harming anyone.
 * So I suggest to either make the article to be neutral or just delete them for now, which will ensure that wikipedia is neither favoring nor harming anyone.

For Robert McClenon and other Volunteers from User:ÆCE
Hi! I'd like to thank you once again for volunteering in my case. I believe I have said almost everything (well...apparently! haha!)I had to say regarding this and answered almost all the questions that were raised.

Tomorrow, I'm having surgery so unfortunately I won't be available here as I will be in post-op care for about a week. I was placed in the waiting list pretty low so I wasn't expecting that they'd call me so early. So, I'm leaving this matter in your experienced hands.

I'm willing to accept whatever you or other volunteers will decide. I'll try to come back as soon as I'll be allowed to.

Hoping to see you all soon!

Bye for now! :) -- ♠ ÆCE  | Talk | 08:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope your surgery goes well. I wish you a full and speedy recovery. NedFausa (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * this should probably be on the talk page. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Jing Lee
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 explained to the other user that including content on an organization in which the BLP has no demonstrable line of authority / leadership is a clear WP:COATRACK violation. I view the "important context" comment as facetious in light of a prior spurious and unsourced addition which I elaborated on here.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Discussion on user talk on that specific BLP

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

See above

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

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

INdia
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The Page 2020 Delhi Riots is highly biased and the editors are not entertaining genuine requests to modify content.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Ask Moderators to be less biased and be open to suggestions/edits without blocking opinions they do not agree with.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Wikipedia

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

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

Extreme E
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

As it stands Formula E have no registered IP and marks and have pending court cases and there are commercial partners that are coming in, and putting in significant time and investment. These groups and individulas are not being informed or aware of these significant pending issues. In light of this, this information should be included and made public knowledge. Two editors disagree with one editor.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Extreme_E

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Another view and indipendant view on this that are not affilated with Formula E would be very helpful

Summary of dispute by @Wild8oar
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

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

P'ent'ay
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 article had unreferenced information removed which made it seem as if P'ent'ay Christians were the original churches in Ethiopia, when contrary to that perspective, cited information and general information would show the Orthodox Tewahedo are the original churches in Ethiopia, established in the era of the Apostolic Age and via schism from the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo after independence was granted via war. It is also subject to dispute resolution as the infobox, instead of summarizing information was cluttered with it and poorly edited.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:P'ent'ay, Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A third perspective is in dire need pertaining to what appears to be continual stumbling blocks.

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

P'ent'ay discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.


 * HistoryEtCulture has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppeting and allegations of agendas it would seem. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Knoxville Police Department
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

A new section documenting killings by the police department was added (by me) using NPOV as best as I could and citing sources. Other reverted edits based on NPOV, so I made edits to accommodate NPOV corrections. Now the other contributors are disputing the inclusion of the section for "Notability" and "Undue weight" reasons but are not citing any specific Policies or guidelines to back up their arguments. I have been accused of Wikilawyering for citing policies in my argument. I am happy to make any reasonable accommodations for POV or to include links to other Wikipedia pages with with the specific details of the killings rather then including them directly on the page in question, but other contributors keep simply reverting my changes and disputing the inclusion rather than offering a compromise to maintain NPOV and proper weight while including relevant data on police activities which are part of a well documented national trend.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Knoxville_Police_Department

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Determine whether or not a section on controversial killings by a police department belongs on the Police Department's wiki page. Determine the standard for notability of a killing by police before the killing should be included. Are protests in response sufficient? What about federal lawsuits in response? What about a report from a local Non-Profit alleging a pattern of misconduct? What about ignored recommendations of officer discipline by the civilian Police oversight committee?

Summary of dispute by WikiDan61
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. appears to have an axe to grind with the KPD. He has editd at Knoxville Police Department and at Knox County, Tennessee trying to add this contentious material, and has been reverted in both cases. The problem with the material, no matter how neutrally presented, is that it gives undue weight to individual cases with no context. If EastTN could find a reliable source that reports that the KPD has a documented history of systemic abuse, that could be a fact that could be included in the article, with the individual cases cited (more briefly) as examples. But no such documented history has been presented, so the inclusion of these cases gives the impression of an abusive department without the reliable source to say so. I would further point out that three separate editors (including myself) have disagreed with the inclusion of this material at Talk:Knoxville Police Department, with one more editor disagreeing at Talk:Knox County, Tennessee. I think dispute resolution is not really the proper forum for this discussion, as this is not a simple case of one user disagreeing with another. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Viewmont Viking
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I also will keep it short. This seems more like an individual who is trying to right great wrongs and one who refuses to accept the communities decision. Unfortunately police sometimes have to use deadly force. Every incident of deadly force is not encylopedic. I agree with WikiDan. -- VViking Talk Edits 20:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bneu2013
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I don't really have much to say, other than I pretty much agree with WikiDan. User has not provided any sources that suggest that the inclusion of this content doesn't violate WP:UNDUE. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Knoxville Police Department discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Hello, I am willing to facilitate this resolution if no one objects. This will open as soon as the other editors contribute to their assigned sections.  Heart  Glow (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please notify all involved editors with ~ .  Heart  Glow  (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , do you want to comment on 's explanation?  Heart  Glow (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * EastTNPoliceStories appears to have an axe to grind with the KPD. He has editd at Knoxville Police Department and at Knox County, Tennessee trying to add this contentious material, and has been reverted in both cases.
 * Response: As this username implies, this account is intended to record additional data in police related articles in East Tennessee. In that vein I have added information about events involving both the Knox County Sheriffs Office and KPD.
 * If EastTN could find a reliable source that reports that the KPD has a documented history of systemic abuse, that could be a fact that could be included in the article, with the individual cases cited (more briefly) as examples. But no such documented history has been presented, so the inclusion of these cases gives the impression of an abusive department without the reliable source to say so.
 * Response: I supplemented my original local newspaper sources with the following secondary source: https://www.wuot.org/sites/wuot/files/2020-KCDP-PAC-Criminal-Justice-Reform-Recommendations.pdf which documents the recent history of KPD.Bneu2013 and objected to this source as "hyper-local", which I did not understand as an objection. I am happy to continue my research and provide additional secondary sources but would like to know where the goal posts are.
 * Please be sure to sign your comments! Also, is this original research as outlined in WP:NOR?  Heart  Glow (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think dispute resolution is not really the proper forum for this discussion, as this is not a simple case of one user disagreeing with another.
 * Response: As pointed out, there are multiple editors involved. I believe I followed WP:BRD appropriately to the first revisions by correcting the NPOV issues and posting the edits. When more serious complaints about the inclusion start, I stopped editing, allowed the discussion to run in a circle for a few cycles (they request more sources, I provide, they move the goal posts), and then escalated. Since there were multiple editors involved, DRN seemed the right route. I stopped pursuing the discussion on the Knox County page thinking one dispute might set a precedent for the other. EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the appropriate forum.  Heart  Glow (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I have wasted too much time arguing this issue at Talk:Knoxville Police Department and have chosen to disengage from that discussion. I will abide by whatever decision chooses to render in this case.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Diff's would be helpful to decide whether this is WP:AXE or WP:NPOV.  Heart  Glow (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I’ll gather some after I’m done with my math, also, I will note I was the first one to revert, but was not involved in this dispute, but will say my reasoning is the same as wikidans.  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 17:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you!  Heart  Glow (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knoxville_Police_Department&diff=prev&oldid=977587445
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knox_County,_Tennessee&diff=prev&oldid=977587660
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knoxville_Police_Department&diff=prev&oldid=977563226
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knox_County,_Tennessee&diff=prev&oldid=977562563
 * not on the page of the subject of this suggestion. but i believe this might be relevant as well in case the topic of him being hounded comes up.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EastTNPoliceStories&diff=prev&oldid=977412808&diffmode=source  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 17:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the notability guidelines aren't very clear on this. However, as far as I can see, it is not original research. Again, linking diffs to the disputed edits would be helpful.  Heart  Glow (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, in reviewing the diffs, could you defend why these are notable and are no local breaking news that are classified as unnotable to be unencyclopedic?  Heart  Glow (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me start with the most recent case. Philly Pheap's case is notable in that it lead to change in city position on body cameras. "The call for body cameras came after a KPD officer shot and killed Channara "Philly" Pheap after a struggle last August. The officer was cleared of charges, but the community called for more transparency." It also led to street protests: "About 75 protesters showed up to Tuesday's City Council meeting the day after the shooting of Channara Tom "Philly" Pheap at a northwest Knoxville apartment complex. Activists who spoke during the public forum portion of the meeting criticized officials for funding a new police headquarters instead of equipping officers with body cameras, demanded an independent investigation into the shooting and called for the ouster of Knoxville Police Department Chief Eve Thomas." A federal wrongful death lawsuit has been filed and is in process: "The family of the man who was fatally shot by a Knoxville Police officer last year has filed a federal wrongful lawsuit against the city, Knoxville Police and the KPD officer who shot him." Pheap's killing was cited in the KCDP PAC report . I'll stop here for a while and you can tell me if this meets the burden of notability before I do the other two cases.  EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Both sides make reasonable points, WP:CRIME lends itself to be useful. It is not a burden of notability. You do meet the majority of the requirements for notability, IF you can find multiple news outlets covering one event. And this lends itself in a tricky situation, it is one event. Could we perhaps come to a compromise?.  Heart  Glow (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with any compromise on wording, formatting, sourcing, including other opinions and POVS, etc as long as the factual information about these notable and controversial deaths is included in the article. EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm working a revised draft of the section in my sandbox. May take a while to fully to flesh it out, though this discussion has led me to gather a lot more sources and info. Would posting this revision on the talk page for editing before posting be a helpful step? EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me start with the most recent case. Philly Pheap's case is notable in that it lead to change in city position on body cameras. "The call for body cameras came after a KPD officer shot and killed Channara "Philly" Pheap after a struggle last August. The officer was cleared of charges, but the community called for more transparency." It also led to street protests: "About 75 protesters showed up to Tuesday's City Council meeting the day after the shooting of Channara Tom "Philly" Pheap at a northwest Knoxville apartment complex. Activists who spoke during the public forum portion of the meeting criticized officials for funding a new police headquarters instead of equipping officers with body cameras, demanded an independent investigation into the shooting and called for the ouster of Knoxville Police Department Chief Eve Thomas." A federal wrongful death lawsuit has been filed and is in process: "The family of the man who was fatally shot by a Knoxville Police officer last year has filed a federal wrongful lawsuit against the city, Knoxville Police and the KPD officer who shot him." Pheap's killing was cited in the KCDP PAC report . I'll stop here for a while and you can tell me if this meets the burden of notability before I do the other two cases.  EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Both sides make reasonable points, WP:CRIME lends itself to be useful. It is not a burden of notability. You do meet the majority of the requirements for notability, IF you can find multiple news outlets covering one event. And this lends itself in a tricky situation, it is one event. Could we perhaps come to a compromise?.  Heart  Glow (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with any compromise on wording, formatting, sourcing, including other opinions and POVS, etc as long as the factual information about these notable and controversial deaths is included in the article. EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm working a revised draft of the section in my sandbox. May take a while to fully to flesh it out, though this discussion has led me to gather a lot more sources and info. Would posting this revision on the talk page for editing before posting be a helpful step? EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I will say again that I do not believe the inclusion of these incidents to be an issue of notability, but rather an issue of neutrality and undue weight: the inclusion of these isolated incidents implies a history of abuse within the KPD, but without a reliably source narrative to verify that implication, I do not believe the material should be included. EastTN has provided a document produced by the Knoxville County Democratic Party Political Action Committe (KCDP PAC) in which they outline their complaints against the KPD, but given that this is a political document, it cannot be considered a reliable source. I would accept the inclusion of these incidents if a reliable unbiased source (a local or state newspaper) has reported on the record of abuse of the KPD. That source could then be cited to provide context for these isolated incidents. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * has at no point during this discussion offered any compromise or movement to consensus, no path to inclusion of these factual events, simply because they see an implication of a pattern in these events. Dan keeps claiming they are isolated incidents, yet says their occurrence implies a pattern. That is a ridiculous argument on its face and one I cannot argue with. I cannot prove these is or is not as pattern, any more than I can prove there is a teapot in orbit around Mars. I can prove these events occured and were precursors to other important events in the city of Knoxville, as I have. I again invite Dan to add more information to this article or help me edit the introduction to a new section about KPD controversies to appropriately contextualize these events. I have trouble believing Dan is acting in good faith in this effort to reach consensus and is really just biased in favor of KPD and refuses to allow anything that could be construed as negative about KPD to be included. EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, have we worked on this over the weekend?  Heart  Glow (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not made further edits to my draft. I was hoping to work on it early this week. Is creating a draft section on the Talk Page a good place to allow or others to make in-line edits and suggestions regarding NPOV and weighting before posting?
 * I would have to agree on both these points.  Heart  Glow (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you please clarify which points you agree or disagree with? The formatting makes the context of that remark confusing. EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have offered a path to compromise: provide a source that verifies that a reliable, neutral source has identified a pattern of abuse for the KPD. Failing that, the inclusion of these isolated incidents violates WP:NPOV. That is my position, and two other editors have agreed with it. Your position differs. That is why we have a neutral third party to try to resolve this dispute. I don't see a lot of progress happening with this DR process. We appear to have reached a stalemate. If you have no more to offer, I'll just walk away and let the chips fall where they may. I have wasted too much time on this issue already.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you cite the section and text of WP:NPOV that you believe the simple inclusion of this information violates? Or any other article about Police Misconduct which includes such a source? EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The best section I can point out is WP:BALANCE, where it describes giving proper weight to viewpoints, as well as the WP:UNDUE section. This is not an issue of "the policy says you can't do x, so don't do x." This is an case where the inclusion of these facts will imply a conclusion ("oh look, there's a controversy section, so this subject must be controversial") where no reliable source has reached that conclusion. This is not a cut-and-dried policy issue, but a more nuanced issue. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I do not believe that will WP:DISENGAGE as his username implies that his main directive is to fix East Tennessee Police stories. EastTNPoliceStories, I think that if you find a source as mentioned above. we can close this discussion.  Heart  Glow  (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I'm going to have pretty hard time finding a "neutral" source that says "These three recent killings constitute a definite pattern of abuse," and I think that is an unreasonably high bar. That's what Federal Consent Decrees are for and they require a significant burden of proof in Federal Court. I am not claiming there is a pattern. is claiming there is an implication of a pattern. Neutral secondary sources are explicitly not a requirement. WP:Secondary is very clear that "Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources." WP:P&P elaborates on this point. I submit that requiring an "unbiased" secondary source is against Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, I suggest  will claim that any source I produce with which he disagrees is "biased". The correct resolution would be for  to offer a secondary source offering another POV. Or for Dan to help me edit the section intro (or title) to avoid implication of a pattern. EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm just going to add that saying things such as
 * "I suggest wikidan61 will claim that any source I produce with which he disagrees is biased"
 * could be considered accusing him of wrongdoing and I would advise you avoid doing that/.  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 15:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , as is tapping out, ill try to take his place here, what I think might have been a better thing to say. would be to find sourcres that state that there has been a pattern, you are right in that no source is "neutral" however, what matters is how we present it. would you say this is a better way of explaining it?   LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 16:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * could be considered accusing him of wrongdoing and I would advise you avoid doing that/.  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 15:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , as is tapping out, ill try to take his place here, what I think might have been a better thing to say. would be to find sourcres that state that there has been a pattern, you are right in that no source is "neutral" however, what matters is how we present it. would you say this is a better way of explaining it?   LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 16:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm tapping out. I've been worn down and cannot waste any more breath on this topic. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not alleging a pattern. Dan alleged the implication of a pattern. I think, pattern or not, the information meets the standards for notability and it's simple inclusion with neutral language and fair editing does not violate any kind of weight or neutrality standard. I am happy to edit, revise, and negotiate over the specific language of each inclusion, as I have been from the beginning. I've already made two corrections to language Dan and others said was not neutral enough. I am happy to continue doing this through the standard WP:BRD approach. The only reason we're here is because all my edits were reverted wholesale and inclusion of these events at all is disputed. EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Okay,lets ignore and just throw out anything about a pattern. So far, your only sources are local sources. (as TheFreeThoughtProject is in no way a reliable source) and as said, can you find more then just local ones? if these events are notable, there should be more then just local sources talking about it.  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 17:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP: Primary explicitly allows the use of primary and local news sources. And WP:NEWSORG says "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)." Almost all of my sources were local news coverage of the facts. Your point about the TheFreeThoughtProject is a great example of an edit that could be handled via the WPBRD process. I move to close this discussion and explicitly allow the inclusion of discussed events while leaving the matter open for further editing and questioning of sources via the BRD process as the article is constructed by interested collaborating editors. If this really is an NPOV and/or undue weight issue, then the facts should be included in the KPD article and the language around those facts should be continued to be discussed and refined with a goal of including these events in a neutral and unbiased manner. EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A clip from EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Another Moderator's Statment
I hope won't mind me stepping in, but I feel like an important question needs to be asked-  is there any precident on any other police department pages for a list of deaths caused by police officers? Or is this a new feature you are going to try to add to every police department wikipage? I see that it has been brought up and the user rejected the idea that this type of list just isn't currently done so... I withdraw. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this type of thing is done on many police pages. In fact, I'd say the majority of Wikipedia pages about organizations that are in any way political often include a "Controversies" section. Renaming the proposed Section Heading to "Controversies" is totally fine with me and could reduce Undue Weight Concerns. And yes, I'd like to see all killings by police that lead to a lawsuit and/or policy change on every police department page under an appropriate heading. EastTNPoliceStories (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

British Pakistanis
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

Brief: A monitored rewriting help too can help solve content dispute.

Details:

At article British Pakistanis I had added a referenced section on sectarianism, which was deleted by frequently monitoring user. I attempted engaging with the user at Talk:British Pakistanis#sectarianism by providing additional references and also offering to rewrite as he prefers but the said user did not turn up on talk page again.

This month I attempted taking third opinion which I am not satisfied enough but third user too advised rewriting of content. Basically since I know references I am at loss of words to rewrite in some other way. Besides I am not sure any non-monitored rewriting will be retained in the article because article being low profile any criticism gets deleted. Besides edit history shows that mentions of Ahamadia community are looked down upon and meted with deletions or differential treatment.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:British_Pakistanis attempted engaging with user and third opinion have been tried as said in overview itself.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By helping in rewriting if necessary and monitoring inclusion and retention of the content

Summary of dispute by Pincrete
The sources offered do not remotely support the content which the editor wishes to insert. Most do not even mention British Pakistanis - they speak of Muslims in general, or Urdu language publications sold in the UK. That there is antipathy between mainstream Muslims and Ahmadi seems to be indisputable, British Pakistanis may well share that antipathy (I am no expert on either Islam nor the Ahmadis), but no source highlights this as being prevalent or even noteworthy among British Pakistanis. I'm afraid the editor doesn't understand sourcing. There is nothing worth discussing until the editor can find sources that speak specifically about British Pakistanis and which establish general trends rather than individual anti-Ahmadi incidents (which have occurred it seems). There are several articles about relations between mainstream Muslims and Ahmadis, those are the proper places to deal with the issue IMO. Pincrete (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Disputed content here.Pincrete (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

British Pakistanis discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Hello, I am willing to facilitate this resolution if no one objects. This will open as soon as the other editors contribute to their assigned sections.  Heart  Glow (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please notify all involved editors with ~ .  Heart  Glow  (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer for proactive support in dispute resolution. The other user has been notified at the talk page. Do we need to notify user who gave third opinion too? Thanks Bookku (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Pincrete seems to have joined. I find it strange that on one hand he says he is neither British Pakistani nor understand Islamic nuances still too eager to own a Wikipedia article deleting sourced content which at the most can be written differently. User:Pincrete may be going too literal than understanding context that is why there may be difference of perception in between me and him.

On 17th August 2020, @ Talk:British Pakistanis I have submitted a scholarly youtube discourse of Researcher Mohammed Ali Haji & Researcher Anya Clarkson mention of sectarianism in UK not only against Ahemedia but against Shia community;   @ 7 minutes 30 seconds they mention of bigger role of Pakistani Muslims in UK being majority among UK's Muslim minority, 11 minutes 58 seconds they complaint that usage of Urdu and Arabic language in UK to perpetuate hate speech and sectarianism and thats how sectarianism can't be seen by UK's English speaking majority. This is the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiwtRMV7wqc YouTube link. I do request User:HeartGlow30797 to cross check the youtube. As far as accepting that particular Youtube as Reliable source if not acceptable, then I shall prefer to begin separate Rfc. After discussing this I will put up my rest of the points here. I request and prefer to continue rest of the discussion too at this noticeboard itself Thanks Bookku (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Youtube video has a single researcher (Anya Clarkson around 7 mins) saying that Pakistan has a bigger influence on UK Muslims than most people acknowledge, and that UK Muslims are numerically mainly from South Asia (Pakistan, India and B Desh) similarly her comments after 11min don't even mention British Pakistanis, but she does mention Urdu and Arabic being the vehicle for sectarian speech. What you are doing is called WP:SYNTH, you are attempting to combine seperate bits of info to come to a conclusion that no single source endorses. Even if we accepted the video as a RS, and even if she said anything explicit about British Pakistanis - as opposed to UK Muslims, this is a single source and we cannot make such widespread comments about an entire community as you wish to insert (claims that hate speech and sectarianism are prevalent in that community), based on the opinion of a single researcher, but the main thing is that she doesn't say what you think she says.


 * Not being Pakistani, or Muslim and knowing almost nothing about Ahmadi makes me a perfectly neutral editor who can judge whether content is actually supported by the sources given. As I've said before, I would not be at all surprised to find out that there was sectarianism among British Pakistanis, as there is in most 'faith based communities', however none of your sources supports the text you want to insert, or indeed anything very much about British Pakistanis.Pincrete (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , in the Youtube as a source, I would argue it is not a source per WP:SOURCES, as I do not think it establishes a WP:NPOV. However, this does not eliminate it from using a source. It also does not cite any of its sources in the description or comments providing no verifiability to its claims. I do not see it as a reliable source, could you defend these points?  Heart  Glow (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The Youtube video does not mention British Pakistanis, so how can it be a source for anything about them? What it discusses is Muslims and UK Muslims in general, of which admittedly British Pakistanis are a considerable percentage, but it is still SYNTH to extrapolate any conclusion about agroup not even mentioned in the source.Pincrete (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

One can't have issues with 'the' others, even if some one  silently  removes  minutest mentions of Ahemedias in Muslim, Pakistan and British Pakistani Wikipedia articles and 'the' others remain silent and there after Talk:Mirror  and claim they are neutral besides they can Talk:Mirror to claim  they  are neither British nor Pakistanis nor they understand Islam and hence self certify neutrality. Actually one can experience few better Pakistanis accepting and adding critical sentences in some of Wikipedia articles at just hint of it but all users need not be same :), said that. Let us come back to main issue at hand.


 * Issue No 1: The following section deleted by User:Pincrete was very well sourced, question was at the most of wording and I offered the fellow Wikipedian to make changes and restore the following paragraph, may be he did not or could not for some obvious reasons, on this notice board I am offering alternate wording from my side and requesting to restore the paragraph.


 * Deleted Section by fellow Wikipedia user:
 * Section heading was : Sectarianism
 * A 2017 BBC Radio 4 programme revealed prevalence of hate speech, sectarianism and extreme point of views in U.K. based Urdu language print media. Many times content edited in Pakistan being republished as is in UK without consideration of British laws and values.  One of the U.K. based Pakistani newspaper even used to run adverts to boycott a fruit company for some of the share holders being from Ahmadi community (a sect which  believes itself to be Muslim but most Pakistanis do not).


 * Suggesting following changed wording


 * Section heading Suggesting : Concerns of minority within minority
 * One more alternate section heading :Concerns of Ahmedia among British Pakistani
 * A 2017 BBC Radio 4 programme revealed instance of hate speech, sectarianism and extreme point of views in U.K. based Urdu language print media. Many times content edited in Pakistan being republished as is in UK without consideration of British laws and values.  One of the U.K. based Pakistani newspaper even used to run adverts to boycott a fruit company for some of the share holders being from Ahmadi community (a sect which  believes itself to be Muslim but most Pakistanis do not).

The Youtube mentioned earlier corroborates use of 'Urdu language' in hate speech, but we will reserve that ref for RfC.


 * Issue No. 2:

As such here is one more instance reported by Pakistani news paper report dated October 7, 2019 https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/537627-naz-shah-opposes-salma-yaqoob-over-despicable-campaign.


 * There is a word baradarisim we can have a separate Rfc whether that does mean sectarianism or not.


 * ...The Labour Party’s selection process for West Midland’s mayor..plunged into a serious crisis after two British Pakistanis politicians have publicly fought each other...Bradford MP Naz Shah accused prospective candidate Salma Yaqoob of being unfit for office for running a campaign of hate and baradarisim against her during the general election campaign of 2017....Salam Yaqoob,...rejected allegations by Naz Shah....Naz Shah told the NEC that Salma Yaqoob endorsed a campaign of misogyny, religious and sectarian hate, patriarchy and baradari (clan) politics in 2017. Naz Shah has publicly said that her life was put at risk, she was subjected to public humiliation in Pakistani and Kashmiri community of Bradford and treated as inferior by Salma’s campaign group, on her behest, during the controversial campaign and that she was driven to contemplate suicide...
 * Whether fellow Wikipedian who does not see words British Pakistanis and sectarian hate anywhere together can read above report billion times again and again and  Talk:Mirror billion times and say 'I am neutral' billion times or still want to go for RfC separately for including above instance in the article British Pakistanis.


 * I hope and request User:HeartGlow30797 and other users to take note of above for their information and record.


 * Thanks to all for supporting resolution of above mentioned issues by reading them.
 * Bookku (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , you and appear to be arguing about two different things. As for the deleted paragraph, I see no reason why it was deleted, and the aforementioned can be reserved for RfC. It follows all guideline containing WP:SOURCES. Can we agree to the proposed change of wording?  Heart  Glow  (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We certainly cannot agree. The BBC source used claims existence of hate speech, not prevalence and it does not say that this hate speech is sectarian in nature, in fact it implies that it is anti-western hate speech (using the word jihadi), it is part of a general and very vague intro to a radio programme. How can one overcome the fundamental obstacle that the sources proposed do not even mention British Pakistanis? They merely refer to Muslims in general or UK Muslims. That there is antipathy to Ahmadis from mainstream Muslims is not something I have ever disputed, but the proposed text is akin to putting on the British Irish page content about the Catholic church not liking Mormons - it simply does not belong and the sources do not support it. Pointing to individual examples of UK Pakistani public figures arguing and trying to extrapolte some general truth from that is pure WP:OR I'm afraid. Naz Shah (or any other individual) accusing another individual of ANYTHING does not in itself justify content on the British Pakistanis page, WP:WEIGHT applies. Pincrete (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your continued support in resolving this content dispute. As you said as of now I will focus on the first issue here in this discussion. You might have noticed although words sectarian and prevalence are not my own fig of imaginations still I have dropped them and I am making one more offer of a draft replacing word 'sectarian' by 'discrimination' at the remaining place, while BBC radio  is very much using word sectarianism, and other than couple of seconds most of audio is about Urdu press and media largely consumed by British Pakistanis. I will give details at what minute what is said below the draft but let us focus the draft.


 *  Second alternate wording draft by entirely dropping word sectarian
 * A 2017 BBC Radio 4 programme revealed instance of hate speech, discrimination and extreme point of views in U.K. based Urdu language print media. Many times content edited in Pakistan being republished as is in UK without consideration of British laws and values.  One of the U.K. based Pakistani newspaper even used to run adverts to boycott a fruit company for some of the share holders being from Ahmadi community (a sect which  believes itself to be Muslim but most Pakistanis do not).


 * Section heading Suggesting : Concerns of minority within minority
 * One more alternate section heading :Concerns of Ahmadiyya among British Pakistani


 * and notice board readers, if you have not heard the BBC broadcast then please do listen in At 55th second words 'exposing hate speech and sectarianism come, The broadcast specially Minute 2 to 3 is very much discussing Urdu news papers either reprinting Urdu content from Pakistan with a Pakistani flag and also says Urdu language spoken by majority of British Pakistanis or in one case having editorial control in Pakistan; listen from at 12 minute 30 seconds it says when I came from Pakistan I thought people here  are  well educated but when visited found that they are more aggressive than Pakistan, expression British Pakistani comes clearly one more time in the broadcast, but would not be too naive that the whole broadcast discussing Pakistan and usage of Urdu in UK among them and this broadcast and Pakistan origin Urdu media has nothing to do with British Pakistanis and would not deserve any mention in Wikipedia article about British Pakistanis?
 * https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b096hczb says : Released On: 03 Oct 2017, Manveen Rana uncovers hate speech, sectarianism and even support for Jihad in some of Britain's Urdu language newspapers, radio stations and TV channels.
 * To deny it one might need to agree that logic has never evolved among homo sapiens since past 200 million years.
 * Any ways if the fellow Wikipedian still does not want to agree then he might need to be ready for few RfCs in near future on related topics. I rest my side with this here and leave it for better sense and judgement to prevail.
 * Thanks Bookku (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * For Information and record A fresh request has been made at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_96 Bookku (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not how we do things, pre-deciding on content and then fishing for sources to support that content, though why you think a book about extremism in Pakistan and on the killing of Bhutto would have anything pertinent to say about sectarianism in the UK Pakistani population is a mystery to me. Pincrete (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This book is mentioned on talk page discussion wayback since it had come up in relevant google book search preview which I didn't record immediately. That project has particular purpose to assist for such cases In any case I have not written and not going to write any book purposefully for this topic, and if any reliable source comes up why one need to be afraid in accepting the same? Bookku (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Isfahan
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

Prostitution is a economy thing however taboo

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Isfahan

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Resolve the dispute

Isfahan discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * This issue is not yet to the point where it needs dispute resolution. Baratiiman posted a note at the article's talk page but did not get a response from Pahlevun, and I don't blame Pahlevun for not responding there because it is fairly obvious that information is just of no relevance to the article about the city. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Economy of Iran
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

Removing picture of beggar in the page raises eyebrows

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_Iran&action=history

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Punish him for good

Economy of Iran discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * A ridiculous post, the issue has not been discussed at all, same as for the above thread. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Fashion in Iran
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

Clearly the pic is related

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

User_talk:Baratiiman

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Restore it and saction the possible vandalism

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

2020 Atlantic hurricane season
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There is a user who constantly reverts or changes my edits for incorrect reasons. This has happened more than 3 times now and each time I have to spend time redoing my edits from scratch. We have already had discussions (sometimes extensive) when these disputes occur. Today the user once again reverted my edits for a completely false reason. This time I simply politely asked him not to immediately revert my work and first resort to discussing the issue in the talk page. The user seems to have gotten angry at my polite request and now insists that we revert back to a clearly incorrect information just so he/she can teach me a lesson. This is beyond ridiculous and childish. How can I resolve this issue? I sense that the user has now developed a grudge against me and is now intended to change my edits every time regardless of the accuracy of the information.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

, , We have also discussed these issues through the editing comments

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Give me advice on how to deal with this issue since this is my first time I have this type of dispute with another user. As of right now the other user insists on using clearly incorrect information in the article only because of a personal grudge against me since I suppose I had the nerve to politely ask him/her to discuss issues before constantly reverting.

Summary of dispute by Destroyeraa
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Hello there ! So basically, Hurricane Sally's article has some dispute about how much damage it caused. put a source a couple of days ago saying it caused between $1-3 billion in damage. A day later, Hurricane21 put up a new source saying that it caused more than $7 billion in damage. Cyclonebiskit reverted it to old sourced, saying that his source was more accurate/better. Hurricane21 reverted it back, saying that his/her source was newer and therefore better and more accurate. There was a slew or reverts/edit warring. Then I saw the edit warring and looked through the sources. A link in Hurricane21's source showed that the storm caused $5 billion in immediate damage, with a $7-8 billion estimate. Other sources said that the storm caused $1-3, $2, and $5 billion in damage. Then, Hurricane21 decided to speak with me on my talk page, saying this:

After reading, I decided to reverted it back to Cyclonebiskit's edit, since Cyclonebiskit had a newer sourced than the 10-day source. I also added that Hurricane21 needed to gain consensus for the new source per WP:BRD, since multiple users were opposed to the new source provided by Hurricane21. I said: and Hurricane21 responded:.

To be honest, I do not know why Hurricane21 is accusing me of having a grudge, when I respectfully responded to his/her questions. I also do not know why this discussion is on the Dispute resolution board, not on Sally's talk page. In addition, I feel that Hurricane21 needs to read basic policies before accusing other users of things.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 23:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, I do not think this is very respectful: ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 23:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Still. No grudges. Let's get a move on and stop debating on this page and actually debating about content on the most appropriate page- Talk:Hurricane Sally. This way, Cyclonebiskit, you, and I can discuss and debate about which source is most reliable. Most sources say damage is around $1-5 billion, including the US's FEMA. However, this is perhaps not the best place about discussing Sally. has opened a discussion thread at Talk:2020 Atlantic hurricane season, and we should probably go there and discuss. No more attacking the other person or pointing fingers. How does that sound? ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 01:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reverted it back to your edit as we can now civilly discuss on the season's talk page. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 01:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

2020 Atlantic hurricane season discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

This is my response to Destroyeraa's false statements above. I will highlight his post in bold and then respond underneath. I will respond to every single sentence in his post and provide proof of his false statements when needed.

'''Hello there Hurricane21! So basically, Hurricane Sally's article has some dispute about how much damage it caused. Cyclonebiskit put a source a couple of days ago saying it caused between $1-3 billion in damage.'''

Correct

A day later, Hurricane21 put up a new source saying that it caused more than $7 billion in damage.

False. I never posted a new source. I simply undid revision 980527673 by Cyclonebiskit back to the original number of $5 billion and specifically mentioned in the comment that his new source did not give an estimate for the total damage and that article he had posted itself clearly said that the damage estimate did not include NFIP losses, which actually constitute the majority of the total losses according to another article from the same source. I even posted a link to the other article mentioning this fact. Then Cyclonebiskit reverted my edit saying that his source was more recent without even addressing the reason for my reversion of his original edit. Then a third user called "TovarishhUlyanov" posted a new source that was even more recent than Cyclonebiskit's source which actually gave an estimate for the total damage, which was stated at $7 billion. The user "TovarishhUlyanov" mentioned in the comment that his source should clear up the small dispute. After this the dispute seemed to have been resolved as Cyclonebiskit did not revert TovarishhUlyanov's edits and no one else raised any concerns with the new source. I was of course fine with going with the new source posted by TovarishhUlyanov, which was both recent and complete.

Cyclonebiskit reverted it to old sourced, saying that his source was more accurate/better.

False. Cyclonebiskit reverted my revision only one time saying that his source was more recent not that it was more "accurate/beter". Cyclonebiskit's reasoning for reverting my revision did not respond at all to my comment. He also mentioned that we could not speculate about additional costs from NFIP, which is irrelevant to the issue as every available source at this point is only estimating costs and not giving an exact number. My issue with Cyclonebiskit's source was that it was incomplete and only gave an estimate for a small portion of the total damage.

Hurricane21 reverted it back, saying that his/her source was newer and therefore better and more accurate.

False. Destroyeraa is now making up fake events as he goes because as in the previous instances when he inserts himself in other people's disputes he's not fully aware of the sequence of events and the fact that the disputes he is constantly unnecessarily getting involved with have already been resolved. Destroyeraa is falsely claiming I once again reverted back Cyclonebiskit's edit. I never did such a thing. You can confirm this in the article's revision history. As I have already said above. A third user called TovarishhUlyanov was the one who came in at this point with a new source claiming that his new source should resolve the dispute. So up to this point the actual sequence of events were:

1. Cyclonebiskit comes with a new source claiming damage estimates for the hurricane were between $1-3 billion. 2. I revert his edit saying his new source was incomplete and clearly states that it does not include a large portion of the actual total cost. I provide proof for my statement. 3. Cyclonebiskit reverts my edit back to his, claiming his new source was more recent, which was irrelevant to my comment. 4. TovarishhUlyanov comes and provides a new source, which is even more recent than Cyclonebiskit's source, and actually includes an estimate for the total cost instead of only a portion of the total cost. 5. The dispute seems to have been resolved at this point as no one else raises any objections until as usual Destroyeraa comes out of nowhere and reverts everything back to the starting point once again and falsely claims that the "New source still says around 5 billion" (<--- exact quote by Destroyeraa), which is a false statement as the new source (Still posted in the article) never mentioned such a thing.

There was a slew or reverts/edit warring

False. I already provided the sequence of events in the previous paragraph. There was a total of 2 revisions and one new source provided by a third user. Hardly a characteristic of "edit warring".

'''Then I saw the edit warring and looked through the sources. A link in Hurricane21's source showed that the storm caused $5 billion in immediate damage, with a $7-8 billion estimate. Other sources said that the storm caused $1-3, $2, and $5 billion in damage.'''

1. It was not my source as I explained above. 2. You had looked at the old source because when you revert everything back to the starting point you bring back the original article, which had mentioned the $5 billion estimate. You did not look at the new source, which never mentioned anything about $5 billion. Once again you inserted yourself in a dispute where the side of the dispute you are now defending was concerned about sources being most recent. You're now arguing based on the original outdated article, which Cyclonebiskit himself was trying to discard.

Hurricane21 reverted it back, which was a violation of the 3RR.

False. First of all as mentioned above I only reverted 1 time. After the dispute was resolved and you restarted the dispute from scratch I opened a discussion in your talk page asking you where you got the idea that the new source says the total cost was still $5 billion. After several hours of you not responding I figured out that you must have incorrectly looked at the original old article thinking it was the new one since you had reverted everything back to the original starting point. I mentioned this in your talk page and reverted the total to the new source's estimate of $7 billion. It needs to be said that Destroyeraa has had a history of disputing my edits for incorrect reasons and never starts any discussions about them with me. He always reverses my edits stating his reasons in the comment. I'm the one who constantly tries to talk things out before reverting but since Destroyeraa never returns the respect I decided to not to waste anymore time and went ahead and reverted for the 2nd time. Destroyeraa then reverted my edit again without even addressing my comment, stating that I needed to have discussed the issue in the talk page before taking any action which makes no sense as Destroyeraa is the one who reverted my edit for a completely false reason and not me.

 Then, Hurricane21 decided to speak with me on my talk page,

False. I had started the discussion in your talk page before reverting for the second time. I was asking you for clarification for your false statement, then after several hours of you not responding I figured out where you were mistaken and went ahead and corrected the mistake.

After reading, I decided to reverted it back to Cyclonebiskit's edit, since Cyclonebiskit had a newer sourced than the 10-day source.

The newer source, which you apparently never read was even more recent than Cyclonebiskit's source. All you did was restart the already resolved dispute from the beginning as you have done at least one other time in the last few weeks alone. You simply come out of nowhere, skim read the revision history without fully investigating the sequence of events, make assumptions, restart already resolved disputes without bothering to talk to anybody first, and end up wasting everyone else's time.

 I also added that Hurricane21 needed to gain consensus for the new source per WP:BRD, since multiple users were opposed to the new source provided by Hurricane21.

False.

1. The new source was not mine as mention several times already. 2. There were never "multiple users" who were "opposed" to the new source provided by TovarishhUlyanov (not me). Even Cyclonebiskit was not opposed to the new source and did not raise any objections. You were the only user who was opposed to "the new source" which apparently you never even bothered to read.

'''To be honest, I do not know why Hurricane21 is accusing me of having a grudge, when I respectfully responded to his/her questions. '''

You are not respectful, you constantly waste people's time with by starting unnecessary disputes that you don't even understand and don't even concern you. I've already mentioned the reasons why your behavior comes across as disrespectful and rude. If it was just one time it would have been fine but you constantly do this and have never even once attempted to talk things out with me or with anyone else before restarting already resolved disputes.

 I also do not know why this discussion is on the Dispute resolution board, not on Sally's talk page

Because you never bother to open any discussions before reverting everyone else's edits, which in some cases take hours to resolve. It's your responsibility to open a discussion if you have an issue with an already resolved dispute not other people's. You're the one who has an issue not me, why should I open a discussion when I have no issue to resolve? You're the one constantly opening up unnecessary disputes and then accusing me of not starting a discussion about it, which is in fact a false accusation since I have actually always opened up a discussion (including this time) before further editing (Something you have never done with me)

I feel that Hurricane21 needs to read basic policies before accusing other users of things

Hopefully the mods can make the correct judgement of who's the one who needs to read basic policies and learn basic etiquette.

Hurricane21 (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this content dispute is resolved between the two parties. There is currently a civil and respectful discussion on Talk:2020 Atlantic hurricane season. , what do you think? I believe that there is no point continuing the discussion here, and, therefore, it should be closed. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 01:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

WAP (song)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Warning Explicit Content: The issue I am bringing up is on 12, August 2020, there was an edit on the article that featured a screenshot of an explicit single. The screenshot is dual juxtaposed, with the bottom featuring 1 singer that maintains integrity and isn't deliberately provocative. However the top screenshot violates the principles of MOS:SHOCKVALUE because the mirrors reflect the nudity. The single has gotten controversy due to its explicit content. However, the article itself states the explicit content is stratified for viewers who wish to see the explicit content in a separate video or a fans only site. Therefore, the justification of a majority and minority distinction has been ascertained. The video has multiple avenues for representation if the user do wish to post the screenshot. It still isn't clear why that edit took that particular screenshot out of the 187 possible screenshots. That particular screenshot is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous. When multiple avenues are presented, the edit must choose the least offensive one, following the principles of least shock that caters to the majority audience who are those who want Wikipedia to be a repository for non-neutral content per WP:GRATUITOUS. By choosing that screenshot instead of the one like the bottom one, the explicit content minority audience is favored. Per WP:DISC, Wikipedia isn't censored which I completely agree. However, its image policy must be used to explain the article's information. Per the Wikiprojects in Songs or Albums a cursory look at the precedents such as A Day in the Life only features images that are relevant to the song such as geography, items used, and live recordings. It is ascertained the music video is already popular. Therefore, a majority of editors never post the actual screenshots of songs for their song articles. Why isn't this article in dispute following the precedents set by these Wikiprojects?
 * My brief dispute overview: I believe, the second screenshot posted in the article in question violates MOS:SHOCKVALUE, due to the many factors of laws that are broken stated above. Therefore, I think I could delete the screenshot next time and not get reverted by a user due to the general consensus of volunteers here in this noticeboard as proof of my actions.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?



How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I believe the admins can review the policies of Wikipedia aren't violated with this inclusion of the screenshot. The admins can help steer toward a good consensus. The admins represent the majority of users in Wikipedia, so their words can ascertain whether Wikipedia is indeed a repository of non neutral content that uses the principle of least shock. If the admins see the citations used, not a single article posted a screenshot of such gratuitous material.

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

Summary of dispute by OkIGetIt20
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

WAP (song) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - I have two comments. First, the statement by the filing editor talks about what they would like the admins to do.  This is not an administrative noticeboard, and the volunteers here are not administrators.  Does the filing editor want assistance in reaching a compromise, or assistance in arriving at consensus, or assistance in publishing an RFC, or what?  Second, it is hard to tell what the filing editor wants.  Their 309-word statement doesn't have a lede sentence.  It is clear that they are unhappy about something having to do with explicit content.  It isn't clear if they are saying that there is too much explicit content, or that the explicit content has not been censored, or that the explicit content has been censored, or that there should be a way to skip it.  I would suggest that each editor, including the filing editor, provide a one-sentence or two-sentence summary, making it clear what they are saying about explicit content or anything else.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have waited some days, now but no response. However both users seem to be active.7curator78 (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

David Duke
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The issue is whether David Duke should be labeled a "white supremacist" or a "white nationalist". Based on Wikipedia's own "white supremacy" and "white nationalism" pages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism) and direct statements from the David Duke, I think it is clear he should be labeled a "white nationalist" not a "white supremacist".

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Duke#white_supremacist_--%3E_white_nationalist

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

You should decide whether "white nationalist" or "white supremacist" is a more accurate term for David Duke.

Summary of dispute by Ian.thomson
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. We have a user who previously asked us to tone down our coverage of InfoWars because he read their site and thought they weren't all that crazy, who has since started a discussion admitting that they listen to David Duke's podcasts. They didn't start off claiming that the Duke article doesn't line up with our article on white supremacism, they started with 'hey, I was listening to David Duke' and only backtracked when I pointed out how bad that sounds. And when it became apparent they weren't going to get consensus (gee, wonder why?), they started this attempt at forum shopping. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Matt Fraser (psychic)
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
 * (myself)

On the article lede, users Roxy the dog and Rp2006 reverted in two sentences (one about the sting operation and second about critics study of Fraser's performances). I have discussed on the talk page with Rp2006 (without a conclusion) that the sentences are not WP:DUE and whether or not they are a part of the body, they should not be in the lede as we should be holding the lede to a stricter NPOV criteria given that it's a summary. As a summary, it should only contain important points of the person's life and here, a one time sting operation is not an important event neither WP:DUE. These two sentences are WP:BLP issues due to this unbalanced lede. It is my recommendation to remove these sentences from the lede without prejudice against their inclusion (or lack of it) in the body. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 10:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC) — MkNbTrD0086 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Matt Fraser (psychic)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I request that mediators help us resolve this issue so that the editors can focus on content. The volunteers from the dispute resolution noticeboard will help us keep the discussion to the point and wikipedia policy based with an understanding that consensus cannot be built against the policy, this will help speed up our discussion. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 10:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MkNbTrD0086 (myself)
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. see dispute over view MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Rp2006
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

To summarize what I said on the article's talk page: the disputed lead (not "lede" per WP) sentence regarding the sting op and coverage by the NYT Magazine in a special report ("Inside the Secret Sting Operations to Expose Celebrity Psychics") is what initially gave the subject the notability to have a WP article in the first place at the time of writing. This is evidenced by it being included in the lead in the original version here. Prior to this, an earlier article was deleted as not notable. Also, the claim that WP:DUE and WP:NPOV limit what is acceptable for the lead is unsubstantiated. As a matter of fact, it may be reasonable to add mention to the lead of the follow-up articles by (WP notable) author Susan Gerbic regarding the sting as well as other analyses of the subject during his many media appearances (some of which have already included in the article) where he uses common, fraudulent methods to fool people into thinking he has unsubstantiated, supernatural abilities. RobP (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Roxy the dog
I endorse comments by Rob. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bilby
There is an issue of balance - if the goal of the lede is to summarise the body, the focus on an unsucessful sting is a bit undue, while more mention could be made of other issues in the article to make it mroe balanced. Not sure if this is the best avenue to pursue this in, but so be it. - Bilby (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Guy
The NYT piece seems to be the major non-trivial coverage of the subject other than churnalism. Articles on grief vampires have a horrible tendency to be basically PR pieces, and this is one of the rare cases where reality gets a look-in. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Matt Fraser (psychic) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.


 * I agree with bilby that this is making the article unbalanced as lede is a more prominent area of the article while the content is not that worthy for the lede. What I am suggesting is to simply move this content down in the body. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi I'm BJackJS. I'll be volunteering to handle your dispute resolution. Is everyone ready to begin this discussion? BJackJS (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * My main comment is above, but I want to add that what is well know but rarely publicly addressed is that many (most?) people ONLY read an article's lead. And Google/Alexa,etc, only return the first paragraph of the lead in a search. So it is paramount that something substantive about criticism be there, else the result is to whitewash the article in POV favor of the subject. Lastly, as I stated on Talk, I find it suspicious that an SPA (created to edit this article) is attempting to remove this statement from the lead claiming it is WP policy. RobP (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You cannot just discredit the merit of my argument by using that as an excuse. I am not a single purpose user, I just started from a topic that interested me. Everyone has got to start somewhere, right. As it says on top of the noticeboard "This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out," So please be civil and discuss the content only, not contributors.
 * Now that we have that out of the way, and we follow rules like good wikipedia editors, it is paramount to bring to your attention that I am not asking for excluding content, only to balance the intro. Thank you for bringing to light the importance the intro has in an article. Which means, WP:BLP should be applied more on the intro. Unfounded claims can be reverted as it says in WP:BLP. There is no need to give any favor to the subject. The intro only needs to tell what the subject is notable for and known for. Now coming to your claim that the article was created and "notable" for the said operation, a previous version of the wikipedia article is also created by wikipedia editors just like its current version. It is not an argument nor a reliable source that since it was created like that, it is right. In fact, that is what we are correcting here to balance the intro.
 * From your source about the operation, it is not possible that a person is notable just because that operation was caried out. That would be violating WP:BLP1E which says "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event". So if your source is the main source which makes him notable, then it is not worthy of establishing notability of his article alone. That makes your statement that this source is what made him notable untrue. There are obviously other sources, events coverage. Intro is currently not in balance to them all. There are already two editors (me and bilby) that have stated that this statement is odd and untrue. The source does not count the operation as a success. Burden to prove the inclusion of this sentence while following WP:DUE and WP:NPOV is on you.
 * I wonder what other uninvolved mediators and editors have to say. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I added Guy to the list here as he commented on Talk. Also, do you really expect people to believe that you just picked up all of this advanced knowledge about Wikipedia rules and regulations - pointing to applicable guideline articles in the correct shorthand format, etc — and you have not edited WP before under a different ID? I believe that less than I do that Fraser is a psychic medium. RobP (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I welcome guy and all volunteers to discuss this, sure. I do not claim any advance knowledge. I read through your comments and wikipedia rules before making my comments like any educated person would do. Maybe you should too because you are yet to establish why your revert should be there. I suggest that you stop fishing by making off topic accusations of I being someone else. It will derail the discussion. Will you respond to my above comment and clear how your version is in due weight? I shall wait on your logical response to the topic and subject. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the lede is fine and balanced. The article is primarily about his life outside of his TV appearance as that is well covered in the separate article Meet the Frasers. CatCafe (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously this is not just about his life outside TV, it is a biography and of a living person WP:BLP says it covers even if we talk about a living person in a different page or the talk page. But we are talking on the main biography. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sir/Madam. I did not say "this is not just about his life outside TV" as you say. I said the "article is primarily about his life outside of his TV appearance" - that primarily and likely being his "psychic medium" activities. There is a distinct difference, no need for you to paraphrase me in error. CatCafe (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is about his life as a whole and not primarily life outside of TV, being a biography in any case. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The article about TV program will need to be independently notable and cannot restrict the topic of a primary biography even if it takes from the biography. So the argument that life on TV is well covered there does not negate the inclusion here. This article is about the life as a whole and not primarily about life outside of TV. If the person is notable both for TV and outside, then it is about both. Balance in POV needs to come overall. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC) — MkNbTrD0086 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * considering you are an WP:SPA created last month, with a repetitive need to push your position this far, I apologise but have to ask - Are you in any way associated with the subject Fraser or any of his associates? Look, when you said "I wonder what other uninvolved mediators and editors have to say" above I thought you were genuine about sourcing others positions, but obviously you're not. Am beginning to regret I took up your offer to comment. CatCafe (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I do genuinely request comments from every one and I am not here for this purpose only. This is where I just happened to start. Unfortunately, this got in to dispute but I do appreciate that disputes and discussions are the spirit of wikipedia, I have not made any repetitive reverts, following the right process as soon as I read up on the wikipedia guidelines. I am not in any way related to the subject. I do watch TV and have an interest in the topic. I argued against your argument and I would love to accept your logic and arguments backed up with wikipedia guidelines if you choose to make such arguments. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Note - I will just make a few comments before the volunteer moderator, User:BJackJS, takes the lead. Comment on content, not contributors.  The purpose of this noticeboard is to discuss article content, that is, Matt Fraser (psychic), not to discuss the other editors.  So keep your comments on the subject of what should and should not be in the article, not who has said or done what about the article.  Before User:BJackJS takes the lead, I suggest that each editor limit themselves to one sentence about what should be in the article.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As you have decided to discuss non-content issues, I need to point out I believe there have never been any concerns around "not who has said or done what about the article", rather concerns around the initiator's one month WP:SPA status denial, and seemingly unresolved WP:COI concerns IMHO. Thus I will not contribute to any discussion re the content of the page, thank you. CatCafe (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)