Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 203

Scott Baio
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 section regarding the political beliefs of Baio that's referenced topics that allows one to misconstrue Scott's beliefs, options and actions as representative of an entire political party, and done so in a way that "others" a group of people. Per Neutral Politics and Criticism, I requested that these topics be moved to a "Criticisms of..." sub article. I do not feel that there has been constructive discussion of this move, and would like an independent eye to look it over for input and advice on making this move.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_Baio&action=edit&section=10

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like a review of the discussed topics for fit under Neutral Politics, and Criticism... particularly when the topics conflate the actions or beliefs of an individual as representative of an entire political party. One reviewed, I would like suggestions on how to address this issue, particularly if moving to a "Criticism of..." sub article is inappropriate.

Summary of dispute by Hipal
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I will not participate. If there is any policy-based dispute, it is completely lost due to the behavioral problems from the ip. --Hipal (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Scott Baio discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - The filing party has not notified the other editor of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've now notified the other editor on the Talk Page previously referenced 2601:205:C003:6300:D820:FACB:5F9C:4338 (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've updated my notification to include the other editor's talk page as well. 2601:205:C003:6300:7143:2B0E:39C0:7011 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Question - Is the filing party asking for moderated discussion leading to compromise, for a Third Opinion on article content, or for an opinion on policies and guidelines? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am new to the process. I would like a more constructive discussion of the points I raised in the talk article

, rather than the other editor evading the topic under discussion through un-explained "legalese" and pedantry

. The article content is not totally at issue per se, but rather how it beyond the scope of the section related to political beliefs and should be re-located. Where it sits now, and in its context would imply that Scott's personal opinion is representative of a given political ideology, which is editorializing rather than describing. 2601:205:C003:6300:D820:FACB:5F9C:4338 (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Frederick S. Jaffe
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I was asked to provide additional citations in support of a section of the Frederick S. Jaffe page regarding a memo he wrote in 1969. I have provided new wording for the section which I believe totally meets the requested additions. However, I am not allowed to post the new material since I am the son of the subject. So I am just looking for someone to post it. The new wording is at

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



How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I just need someone to review the new text, see if all claims are properly cited, and then post it to the Frederick S. Jaffe page.

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

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

2024 Russian presidential election
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 tried to add a line in the lead stating that prominent Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny has been banned from running in the election, possibly due to political motivations. This was the case in the 2018 election, and was noted in the lead of that election's article (Navalny has been in the news a bit recently, but was already banned from running in any elections since 2017 until after 2028). Mr Savva keeps removing this content however, and when I took it to the talk page the user was very reluctant and slow to reply to the first message and carried on editing the article regardless, and now some days later have started removing the content without replying to the talk page discussion at all (they have only made one short entry on that list some time ago, and only made that after I sent them a message on their talk page asking them to participate in the debate). I've repeatedly reminded them to engage in the talk page debate, but they just insist in edit summaries that because the information is already in the body of the article (disqualified candidates) section then it can't be in the lead. But surley the lead should summarise important points in the article?

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

Talk:2024_Russian_presidential_election - I have attempted an extensive discussion over the last week and outlined my points in quite a lot of detail but the other user has stopped engaging in the debate, - I tried to encourage them to reply to the talk page as they were starting to ignore it

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Since the user is not complying by not participating in the talk page discussion, I just wanted some input to advise whether the inclusion of this content is allowed and to confirm whether it is wrong to prohibit the inclusion of a mention in the lead because "it is already in the main body of the article". I would have thought the purpose of the lead is to summarise important points in the main body.

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

2024 Russian presidential election discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Talk page comments like |this are not helpful nor productive. Seemplez &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me 20:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes fair enough that is a bit off, apologies. I was frustrated that I wasn't getting a response. LauraWilliamson (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Nina Paley
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 is  about Nina Paley, artist. A transphobic activist that posts regularly attacks on transwomen in the form of art, drawing them as violent walking penises. Other users have noted the article being censored and her own open statements and artwork for this are missing. One editor has been hovering and removing every reference to her activism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Binksternet ). They have engaged on open attacks on the transgender community themselves and posts constant threats and attacks on my talk page. The article needs an unbias eye to bring the article to being an actual representation of the person.

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

There are no steps for me to take. The user is abusive and angry. I am not able to block anyone. They blocked me for a year for writing on my own talk page, not reverting. For writing on my own talk page.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Removal of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Binksternet from the article and assigning someone without an agenda that can handle and craft the article in a neutral way. Wikipedia must on occasion that some of its editors cannot handle the actual article because it doesn't reflect their personal view.

Summary of dispute by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Binksternet
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Jefferson Starship
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

For the past several years, I and another editor have been arguing over what the Jefferson Starship band article (and related articles) should focus on and include. I contend that the article should contain information about the Jefferson Starship band that was formed in 1974, with emphasis on its founding members, its contributions to music history—particularly its hit-making years, and then a segue into the post-1992 use of the band name for a variety of configurations and projects to the present. The Jefferson Starship article should contain some information about Jefferson Airplane but not be overdone with details of Jefferson Airplane which disbanded several years before the Jefferson Starship band began and is thoroughly covered in the Jefferson Airplane article. The other editor insists that a copious history of Jefferson Airplane must be included with emphasis on Paul Kantner's and Grace Slick's involvement. I do believe that edit warring has taken place over that time span. I think we have had consensus on only one occasion.

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



How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'm hoping to get objective opinions about the dispute and at least allow for getting both arguments stated so that the reader can decide.

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

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


 * Volunteer Comment Please notify involved users on their talk page. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - The discussion on the article talk page is far too long to be understood. The expression too long, didn't read is sometimes used in Wikipedia, but the walls of text on the talk page really are too long to read.  Concise arguments will need to be made when a volunteer opens the case.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - The notified editor has not edited since they were notified. This case will be kept open for another 24 hours for a reply, but will be closed if there is still no response.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is roughly in my area of interest, so I can provide a third opinion if one is requested. Ideally, you want (the clue's in the username) but he's not around at the moment. Please ping me if you want my input. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  10:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Mansigh
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 there, I'm looking for a place to apologise and explain my actions regarding the subject above. My previous questions e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=1008959037 did not satisfy. Where's the correct place? Here, or ani? Thanks for help!...?? Regards PS Wiki's huge...

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=1008959037

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Looking for right place for discussion

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

Music (2021 film)
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

Firstly, there appears to still be disagreement over balance/NPOV in the article, especially with regards to its links to autism and the autistic community.

Secondly, there appears to be a moderate disagreement over where to actually locate the "Portrayal of Autism" section, as to if it should be before or after, or a subset of, the reception section.

Thirdly, and partially related to the first point, Ssilvers in particular seems to strongly disagree on the inclusion of Jensen's petition.

It may also be worth raising (to help get a more definitive answer and avoid the dispute becoming an issue again) that there was/is some disagreement over if spellings compliant with only US English, or spellings which comply with UK/CAN/AUS English, should be used.

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

    

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

After the RfC and talk page discussions proved largely unfruitful, I am hoping perhaps a more formal moderated discussion may help to open up constructive communication, and confidently determine some consensus's as well as help avoid tensions escalating further.

If no resolution is possible, or this request is unsuitable, advice from a moderator on which avenues for content disputes (and/or if deemed necessary, conduct disputes) would be useful as I am less experienced in navigating these.

Summary of dispute by 188.220.86.46
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Peterpie123rww
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

The IP (188.220.86.46) who is shopping for yet another forum showed up a few months ago on the Music (2021 film) article and immediately began edit warring. As other editors resisted the IP editors' changes, they started an RfC and now are using this additional noticeboard forum to continue their disruptive campaign (mostly successful due to their persistence) to bloat the article with a series of huge quotefarms about how the film is offensive to autistic people. This is true, but it could be said in a sentence or two. Now they have added a poorly-referenced section on how the film supposedly uses blackface, which was suggested by some internet trolls. Exhausting and sad. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Summary of dispute by Tailskin2021
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The dispute largely relates to Peterpie123rww (talk) posted on the talk page that he, in his own words, "STRONGLY object[s] to the inclusion of the ridiculous blackface accusations, started by Twitter trolls and based on no grounds at all". IP address 188.220.86.46 and I pointed to several articles highlighting the controversy surrounding the scene in question. In it, Maddie Ziegler is accused of using "blackface" or "blackfishing" by several viewers on social media, to the point where articles were discussing it. Peter's objection to it is unfounded as the point of its relevance to the main article on the film not whether it was blackface or not, but rather it is about presenting the discourse and criticism of the scene. The criticism that is coming from audiences who have watched the film and took issue with it. Peter's own personal bias has also been pointed out, as his editing is often rather focused on Sia-related pages, so it would not be a far reach to say that he is somewhat of a fan. I am not saying that I, myself, am free from my personal bias. We all have them. But it is important that we do not let those biases spill over into the articles. He's made several claims that these accusations of blackface are not founded on legitimacy because its not covered as much, however, it should be noted that while its being covered significantly less in the media compared to other controversies surrounding the film, the discourse is only relatively recent. Tailskin2021 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Hcutts12
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Music (2021 film) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note All editors have been notified. However- After reviewing talk page discussions- they seem to be progressing smoothly and agreement is being reached, just not quickly. I'm not sure a DRN is necessary yet. Also- with so many different issues and so many editors involved- it will be difficult to mediate here. I'd like to suggest that you continue talk page discussions at this point since they seem to be going well. However, if all invovled editors would like a mediated discussion- I am willing to facilitate- just respond under this comment please which way you would all like to go. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - I have another comment. The filing editor refers to an RFC.  The RFC was poorly composed, and did not ask the questions in a way that was likely to get resolution.  The RFC was posted on 9 February.  On 22 February, the filing editor put it in a box for a closed RFC, but did not remove the RFC bot tag.  This leaves the RFC in a state of being sort of open and sort of closed.  Does the filing editor want to withdraw the RFC?  If so, I will remove the bot tag.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I intended for the RFC to be closed. I apologize if I did it incorrectly as it is my first time opening an RFC. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Comment - In my opinion, it doesn't matter what regional variety of English the article is in. Just choose one.  If I am asked for my opinion, then since both the other volunteer and I are Americans, I say to defer to the Anglophones down under and tag it as Australian English.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Reply to statement (falsehood within it): I did not create the blackface section, though I support brief inclusion of the controversy along with others. I am trying to open up and advance the actual discussion on content (the DRN is for content, not conduct disputes). If you have an issue with my conduct, then please do open a conduct dispute case against me, otherwise can we get to discussing content? The | diff can be seen here, the edit was by an IP, but was by (2a02:c7f:711c:9700:4576:7a34:ed8f:33fc). If you are accusing them of being a sockpuppet of me (something I shall deny), then please open an investigation at WP:SPI. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Comment' Do not begin discussions here until the mediator invites discussions to open. Also- just FYI- the battleground behavior displayed above by both editors- is not condusive to a discussion that will actually have a positive outcome. So if you intend to continue this process- come back with a better attitude. Until all editors agree to participate- do not comment outside of your own summary section or responding that yes- you would like to continue. No discussion of the issue, or behavior is to happen at this time. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Reply to statement (falsehood within it): Both Ssilvers and Peterpie123rww claim that the accusations of blackface were "started by Twitter trolls", however there is no evidence to suggest this, as the Twitter accounts cited in the articles clearly do fit the definition of "trolls". Their statements are untrue also because the film has been released, which means that viewers can see for themselves whether or not the accusations are legitimate. Considering that the discourse has been slowly gaining momentum online after the film's official release, and viewers can see it undoctored and as intended by the filmmakers, it is safe to say that the blackface accusations have some stable ground at least for it to be brought up. Tailskin2021 (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan%20lab%20leak%20story
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 feel that my good faith and accurately sourced contributions are being unfairly deleted on this page, specifically I want to insert the recent comments of the WHO's Director General that "all hypotheses" are being investigated and none have been discarded and Professor John Watson's comments that a lab leak hypothesis is still under investigation, as these clarify the current statement that the lab leak theory will no longer be investigated (false information). for more detail see this section on the Talk page: of a clarification by the Director General of the WHO on February 12th (less than 5200 words) Talk:COVID-19_misinformation I would like someone to read it and help me add my correct contribution without threats of being blocked and constant groundless naysaying which puts off contributors from making valid contributions due to inappropriate and biased gatekeeping.

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

of a clarification by the Director General of the WHO on February 12th (less than 5200 words) Talk:COVID-19_misinformation

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By allowing me to make my accurate, well sourced and timely contribution which contradicts a falsehood on the page without having to worry about my contribution being instantly reverted and getting blocked by some angry admins on that page who are making life hell for many people.

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

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

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

Summary of dispute by RandomCanadian
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
 * This is yet another attempt to include WP:FRINGE information not supported by the consensus of WP:MEDRS. Editor has been told their editing is disruptive, and despite a block which was undone due to bureaucratic requirements (which should have served as a final warning, but nevertheless), they have continued on their path of refusing to get the point. This issue has been debated on the article talk page of the WIV and at Covid-19 misinformation for a while, and we probably shouldn't be entertaining this any further (in addition to issues of off-wiki canvassing and harassement as pointed out at the WP:AN thread). My opinion is that this should be dismissed because 1) its already under discussion at AN and 2) because this is really becoming disruptive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Novem_Linguae
5-1 local consensus against the addition of this material (4-1 on talk page, plus me). – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Summary of dispute by XOR'easter
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
 * I've only lightly participated, and I don't have much to add beyond what said above; this looks like forum-shopping and, given the number of editors pinged, not really appropriate for this noticeboard. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan%20lab%20leak%20story discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Robert McClenon Excuse me, Robert, but I did notify them all individually on their talk pages and on the article talk page as well, as there are quite a few editors it took a little time, please be patient, and can you revert this so it is visible or should I do it?Billybostickson (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - The filing party has not notified the other editors of this case. This case lists ten editors, and moderated discussion is very seldom effective with a large number of editors.  If the filing party wishes assistance in filing a Request for Comments, they should notify the other editors, and should state that they are requesting assistance with an RFC.
 * I have now banned the editor from the topic area, please close this section. They can't participate in the dispute resolution process anymore. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No Nazis
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

My comment in the Talk page for the "No Nazis" essay keeps getting removed on spurious grounds, when it is really being removed for disagreement. The first revert was done with the message "trolling", which does not assume good faith and is not what I was doing. The second revert was done under the banner of not "demeaning the authors", but I made no mention of them, only criticizing the content. It was further reverted under the "NOTFORUM" policy, but I was discussing the content of the article, on the Talk page, as intended. I eventually stopped trying to restore my comment (note: even though I technically violated the 3 revert rule, blocking me now after the fact would just be punishment -- which is against policy, as I have stopped).

There are comments far worse than my blunt assessment of the article, directly attacking users in disparaging fashion, that were untouched and not commented on, but they agreed with the article as is.

The most disconcerting thing is that at least two users involved are admins, and the last admin involved threatened to block (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:73.159.229.5&diff=1006866181&oldid=1006861889) me completely from the site: "You will need to find another website to complain about Wikipedia's procedures. I will block any IP that attempts to continue generic WP:NOTFORUM violations."

All of this happened with the span of 3 hours, so it's clear the users/admins involved have a vested interest in the page, and are unlikely to be non-biased participants.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_Nazis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Acroterion#Abusive_reverts_on_talk_page

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please help these users, especially the admins, see the light. Being able to discuss an article on the Talk page, without overbearing censorship, is the only way Wikipedia can stay true to its goals.

Summary of dispute by Acroterion
This is an editor behavior issue from someone who appears to object to the notion that Wikipedia doesn't give the time of day to racists and Nazis, and who has been edit-warring to gripe about it on the talkpage. I'll go over to AN3 and write it up.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation are biased against racists, fascists and Nazis. This is the way it should be. This DRN should be closed per WP:SNOW. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 174.254.192.112
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Wikipedia:No Nazis discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

A dispute has emerged about the inclusion of the "contestant progress" table on this page. The argument from one side is that this constitutes FANCRUFT. The user arguing this side has gone on to attempt to remove the table from other Drag Race tables. I contend that actually, it's a relatively simple illustration of contestant progress that usefully distils how the contestants have done throughout the competition in a way that is of value to the page as a whole - saving a full scan of the page for information - and it is a feature of these pages for which a consensus has developed over a period of years.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RuPaul%27s_Drag_Race_UK_(series_2)#FANCRUFT_tables

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide clarity on what constitutes Fancruft. I have a feeling that the editor is attempting to make life easier for themselves. These tables are sometimes subject to disagreements - so it would be good to get an outside opinion on the usefulness of these tables.

Summary of dispute by RandomCanadian
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. In my opinion, some of the tables (in this and similar articles) are a) partially redundant with information covered in other tables b) full of trivial details which are not of interest to anybody but enthusiastic fans of the article subject, their WP:LOCALCONSENSUS about it notwithstanding and c) probably contain some amount of WP:OR (I could link to about half a dozen other policy pages, as I've done on the article talk page, but that's not the point - the most important one, if you ask, is my understanding of what Wikipedia is not, particularly WP:INDISCRIMINATE).

Anyway, for the time being, I'm not sure this is the appropriate venue, as talk page discussion is still ongoing, there are other involved editors over there, and it's too early (less than 24 hours) to say it's stalled. If things don't progress there then an RfC would be the logical options since by that point it will mean this involves irreconcilable viewpoints on the application of policy. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - The filing party has not listed all of the editors who have been involved in the dispute, and has not notified the editor whom they have listed. The filing editor should expand the case and notify the participants.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Exxon Mobile
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I recently was checking my Exxon/Mobile stock when I noticed that Wikipedia in the Related People section named Rex Tillerson "Pansexual" and Donald Trump as "Donald Bren". I believe you can safely say that neither myself nor any person I know will EVER contribute again!

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

Wikipedia has become an un-dignified and disrespectful rag!

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

You can't, you are disgusting and pathetic!

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

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

Algeria
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

Algeria's official name in Tamazight is missing from the article, and one of the editors, M.Bitton, is refusing to include the name under the pretext that the Algerian government has not decided which official writing system to use for Tamazight. Other contributors and I have suggested solutions like including all three writing systems or the most widely used one, the Latin writing system. All our attempts have not convinced the editor to approve the edits to include the Tamazight name. Tamazight, being one of Algeria's two official languages, must have its presence in the article, and including the official name in Tamazight is an absolute necessity. It is to be noted that the French, the Arabic, the Italian, the Spanish, the German, and many other versions of Wikipedia all include the name in Tamazight. It is only in the English version that including the Tamazight name has raised such a problem.

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

Other editors and I have tried to convince the editor M.Bitton to accept the Tamazight official name by suggesting some reasonable solutions (please see below), but the editor refused all of them.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I suggest one of the following:
 * Including the Tamazight official name in all three writing systems (Tifinagh, Latin, and Arabic). This arrangement is already used for languages that use more than one writing system, like Serbian and Kazakh.
 * Including the Tamazight official name in the Latin writing system. The Latin writing system is more widely used in modern-day Algeria, and being more accessible to an international audience.

Algeria discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not listed or notified the other editors. Please list them and notify them.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - If Tamazight is one of the official languages of Algeria, its name in Tamazight is one of the names of the country and should be listed at least in one form. If there is disagreement, an RFC can be used.  If I am asked to formulate the RFC, I will formulate the RFC, provided that someone will have to provide me with the name strings in the non-Latin scripts.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Dave Anthony
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
 * aka

I wrote this article about Dave Anthony. user Bonadea removed a lot of information that they deemed too detailed and I let it go. user 136.60.226.122 came in and repeatedly altered the section about plagiarism accusations. This user says they are a fan of Alan Bellows of Damn Interesting, who made the initial plagiarism accusation. In my opinion, this user is attempting to continue an outside dispute on a BLP which is against Wikipedia rules. I initially agreed to leave up a 3rd party analysis that 136.60.226.122 added, but upon further reading it seems clear that this is an inappropriate quote for several reasons. It is out of context, it is by a non-qualified individual with a financial stake in his opinion going a certain way. Because I changed my mind about the quote, 136.60.226.122 accused me of vandalism, lacking integrity, and being a paid editor. We did discuss this on the talk page but 136.60.226.122 has not responded since declaring, in part, "I don't think they can be reasoned with," in reference to me. I am not attempting to bury the plagiarism allegations, I simply don't believe they should be allowed more space than is warranted. Both sides are presented in the article without the inclusion of an unqualified third party's opinion on the matter.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dave_Anthony#I_hope_this_is_the_right_place_to_get_further_help_with_edit_warring

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'd like a decision on whether the quote from Plagiarism Today is necessary, representative of the context of the article, and/or being used to continue an outside dispute.

Dave Anthony discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Done. Thanks. AnnieBee3 (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)AnneBee3
 * Volunteer Note - Please list and notify the other parties in the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer statement
I am willing to mediate this discussion if it is still needed- I notice on the talk page it appears some sort of compromise may have already been achieved. If you still need mediation- please indicate so here, along with your agreement to make a good faith effort to compromise without personal attacks. Please also promise to WP:AGF even of editors who are fans of things you are not. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Response
I am ok with the page as currently revised by Bonadea and willing to close the dispute. Thank you for your help. AnnieBee3 (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

Romani people in Hungary
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 disagreement about the inclusion of 3 items in the text, and the title of one section:

1: Should a section be entitled "Anti-Roma sentiment" or "Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy"

2: Should two paragraphs of text deleted from the beginning of this section be restored.

User_talk:Boynamedsue

3: Should the comments of Attila Lakatos be included in the article.

User_talk:Boynamedsue

4: Should the Anti-Roma comments of Zsolt Bayer be included in the text, and in what form.

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

Talk:Romani_people_in_Hungary

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Hopefully a moderated discussion will allow clearer discussion with regards to wikipedia's policies, possibly leading to a resolution. If no resolution is possible, advice from the moderator on correctly/neutrally seeking RfC or Third Opinion will be useful.

Summary of dispute by KIENGIR
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The summarization of the dispute of the nominator is not correct and consistent, as well the user cannot claim the discussion was not clear, it has been overly expalined with highlights, timestamps and diffs, the user have shown an extremely rarely experienced non-understading. There are three points of the discussion;

(A) we include everything and restore the last stable version, before the user started arbitrarily remove content (then point 1. will be irrelevant)

(B) the page remains as was before the user started to insert their edits on the concerned parts, as it has been told only those will have consensus if the necessary amedments and NPOV repairs came along with (status quo ante)

(3) Besides this we started a consensus building of a third solution, in which concerning the issue 4 we would restore the section without any personal manifests (partially abandoning 3 connected to here along with others the user here did not mention), in case the user would agree the rephrasing and correction of some other additions which still suffered from inaccuracy and lack of NPOV (which has been a permanent problem of the user's additions), plus 1 (we agreed on everything, the user did not on the latter, and abandoned consensus building, that is quite odd, since any of the solutions proposed, overly 90% and 95% the user's desire would trial, given the extreme patience and generosity towards the user's direction).

All three solutions are in line with the existing policies, even being a standard, of course I'd be open another consensus building - once the one has been done the user abandoned just before finishing - regarding the other section (please note the user erroneusly separated points 2/3/4, as the subject are two sections, in which the content are overlapping by these in some instances). The user never really understood the issue, and even left consensus building, however, appropriate understanding is a basic necessity.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC))

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

First statement by moderator (Hungarian Romani)
I am beginning moderated discussion of this dispute. The editors are asked to read the usual rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Remember that overly long statements are often not read, which is why there is a common acronym in Wikipedia, Too Long, Didn't Read, so be concise. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, so I will start by asking exactly what parts of the article each editor either wants to change, or wants to leave the same. Since it appears that there are three parts to the dispute, you may provide three one-paragraph bullet points. If they are too long, you will be asked again to shorten them. It is not necessary to explain why you want to make the changes; I will ask that soon. At this time, only say what you want to change where.

Do not respond to each other, except in the box for back-and-forth discussion, which will be ignored. Address your answers to me on behalf of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

First statement by Boynamedsue

 * I feel that the article should include the section title "Anti-Roma sentiment" and the two deleted paragraphs linked above.


 * The paragraphs relating the statements of Attila Lakatos (linked above) should not be included, nor should any mention be made of him.


 * The statements of Zsolt Bayer should be included in an "Anti-Roma sentiment" section.

edit for clarity: the positioning of the sections would be similar to the first edit here

Boynamedsue (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

First statement by KIENGIR
I keep my word and remain consistent, the following options are possible:
 * Solution A: full inclusion of everything, as last stable
 * Solution B: zero inclusion, status quo ante (Revision as of 22:54, 3 September 2020 upper section and Revision as of 22:18, 9 September the lower one)
 * (C) New consensus, in which the requirements laid down should be fulfilled

- The three preliminary conditions for C would be indeed necessary, as it corrects erroneus/POV assertions, however it's outcome would fulfill that 3rd point of the nominator, as well one of the point in his/her 2nd point. The 1st point could be a subject of another consensus building, however, the vast removal of everything not added by the nominator is not negotiable, per WP:OWN and per the talk page discussion, which have been more times demonstrated the invalidity of such claims (despite the moderator asked I should not necessarily put the reason now as they will be asked, but like this the whole demonstration is compact and most easy to overview, since all this issue based on the fact the nominator wish to fulfill his/her 2nd point, per WP:JDL)(KIENGIR (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC))

Second statement by moderator (Hungarian Romani)
We need to use the current version of the article (regardless of whether that was the stable version before the disputes began) as the reference, in order to be sure exactly what we are discussing. The current version has not been changed in two weeks and should not be changed while discussion is in progress. So please state what you want to change in reference to the current (26 January) version of the article. It is even more important to be precise than to be concise, so do not worry about being too lengthy if you are providing exact material. Other than that, be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Boynamedsue says that there should be a section on "Anti-Roma sentiment". There is a section on "Discrimination, racism, and social exclusion". Would this be a change in the title of the section, or a subsection within that section, or a separate section.

Boynamedsue refers to omitting the statements by Attila Lakatos. Where should those statements not be?

Please provide the quote from Zsolt Bayer.

Kiengir refers to full inclusion or zero inclusion. Please provide the full text of anything for which full inclusion is an option.

Second statement by Boynamedsue
The deleted anti-Roma sentiment sub-section would be restored within the "Violence against Roma" subsection following the paragraph ending "The government was forced to pay damages to the Roma victims." The two paragraphs of deleted text would be restored immediately following the new subsection title, before the paragraph starting "Members of mainstream Hungarian political parties..."

The text re. Zsolt Bayer would be positioned after the paragraph of the current "Violence against Roma" section which ends "Pásztor replied that his statements were not based on statistics, but on mentions of offender ethnicity in reports made by victims of crime." Its text could be the following, or similar:

[]

The paragraphs containing the statements of Lakatos are not currently in the text, the first was at one time positioned at the end of the deleted two paragraphs, and the second was at the end of the Zsolt Bayer text linked above.

edit-apologies, I now realise I was imprecise, I should have used "sub-section" all along to refer to the "anti-Roma sentiment" title

Boynamedsue (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Roma sentiment
Anti-Roma attitudes and discrimination have existed continuously in Hungary since the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and these views have often been mirrored or encouraged by anti-Roma policies and rhetoric from political parties and several governments. The 2019 Pew Research poll found that 61% of Hungarians held unfavorable views of Roma. According to the Society for Threatened Peoples, the Roma are "consciously despised by the majority population," while anti-Roma attitudes are becoming more open. A range of negative views of Roma are common among the majority population, research in 2011 showed that 60% of Hungarians feel Roma have criminality "in their blood" and 42% supported the right of bars to refuse to allow Roma to enter.

In 2006, in the town of Olaszliszka, a schoolteacher was lynched by family members and neighbours of a Roma girl who he had hit with his car, the locals erroneously believing that the girl had been killed or seriously injured in the incident. This crime was utilised by the extreme-right racist political party Jobbik to introduce anti-Roma discourse into the Hungarian media, characterising the murderers as a "gypsy mob" and demanding a solution to supposed "gypsy crime". According to Feischmidt, this identification of gypsies with crime, which is not supported by statistical evidence, is fomented by new media accounts linked to the far-right, which leads to further racism, discrimination and violence against the Roma. The "Gypsy Crime" narrative serves to present majority ethnic Hungarians as an in-group who are victims of an inherently criminal Roma out-group, serving the racist nationalist narrative of far-right groups. The moral panic around so-called "gypsy crime" has been identified as a contributory factor to the very real racial violence suffered by Hungarian Roma, which police authorities frequently refuse to identify as hate crimes. Attila Lakatos, the Roma Voivode of Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County (inofficial historical title among the Roma community) approved and openly declared that gypsy criminality is an existing phenomenon:

""Some type of crimes are connected to Roma primarily. Not exclusively, but mostly. It's undeniable.""

-

-LOWER SECTION In 2013, the governing Fidesz party refused to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer, who wrote:

""a significant part of the Gypsies is unfit for coexistence... They are not fit to live among people. These Gypsies are animals, and they behave like animals... These animals shouldn’t be allowed to exist. In no way. That needs to be solved - immediately and regardless of the method.""

However, some members of the party openly criticised the statement's style and form or condemned it as not suitable. Deputy Prime Minister Tibor Navracsics criticised the statement. Later Bayer declared his words were taken out of context and misunderstood, as his goal was to stir up public opinion, but denied racial discrimination and reinforced he wish to segregate from the society only those Roma people who are "criminal" and "incapable and unfit for co-existence". The comments led to an advertising boycott of Bayer's Magyar Hírlap newspaper. Afterwards, Attila Lakatos declared - by referring to the preceding incident, the manslaughter in Ózd - that there is no excuse for such crimes and approved Bayer's description. -

Second statement by KIENGIR
First I react to the moderator's general statements:
 * clarification: the current version on the concerning sections are status quo ante (before any editor added anything)


 * the positining of the possible section was given by Boynamedsue well, however this could be only Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy since Boynamedsue wish to add as well controversial material to the article
 * the locations of Lakatos' statements was given by Boynamedsue well, however he/she spuriously use the reference as two deleted pharagraphs, since one of the Lakatos statements were part of this constellation, and he/she started to remove from this content, and as I said the rest was deleted by policy. Thus, this cannot be handled separately
 * Boynamedsue provided you a diff which is broader of what you asked, since besides the qoute if contains further material. If so, part of it was deliberately missed as the editor admitted, even if I would take this as the editor's wish of inclusion & omission, just proves the trait I outlined in my first statement. I have to also add, Boynamedsue presented here an introductory sentence that is erroneus/flawed (true this was the form it was included in the article, and later we realized the errors), and have been discussed to amend in the diff presented in (C).

UPPER SECTION
 * Full inlcusion (A) is provided below, highlighting the two compact sections we are talking about. Please note this is the last stable revision's text, and does not contain any new proposals or elaborations laid down here and/or outlined in (C).
 * Hence I have to answer here to the moderator's question regarding what I wish to change reference to the current revision of the article, as I outlined already, I have optional preferences:
 * 1. if full inclusion preferred, the necessary related amendments laid down in (C) are necessary.
 * 2. if zero inlcusion preferred, still the related amendments laid down in (C) are necessary
 * 3. (C) contains a new consensus proposal based on the aforementioned requirements, in which the proposed text to inlcude is provided (this would solve the lower section, and may be amalgamated with my 1. proposal, replacing there lower section as stated).

Third statement by moderator (Hungarian Romani)
Okay. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. It should not be necessary and is not necessary to refer to the other editor by name, let alone with critical comments. So here is what we will do. I have created a draft of the article for each of you. The drafts are at Draft:Romani people in Hungary/KIENGIR and at Draft:Romani people in Hungary/Boynamedsue. This may not be how draft space is primarily meant to be used, but it works. (I am not allowed to create subpages in article space.) I have started each of the drafts with the current content. Edit your draft to indicate what you want, and make a brief statement explaining what your changes are and why. If either of you also needs a second draft, let me know and I will create it for you. It should not be necessary to identify other editors in order to explain what you want in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Third statements by Boynamedsue
I think my edit speaks for itself, it is well sourced with good quality sources that support the content. If there are felt to be any problems with NPOV, I am happy to discuss them with reference to the text. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Third statement by KIENGIR
As well per our discussion of the moderator, I assume the collapsed content he read and interpreted. Technically I highlighted literally only Solution A without the necessary amendments to save space, and the possible other support solutions may be inferred from this, which I reinforce now with simple mathematical/logical operators, like:


 * MOD1 = A + relatedA(C)


 * MOD2 = relatedB(C)


 * MOD3 = full(C) + appmerge(MOD1, X)

where X would assume the former consensus proposal for the lower section.

If the moderator considers all of these proposals should be as well inserted for direct visibility (replacing what I highlighted now, so all the three options would be visible at once), then please openly ask for this. Besides that, I am as well opened for any discussion for any content related these proposals.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC))

Fourth statement by moderator (Hungarian Romani)
Many editors think that in DRN, the moderator will choose between different versions of the article. DRN doesn't work that way. (And DRN can't decide to work that way even if wanted to know. All dispute resolution methods except RFC and ANI are voluntary.)  So I won't be choosing between versions of the article. I didn't attempt to parse and review the complex material that I collapsed. I didn't understand the details, and didn't make much of an attempt to understand the details. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so what I want to see is what you are proposing that the readers will see. The readers will not be reading the article by parsing diffs.

KIENGIR: So if there is a version A that you will accept, please copy it into Draft:Romani people in Hungary/KIENGIR A. If there is a version C that you will accept, please copy it into Draft:Romani people in Hungary/KIENGIR C. If you need a third version created, ask me to create it, or create it yourself.

Also, Wikipedia has an article on prejudice against Romani, which is called antiziganism. We should include a link to the article.

Each of you may make a concise statement about either your version or any other versions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Fourth statement by Boynamedsue
I would like to see the other user's proposed edits before commenting on the difference between them and my own proposal, if possible. I think I know roughly what they are but I would like to be sure. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Btw, I agree with the moderator about the necessity of linking to antiziganism, I would also have added the contents of its "Hungary" subsection to the article around a month ago if it hadn't been for the current impasse.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Fourth statement by KIENGIR
I did not assume what the moderator clarified, I just wanted to express I am fine with more solutions, as well I understood the voluntary manner. However, I would suggest to review at least the collapsed material for technical reasons, which contain important details as well about it (without parsing he preferred versions, which will be visible in the created drafts).

Please create for me a B version which I could set as well, until after I have put on hold the reaction to your last sentence. As well, you may tell where and how you would put Antiziganism into the article, so I may update my drafts accordingly.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

Fifth statement by moderator (Hungarian Romani)
I have created a third sandbox for User:KIENGIR, which is Draft:Romani people in Hungary/KIENGIR B. I have tried to understand the collapsed comments, and do not understand them yet. Either editor may comment on the other editor's versions of the article in the Fifth Statements, and the editors are requested to comment on the other versions. At some point we will either need a compromise version that will be accepted, or to compose an RFC to ask the community to choose between versions. So please try to explain why you agree or disagree with the other editor's versions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Fifth statement by KIENGIR
I inform the moderator I finished also the B version, hence my reaction to what was on hold, is that I can only make statements from the other user's version if all of mine has been reviewed (however I see the discussion went forward and already reactions were made, despite I was not ready, hence I'll wait one more round to give time for the review of B, if I am informed it's done, then I will make my reactions, accordingy). Hence, your request in your fifth statement on commenting & agree/disagree parameters I will fulfill the next round as well (= the fifth statement of Boynamedsue and the moderator's sixth statement will be as well ansered/implemented in my next statement.)

Also, the moderator have to specify in case what he could not understand from the collapsed part, in case (specifying any syntactical/semantical parameter in case).

Procuderal asks from the moderator: - there is an orphan "Fourth statements by editors (Hungarian Romani)" section, by mistake, please remove it - what is the difference between "Back-and-forth discussion" and "Discussion between editors" by purpose? (you just said the earlier you will ignore, the latter is meant for the future min48hr-appr.4-5days compromise trial)(KIENGIR (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC))

Fifth statements by Boynamedsue

 * The two closest versions are my draft and “Version A”, there is a cosmetic difference in language on Fidesz, where the other user feels the term “governing party” is inappropriate. It is actually sourced, but I am happy to compromise here. The other difference is the inclusion of two references to the comments of Attila Lakatos.


 * Lakatos is a self-styled “Roma Voivode" of a Hungarian region, with close links to the ruling party. He holds no official position within the Roma community, but now has a small degree of media prominence due to his proximity to the government and involvement in a campaign against immigration. He does not have an entry in the Hungarian wikipedia.


 * The first of his comments on "gypsy crime" is not supported by an adequate source. It is an interview from a local news website (uncertain if RS, per Hungarian user in talk page) giving his personal opinion. Academic sources are superior to news sources, and local news sources are not meant to be used for national level stories when national and international ones are available. Introducing the opinion of this individual, and this individual alone, is giving WP:UNDUE weight to his views. Effectively it is selection bias, if his comments are relevant, so are those of every individual quoted in a local, national and international media source on this question. To create WP:BALANCE would require a range of views to be present.


 * The second quote, referring to the comments of Zsolt Bayer, is supported by a single source from what appears to be a national level Hungarian site. Again using the quote is giving WP:UNDUE weight to the views of one individual, and is bringing WP:FALSEBALANCE into the article when only one individual outside of the Hungarian government is quoted, and that person is a supporter of the government who is not cited as such. His views are pretty much WP:FRINGE as even Bayer's party colleagues rejected his comments as unacceptable. Once again, a range of views would be needed for WP:BALANCE

TLDR: All problems are solved with the removal of Lakatos statements.

Boynamedsue (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

*Edit in response to KIENGIR's 5th statement* I have read draft B, and nothing in it has changed the content of my post above. The items of disagreement remain the title "Anti-Roma sentiment" and the inclusion of references to Lakatos. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator (Hungarian Romani)
KIENGIR: It appears that Boynamedsue does not want Attila Lakatos mentioned. Are you willing to agree to that, and to come up with a way to avoid him?

Now that each editor has made one to three proposed versions of the article, I will open up discussion so that the editors are asked to talk back-and-forth to each other about the details of the draft versions. This discussion will last for at least 48 hours and maybe four or five days, as long as it is focused on the wording of the text. Off-topic comments will not be permitted. The purpose of discussion is to improve the article. Be civil and concise. I would like to encourage the editors to work out a compromise. If compromise is not possible, we will use a Request for Comments to choose between two proposed versions and the existing version as status quo. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * User:KIENGIR - Please comment in the section marked Discussion Between Editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion between editors (Hungarian Romani)
Apologies, my summary above was incorrect, I missed out the section title, "Anti-Roma Sentiment" or "Anti-Roma Sentiment and controversy". I feel "and Controversy" to be weasel words, implying there is some debate on the existence of "Anti-Roma sentiment" and that the examples given may not equate to "anti-Roma Sentiment", when neutral sources on the subject refer to them as such. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's amazing again to hear to confuse facts and make it appear as my feelings. It is a fact that in Hungary the Hungarian government is governing, which is formed mainly from the Fidesz-KDNP coalition. As well, it has been already discussed and demonstrated that the source does not have this on the referred section, but "Fidesz party leadership". The repetitive coining attempts are highly alarming at this point, as I expressed already in the talk page. However since the user accepted the compromise, let's get over this. For the Lakatos part I'll react elsewhere.
 * The Roma community not necessarily makes self-styles, they have their own rules about election voivodes among them (however, just being justified even foreign sources consider the issue notable). The user's other additions contained persons with much more closer ties of the party and much more an involved in such campaigns, so, what are we discussing about, an apparent double measure and invention of arguments, which anyway leads to conradiction in spite of this. The media coverage was not really so small, and it's irrelevant if it has a Hungarian Wiki page or not.
 * False, these has been already refuted, even clarified and reinforced by another editor, it's an RS, and yes, it had a significant coverage on the related media, and this is the starting of balance, as the user added one-sided and often inaccurate content, lacking of NPOV or being POINTy overall
 * Ditto, the "single source" is a new claim, like if it would not be single sources elsewhere, while the source is a highly relevant RS (so DUE is out of question), especially the greatest voice of the opposition, hence it is very unprofesisonal I hear arguing and putting labels like supporting the goverment or supporting Fidesz, even in a spurious way to individuals/opinions in order to make them appear less relevant and biased. Of course, as it has been already explained, balance startes with balanced opinons, not one sided cherrypicked ones to illustrate a point (but of course, if other individuals's opinions are added who are as well would be supportive to the goverment, then if course this is not a problem, if they have an opinion the user embrace, as this has been demonstrated overall not just in the talk page, but illustrated here. The key word is NPOV, it is highly problematic if only opinions from one side are supported, as it has been the genereal problem from the beginning.
 * All problems would be solved if our community rules would be appreciated and the already too much generous situation and consensus offers would be accepted, in which 90-95% the user's will are would be already represented
 * There are no weasel words, since the "and" conjuction is marking two instances of content, Anti-Roma sentiments and controversial issues (which the user added indeed, then the responsibility should be taken for this, or just simply remove controversial issues)
 * Answer to the moderator:
 * I already offered the Boynamedsue a fair compromise, MOD3/Draft C, in which one part of the Lakatos comment would disappear, it should be accepted, anyway the vast majority of the user's addition with small amendments were accepted (see referred percentages). WP:OWN is not a solution, neither WP:JDL. An administrator also approved there is no consensus for removal. Despite I came out with a generous offer, to satisfy the user.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC))
 * You talk about NPOV, why do you feel the text would have a POV without the Lakatos comments, and how could that be remedied?Boynamedsue (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Moderator here: I will make some comments and ask some questions to try to reach a compromise.  The objective is to try to agree on a new version of the article.
 * KIENGIR, you wrote: "However since the user accepted the compromise, let's get over this."  Does that mean that there is a compromise that has been agreed on?  If so, where is it, and can we resolve this?
 * KIENGIR, your comments are long. In the future, can you please try to be concise?  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Boynamedsue,
 * we already discussed this in the talk page, numerous times, as well here, surprized, if you endorse one-sided opinions and exlude others, how could it be neutral? The remedy should be the generous offer of C..why do you think not making concessions is an option, with still 90% your addition represented (more fair offer could not even exist)?
 * Moderator 1st question -> that agreement you refer has been part of the consensus building trial of C (referred at my First statement's second diff), namely Proposal 2.
 * Moderator's 2nd remark -> Ok, I'll try.

Seventh statement by moderator (Hungarian Romani)
I will ask each editor to state what they disagree with in the other editor's version(s). I would like to see if a compromise is possible, and, if not, what versions to send to RFC.

User:KIENGIR - Please state exactly what you disagree with in the version proposed by User:Boynamedsue.

User:Boynamedsue - Please state exactly what you disagree with, if anything, in draft B by Kiengir. I see that drafts A and C include a statement by Attila Lakatos with which you take issue. Do you still disagree with version C? Is there anything else in those versions with which you disagree?

You may continue to discuss with each other in the Seventh Statements by Editors, but you are specifically asked to respond to my questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors (Hungarian Romani)

 * Robert McClenon Kiengir's draft B excludes these two paragraphs of well-sourced neutral text, and the section title "Anti-Roma Sentiment". I do not feel this to be a valid option based on any wikipedia policy. I still disagree with the inclusion of Lakatos in version C, and I would prefer for the Hungarian government ministers' statements in the Zsolt Bayer case to remain, though I have discussed their deletion on the talk page of the article. Boynamedsue (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Seventh statement by KIENGIR
Moderator's question -> Boynamedsue's draft is missing the Lakatos statements, as well the three amendments laid down in C, thus the worst version possible from all, altogether (4 NPOV violations, including erroneous statements). Disclaimer: I just checked the related parts which were coined in this discussion, not the article alltogether, so what I said binds those parts. Boynamedsue's 7th statement -> again it is clear by any means the user wishes to exclude statements completely which he/she does not like, as it may have seen before and after the events here, this is not an option. Offer C removes 50% from it, which is fair, but consensus building does not mean you will have always 100%. At least I proved I am able to give up and collaborate for consensus, but your draft shows 0% concession (however, mine, except draft B - which the raw status quo with two amendments from C - all other drafts having 90% of your additions...). These percentages tell more than thousand words.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC))
 * Could you possibly explain where you feel the NPOV violations to be in the version I proposed, with a view to making them neutral? You should refer to specific text, as your statements so far have been general and I do not understand which parts of the text you object to.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, you know very well, we are discussing about it over a month. In C it has been already layed down (3), and removing completely Lakatos (1).(KIENGIR (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC))

Eighth statement by moderator (Hungarian Romani)
It appears that there will not be agreement on a compromise, so we will use a Request for Comments. I will offer the community three choices:
 * 1. The current version of the article.
 * 2. The version submitted by User:Boynamedsue.
 * 3. One of the versions submitted by User:KIENGIR.

User:KIENGIR - Please choose one of the versions as your best version to offer for the RFC.

Both editors: Please prepare a summary stating exactly how your version differs from the status quo version. This is for the benefit and information of the community. Both editors: Please also state concisely why you think that your version is better than the status quo. Do not state why it is better than the other editor's version. Do not reply to each other. Any conversation must be in the space for back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

reply to moderator
There has been agreement on one small part of the text, I will make that edit to the draft version I submitted if that is ok? Boynamedsue (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Boynamedsue - What is that small change on which there is agreement? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * K. wanted the governing Fidesz party to be referred to as "the largest party in the governing coalition", I have no particular problem with that, despite "governing/ruling Fidesz party" being more common in RS. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Boynamedsue, User:KIENGIR - Go ahead and make the approved change. Note in the edit summary that it was agreed at DRN.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The instructions about preparing for the RFC are still in effect. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. I have also removed the attribution "Fidesz-supporting" from a paragraph which had been agreed in principle at the talk page previous to the breakdown of communication, this too accords with the version proposed by Kiengir.--Boynamedsue (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Eighth statement by KIENGIR
- Difference from status quo (A):
 * If I have to choose, I choose A since it is all-inclusive (B would be the status quo, which you anyway offer, C would be a compromise version, which the other editor rejected unfortunately...if the moderator reconsiders, may as well offer C to the community, four alternatives are not so much, but would reflect all the adequate solutions)
 * It covers events which have been notable as well in the public discourse, it gives a full and accurate picture, without omitting any notable opinion - shall they be similar or different -, this provides a fully neutral approach of the events. The section title appropriately reflects that controversial issues are also mentioned which were not direct statements that would be motivated by solely anti-Roma sentiment, however would reflect the problem of some (sub)-groups, in connection with social issues (Pásztor, Bayer, Jeszenszky), however as usual, these issues were subject to various political purposes/games in which the two political sides threw mud to each other (the most famous is recently Bayer's statement, which in fact was directed just and only to murderers/criminals, per a then recent tragedy, not to the entire people/community, or as Pásztor was later vocally defended by Mátyás Eörsi (ALDE) leader, as well Jeszenszky has zero racist traits), hence it is very important the reader should have the full picture, apart from shoapboxing and claptrap.


 * Disclaimer: (i) if the moderator would offer C as a choice as well, I may write a short summary also about this, then please indicate, (ii) I deliberately used difference in the heading, since I would be fine with all A/B/C proposals, not necessarily consider anything better then another version.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC))


 * Can I just say that I feel presenting 2 of the other users versions at the RFC is more than enough. Perhaps it is even excessive, given that the current "status quo" version never actually had consensus, and had never appeared on the page until it was forced through by a flawed appeal to an admin when DRN had been offered repeatedly regarding the inclusion of Lakatos. I feel that the triple version has always had an element of strategy to obtain desired results rather than genuine desire for compromise or reflection on the policies of wikipedia, and I feel that this continues now.Boynamedsue (talk)

Eighth statements by boynamedsue
My draft includes the title "Anti-Roma sentiment" along with two paragraphs detailing the extent and nature of anti-Roma sentiment in Hungary. The title is apt, as all the content of this subsection relates to events, attitudes and comments which reliable sources relate to antiziganism in Hungary. The paragraphs are sourced from neutral academic sources relating specifically to this question, and are clearly relevant to the content of the article.

I have also introduced a paragraph detailing the anti-Roma statements of Zsolt Bayer, which are clear examples of anti-Roma racism and are widely referred to as such in reliable sources. The paragraph also outlines the reactions of senior Hungarian politicians as detailed in reliable sources on this matter, given they are widely considered by reliable sources to be relevant illustrations of the attitude towards Hungarian Roma among Hungarian politicians, and of their degree of acceptance of extreme anti-Roma discourse.

I am unaware of any reliable sources which would dispute any of the content added in this draft, or of any significant points of view which are excluded.

--Boynamedsue (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Ninth statement by moderator (Hungarian Romani)
At this point, our objective is to present the RFC to the Wikipedia community in the most understandable way. We will not ask the community to choose between whole versions of the article, but specific additions, deletions, and changes. (That is a unilateral decision by the moderator. I have that authority.  The objective is to enable the community to make decisions that the community understands.)   The RFC will consist of multiple questions, the first of which will be whether to add the subsection proposed by Boynamedsue. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

First, is KIENGIR B the same as the status quo? If so, it can be deleted as a separate choice.

Second, I have started and we will compose a multi-part RFC. Its draft is at Dispute resolution noticeboard/RFC on Hungarian Romani.

Third, I have included the proposed addition of a paragraph by Boynamedsue.

User:KIENGIR - Please state what your proposed changes are, so that other editors who have not observed this discussion will be able to comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Ninth statement by KIENGIR

 * (1) - The main page suffered a recent vandalism, I ask the moderator to revert it to the revision of 16:39, 24 February 2021‎ by ClueBot NG
 * (2) - I ask the moderator to remove (or relocate) these, from my 8th statement, since Boynamedsue is not allowed and should not edit my section (in violation of our rules again)
 * (3) - however, his/her statements are not correct,
 * - (i ) since status quo is per default consensus,
 * - (ii) it appeared in the page before the user started editing it
 * - (iii) there was not any flawed appeal to the admin - it is heavily disgusting to deny evidence -, but it was the direct result of the user's edit-warring and the admin reinforced having no conensus of his/her edits
 * - (iv) the user may feel anything, the evidence is clear and have been demonstrated various times, min. 90% to his/her direction, which is the utmost proof of genuine desire for compromise, while the opposite direction such precentages have never even been approached (and better should not refer to policies, and I did not see any significant concession towards the opposite direction)
 * (4) - Moderator's question -> no, the difference has been explained "MOD2 = relatedB(C)", so the applicapble part of C is implemented.
 * (5) - Draft:RFC -> the draft's question so far is mistaken, since the point of insertion would be after the sentence "The government was forced to pay damages to the Roma victims.[86]". Moreover, I assume the RFC draft is in a very initial phase and incomplete yet since it contains only Boynamedsue's preferred version, hence I won't make further remarks until is it not considered to be complete and to put to overview before launching
 * (6) - Question to moderator: Please clarify more this "Please state what your proposed changes are" -> in connection to what exactly, Boynamedsue's preferred version (in current draft RFC), or compared to the status quo, or any third option? Please specify!(KIENGIR (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC))

reply to the moderator
It is my understanding that Kiengir B is the de facto status quo minus the phrase "fidesz-supporting", this diff would lead me to believe that. I have no problem with that amendment being applied to all versions, it has also been changed in my draft. A multi-part rfc seems entirely reasonable to me, btw. --Boynamedsue (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC) Boynamedsue (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Tenth statement by moderator (Hungarian Romani)
The vandalism has been reverted. The instruction not to edit the article was not meant to mean that vandalism could not be reverted, but I am willing to revert vandalism and to warn the IP.

The article that was in effect when mediation began on 9 February 2021 is the status quo version of the article. The RFC will refer to additions to, changes to, or deletions from the status quo version of the article. That should have been obvious, but it apparently was not. I am not rolling the article back to its state on 2 September 2020 when the content dispute again, or to any other version. The article that was in effect when mediation began is the status quo version of the article. All proposed changes in the RFC will be with respect to the status quo version of the article.

There is no need at this point to discuss the merits of proposed changes to the article until the RFC is published. What we need to do is to formalize the RFC as a set of proposed changes to the existing article, and each of the changes should be independent of any other changes. If some of the changes are incompatible with other changes, then which changes will be made can be decided by the RFC. If the closer has to use a sword of Damocles to cut the Gordian knot, then that is the way it works.

User:KIENGIR - Do not refer to A, B, and C. I didn't parse A, B, and C, and I very much doubt that most editors responding to an RFC would be able to figure out your mods. Again, tell me and the community what changes to the status quo version of the article you want to include in the RFC. Otherwise an RFC will be published that will be essentially the current draft. If so, I will be ready to publish another RFC that will run mostly at the same time as the first RFC; but I would prefer to get all of the proposed changes in one RFC. Just tell what you want to change in the status quo version of the article. Provide your input within 36 hours. Do not delay the publication of the RFC any further with any more questions.

User:Boynamedsue - Are there any other proposed changes to the status quo version of the article that you want listed in the RFC?

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Boynamedsue - If there is another question that you want put into an RFC and provide it within about 24 hours, I will fold it into the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Boynamedsue - If you have more references in the section that you want to add, put them in the draft RFC within about 24 hours, before I publish it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Tenth statements by editors (Hungarian Romani)
In terms of content, that edit is my preference. I would like to add the contents of the antiziganism subsection on Hungary to the article further down the line, but I think the RfC should probably only consist of items which have already been discussed. I have found more sources to support some of the cases of anti-Roma sentiment, although I feel they are already supported. Should they be added? Boynamedsue (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No, that's ok, there is nothing that would qualify as a second question. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Tenth statement by KIENGIR
Replies to moderator: - -> (insertion point after the sentence "The government was forced to pay damages to the Roma victims.[86]")
 * Noted, thank you (revert on the article)
 * It has been obvious to me, since the restoration has been made already by the admin (the related parts), so ok
 * You did not correct the point of insertion, however you said now that each of the changes should be independent of any other changes, despite the current form of the RFC draft contains Boynamedsue's changes all in one...well, we'll see how it would look like before launching, please don't launch until all of us did not review it
 * well, if I cannot make any reference, I have to copy paste here my preferred changes differing from the status quo:

Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy
Anti-Roma attitudes and discrimination have existed continuously in Hungary since the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and these views have often been mirrored or encouraged by anti-Roma policies and rhetoric from political parties and several governments. The 2019 Pew Research poll found that 61% of Hungarians held unfavorable views of Roma. According to the Society for Threatened Peoples, the Roma are "consciously despised by the majority population," while anti-Roma attitudes are becoming more open. A range of negative views of Roma are common among the majority population, research in 2011 showed that 60% of Hungarians feel Roma have criminality "in their blood" and 42% supported the right of bars to refuse to allow Roma to enter.

In 2006, in the town of Olaszliszka, a schoolteacher was lynched by family members and neighbours of a Roma girl who he had hit with his car, the locals erroneously believing that the girl had been killed or seriously injured in the incident. This crime was utilised by the extreme-right racist political party Jobbik to introduce anti-Roma discourse into the Hungarian media, characterising the murderers as a "gypsy mob" and demanding a solution to supposed "gypsy crime". According to Feischmidt, this identification of gypsies with crime, which is not supported by statistical evidence, is fomented by new media accounts linked to the far-right, which leads to further racism, discrimination and violence against the Roma. The "Gypsy Crime" narrative serves to present majority ethnic Hungarians as an in-group who are victims of an inherently criminal Roma out-group, serving the racist nationalist narrative of far-right groups. The moral panic around so-called "gypsy crime" has been identified as a contributory factor to the very real racial violence suffered by Hungarian Roma, which police authorities frequently refuse to identify as hate crimes. Attila Lakatos, the Roma Voivode of Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County (inofficial historical title among the Roma community) approved and openly declared that gypsy criminality is an existing phenomenon:

""Some type of crimes are connected to Roma primarily. Not exclusively, but mostly. It's undeniable.""


 * -> (Point of insertion, after -> "Pásztor replied that his statements were not based on statistics, but on mentions of offender ethnicity in reports made by victims of crime.[99][100]")
 * -> (Point of insertion, after -> "Pásztor replied that his statements were not based on statistics, but on mentions of offender ethnicity in reports made by victims of crime.[99][100]")

In 2013, Fidesz, the largest party in the governing coalition refused to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer, who wrote:

""a significant part of the Gypsies is unfit for coexistence... They are not fit to live among people. These Gypsies are animals, and they behave like animals... These animals shouldn’t be allowed to exist. In no way. That needs to be solved - immediately and regardless of the method.""

However, some members of the party openly criticised the statement's style and form or condemned it as not suitable. Deputy Prime Minister Tibor Navracsics criticised the statement. Later Bayer declared his words were taken out of context and misunderstood, as his goal was to stir up public opinion, but denied racial discrimination and reinforced he wish to segregate from the society only those Roma people who are "criminal" and "incapable and unfit for co-existence". The comments led to an advertising boycott of Bayer's Magyar Hírlap newspaper. Afterwards, Attila Lakatos declared - by referring to the preceding incident, the manslaughter in Ózd - that there is no excuse for such crimes and approved Bayer's description.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
 * -> (Modification of this sentence -> In 2013, Géza Jeszenszky, the Fidesz-supporting ambassador to Norway provoked protests in Hungary and Norway due to statements in a textbook which suggested that Roma suffered from mental illness because "in Roma culture it is permitted for sisters and brothers or cousins to marry each other or just to have sexual intercourse with each other.")

- delete "Fidesz-supporting" - insert wikilink to Géza Jeszenszky

Eleventh statement by moderator (Hungarian Romani)
It appears that both of you want to add a section, called either Anti-Romani Sentiment, or Anti-Romani Sentiment and Controversies. It also appears that much of what you want to add is the same. In that case, unless there is an objection, I will review the two proposed additions and apply those edits that you both agree on, and create a second version of the draft that will identify differences. Is there an intermediate version that one of you can propose that you think the other one will agree is a starting point? Any such agreement does not resolve the discussion, but it changes the status quo.

Am I correct that you largely want to add the same paragraphs?

Does anyone have a different idea? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Eleventh statement by KIENGIR

 * Moderator (int)-> I agree with the necessary update of the RFC draft (including the appropriate point of insertions already referred), however I disagree to perform any updates of the main article, because I was limited by the rejection of offer more proposed solutions, and had to present just one per the moderators request. Hence even if we have identical parts of our proposal, NO support for changing the article's status quo, because it may result in a gaming to to leave out/include parts any user preferred in advance, although the catch of the various proposal were that some sections and parts are only good to present if they are complete, and not eliminating arbitrary parts harming WP:NPOV, etc.
 * Moderator's 1st question: formally you are right, but see my previous reaction
 * Moderator's 2nd question: see (int), and I reinforce, we have to review and agree about the RFC before lanching it
 * Boynamedsue: adding various extra sources does not change anything on the issue, irrelevant, this phase is not about improving the the RFC draft with new additions, but the catch is to judge the article as it was and what we maynhave/had, I disagree with such formal actions (I will also not start to add various sources to illustrate better my point, so I have to object).

Eleventh statement by Boynamedsue
I have accidentally edited the RFC page to add my references to it, I thought I was editing my own draft page. Apologies for this, I am aware I am not supposed to edit there, and I have reverted and added the text to my draft proposal (here). I would hope that my version (including the new references, assuming KIENGIR doesn't object) could be the base version, the first question being the title, the second being the inclusion of Lakatos. One of KIENGIR's versions is effectively mine, with a different title and the comments of Lakatos. Including the other versions risks turning the RfC into The Garden of the Forking Paths, and will likely severely reduce participation. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Twelfth statement by moderator (Hungarian Romani)
On review, I concluded that both editors wanted some of the same material added, and I have added it as Anti-Roma Sentiment in the section on Discrimination, Racism, and Exclusion. First, I think that we have made progress toward improving the article. Second, I think that both of you could have seen and pointed out to me that there was much overlap in your proposed additions, except that you seem to have been busy disagreeing with each other. Third, we will now start over trying to further improve the article. The article as I have edited it is now the status quo. I will be deleting or archiving previous proposed versions of changes. Please review the revised version of the article and see what you want to change further in it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

There probably will be an RFC, but it will now probably not be within the next few days, because the article has been improved and is now a new baseline version.

Twelfth statements by boynamedsue
Apologies, from the questions you asked I was not aware that we were supposed to outline the other user's position, and given the confusing nature of the discussion at the talk page, I wasn't entirely sure what it was myself. Where have you edited the new status quo? It seems the article is unchanged. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Twelfth statement by KIENGIR
Yes, the moderator did not perform any change of the main article, and it's very good since such agreement has not been concluded, the discussion went forward before waiting for my comments at the previous round, please in the future don't go forward without. So, as stated in my previous statements, any change on the main article is NOT supported, by the arguments mentioned there.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC))
 * UPDATE: I found what the moderator referred this: Draft:Romani people in Hungary/KIENGIR. I have to tell this was not on my watchlist (just A/B/C), and this version does not contain ANY of my desired additions, it is the raw status quo never edited by me before. Thus, I had to revert the changes per these, and the earlier mentioned reasons per this, and the previous round. I kindly ask the moderator if he wants me to improve this article as a representation of one proposed version asked for the RFC draft, please explicitly ask for it, and will do the changes. Thank you!(KIENGIR (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC))

Thirteenth Statement by Moderator (Hungarian Romani)
It seems that I made a mistake, and that I made my updates in the wrong place. So now I will ask a few questions. For this statement only, I will allow the editors to comment on each other, to try to explain why they seem to be so far apart when they are proposing almost the same edits.

Reply to me in the section for statements. Reply to each other in the section below it. Although you are allowed to comment on each other, you must be civil and must avoid personal attacks.

User:KIENGIR – Why did you ask me to roll back the edits that I tried to make? What exactly do you want?

User:Boynamedsue – Can you try to explain what you think the other editor wants?

Both of you: Why can't agree on most of the article? I understand that there is a difference as to a subsection title, and to whether to include the mention of Lakatos. Why are the two of you arguing at such length about what seem to be such details?

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thirteenth Statement by KIENGIR
Answer to moderator:
 * ...they seem to be so far apart when they are proposing almost the same edits... -> that's why parsing would have been important, and/or I am surprized of this question, since it may be interpreted only the way that I was put on a coercive way just to present one alternative in the end, although I presented three separate ones. Also I have just explained in the previous statement, some parts/sections has been only accepted if their mistakes with the necessary amendment are repaired (this I explained more time in the beginning also here), hence this issue cannot be solely viewed in a way that the possible commonly supported sections we add. No, I outlined in my proposals under which conditions I agree remove materials, or add, since the overall NPOV structure has to be maintained, the article cannot be a one-sided propaganda article (and again, Boynamedsue started to add mass content to the article, and was warned since the beginning of the conditions of consensus, so the wanting to add was his/her part, remedy and amendment of the serious NPOV violations was mine)
 * Question (1) to me -> I just explained in the previous statement, and here in the just above answer. There are conditional agreement upon inclusion, outlined in the three proposals, the raw adding of possible overlapping material deteriorating from this causes NPOV violations. Given the fact you asked one version to be presented, that bounds all in one as an alternative as well - which is in fact MOD1 (full inclusion+amendC) . Thus removing parts from is not negotiable for the just mentioned reasons.
 * Question (2) -> this debate and precious time consuming is just because of Boynamedsue's stubborn reluctance to build and accept fair consensus, wants to WP:OWN the article, trying to turn it to a POV article. Despite, in any other proposals then the status quo near 90% his/her additions are already included, given my overly generous approach, which has been not respected by any means. All this would not exist, if the user would appropriately understand or rules and guidelines, which have been overly explained in the article's talk, but the user repeatedly failed/refused to understand/accept it, regardless how detailed or professionally is explained/proved, the result was recurrently the problem of IDHT.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC))

Thirteenth Statements by Boynamedsue
Question 1: As I understand it, KIENGIR feels that the absence of the comments of Lakatos renders the sections which we do agree on to be biased, and therefore he will not accept them being included in the article without the comments of Lakatos. For him the presence of Lakatos' statements neutralises the POV he perceives in the initial two paragraphs, and in the reactions to the statements of Zsolt Bayer.

Question 2

The inclusion of Laktos is a very clear case of undue weight, and the title "and controversy" is not necessary as the examples are all anti-Roma sentiment per RS. See my arguments above regarding this (5th statement).

The inclusion of both changes in the form wanted by KIENGIR legitimises hate speech. The undue weight placed on Lakatos and the suggestion that anti-Roma incidents are in fact merely "controversy" are hugely significant factors. Any quotation which attempts to justify racist discourse and hate speech must be treated extremely carefully, and the statements of Lakatos are not being treated carefully.

I have offered a compromise which included the introduction a wider range of individual views on the question of Bayer (the problems with the source preclude the inclusion of the "gypsy crime" quote), alongside those of Lakatos, but no answer was given to this. As far as I can see, there is no way to include Lakatos and maintain WP:NPOV without a massive number of other personal opinions.

It is for this reason I am being less flexible than would normally be the case. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments on Thirteenth Statements (Hungarian Romani)
Moderator comment, while discussion is still open: Based on the explanation by Boynamedsue, the issues are the name of the subsection and whether to include the quote by Lakatos. I will be applying the updates on which there is agreement, and KIENGIR can then provide one proposed added paragraph that includes the quote by Lakatos, and either editor may propose other changes. I will be making those updates. Under the circumstances, it is my decision as moderator that the baseline version of the article will include the agreed additions and will not include Lakatos, and that the inclusion of Lakatos will be decided by the RFC. I am leaving the thirteenth section open for about 24 hours, and will then apply the updates, and we will move to constructing a new RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Boynamedsue Thank you for that answer. Just to check, will the new baseline include this text as well. This was common between the two versions, but was followed by another quote by Lakatos in Kiengir's version:

"In 2013, Fidesz, the largest party in the governing coalition refused to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer, who wrote:

""a significant part of the Gypsies is unfit for coexistence... They are not fit to live among people. These Gypsies are animals, and they behave like animals... These animals shouldn’t be allowed to exist. In no way. That needs to be solved - immediately and regardless of the method.""

However, some members of the party openly criticised the statement's style and form or condemned it as not suitable. Deputy Prime Minister Tibor Navracsics criticised the statement. Later Bayer declared his words were taken out of context and misunderstood, as his goal was to stir up public opinion, but denied racial discrimination and reinforced he wish to segregate from the society only those Roma people who are "criminal" and "incapable and unfit for co-existence". The comments led to an advertising boycott of Bayer's Magyar Hírlap newspaper. "

Boynamedsue (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reaction to Boynamedsue's QUESTION 2 answer above: Boynamedsue's repeatedly erronous statements have been numerous times refuted, as well in this discussion,, , as well was explained why some issues are controversial, so denying them the n+1 time is not helpful. His/her new invention of legitimizing of hate speech is completely ridiculous, desperate cheap trial of dramatization, a real boomerang since NPOV has nothing to with this, but the opposite, we don't legitimize editors to turn article's into propaganda outlets with one-sided views. In fact Lakatos statements has nothing to with anything the user mentioned, it is even impossible as himself being member of of the Roman minority, just simply mentioning social aspects of an existing phenomenon, and that commiting crimes and their evaluation does not make exempts the prepratrator, shall it belong to any ethnicity. On the other hand, I don't know the user what kind of compromise would offer "which included the introduction a wider range of individual views" and/or under what conditions exactly, hence I don't know what kind of answer the user considers missing (can you present a diff?).
 * Reaction to moderator: I don't know on which article you wish to perform updates, hence I would ask not to do anything before not making clear exactly where and what are you are planning (and until then I cannot even give an opinion about this planned move) As well, I again do not understand why you don't wait my reactions/answers and you already outline certain moves, without hearing them, as a moderator you should not plan/perform any updates based on just one participant's answer suddenly, this would make this appear - even without any of such intention - a non-impartial conduct.


 * Reaction to Boynamedsue's comment here: I completely oppose you come up with new, truncated proposal, deteriorating from previous conduct which were set more or less on a rail. So a emphasize again, no agreement for mixing/amalgamating each other's proposals, shall they share any points, as explained in my recent statement.
 * General preliminaries: we have to agree on the RFC's details and formula, but no modification of the main page is supported (again, I am not sure this was planned according to the moderator comment outlined here, or he meant a draft page, etc. But for clarity, the moderator cannot apply them without the consent of both editors, as I outlined twice, no support for that per the just mentioned reasons).(KIENGIR (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC))

Fourteenth statement by moderator (Hungarian Romani)
First, I instructed the editors not to edit the article. I did not say that I would not edit the article. The parties to the dispute have agreed to my mediation, and they do not have the authority to tell me whether I can or cannot edit the article.

Second, I did not attempt to parse the multitude of versions offered by KIENGIR because it was obvious that other editors would not be able to parse the logic offered by KIENGIR, and I was not acting as an arbitrator, but would be submitting one or more questions to the community, and the community should be able to understand what they are voting on without a graduate-school education. If you don't like my moderation, you have the right to withdraw from the moderation. You can also ask me to ask for another moderator, but I don't think that I have one available. So either take my instructions, or don't take my instructions.

Third, I am losing patience with long-winded answers to simple questions, which can be a stalling tactic. Do not waste my time with any more stalling tactics.

Fourth, the RFC will include a question on a subsection on Anti-Roma Sentiment. There will be three choices: No subsection; User:Boynamedsue subsection; or a subsection offered by User:KIENGIR. Please let me know whether there is anything else to put in an RFC.

Fifth, I will NOT ask permission from KIENGIR or Boynamedsue as to when to publish the RFC. I can and will publish an RFC when I want to do so.

Okay. Provide your input(s) to the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Update -
 * I have put proposed version A of Anti-Romani Sentiment into the draft RFC at Dispute resolution noticeboard/RFC on Hungarian Romani. User:Boynamedsue may edit it.  Version B is blank, and is awaiting User:KIENGIR to provide the proposed version of the subsection.

This approach, with A for the Boynamedsue version, B for the KIENGIR version, and C for none, should satisfy both of you. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Update -
 * User:Boynamedsue - Edit the text of your version in section A, at Dispute resolution noticeboard/RFC on Hungarian Romani.
 * User:KIENGIR - Put the text of your version in section B, at Dispute resolution noticeboard/RFC on Hungarian Romani.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Fourteenth statements by editors (Hungarian Romani)
Hi, sorry, just checking again how the paragraphs regarding Zsolt Bayer will be included in the RFC? There is a version with Lakatos, provided by Kiengir here and a version without Lakatos provided by me in my response to your comment on the 13th section. My view is that it can be included wholesale as part of my version, Kiengir can add the version he wants to his text, and the two versions can be voted on in the same vote as the anti-Roma sentiment section. The differences are still Lakatos and the title, so it would seem that it is unnecessary to add another question. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I've tidied up my text a bit, but not made any substantive changes. I'd say I'm ready for the text to go forward. Boynamedsue (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Fourteenth statement by KIENGIR
Answer to moderator:
 * 1st&2nd - Clear, maybe at one instance I should have used the word should instead. We should not consider my logic would not be understood, many editors have good skills on it, and would have prevented us space and time as well, however I understand your goal is simplify for better understanding. Robert, you are a respected, valuable member of our community, if I was telling something, it has been technical and backpropagative, I have no problem with you, neither I've considered to have anyone else instead. Indeed, we should express/discuss our concerns, if we have.
 * 3rd - Agreed, I expressed as well in the article's talk earlier that stealing editor's precious editing time is the worst can happen in WP, believe me I lost 10 ten times more time as you here, because the already mentioned reasons, horrible
 * 4th - ok with me
 * 5th - certainly you have right for it, even outside moderation, however the best is if all of us are satisfied
 * + I provided/put my text to B.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC))

Fifteenth statement by moderator (Hungarian Romani)
I have made a few boilerplate changes to the draft RFC. If there are any other questions that you want put to the community in the RFC, please reply below quickly, because I will move the RFC to the article talk page in less than 24 hours and insert the bot tag and my signature. Once I move the RFC to the article talk page with the bot tag, it becomes a live RFC and runs for 30 days. The article will not be changed. Changes to the article will be made based on the consensus obtained by closure of the RFC. I will then leave this moderated discussion open for a few days to see if there are any other issues, or if any more RFCs need to be started. (Yes, there can be multiple RFCs on one talk page with different start and end dates.) This is your last chance to influence the content of the RFC before it goes live. After then, you will be able to influence the result of the RFC by persuasion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Fifteenth statement by KIENGIR
, this format of the RFC is fine with me, is the "explanation by proponent" section really necessary? At least, please when you launch the RFC only provide those sections if both of them are provided in the draft, otherwise it would be one-sided in case just one user would fill it (if both we ignore, of course the same as well, I don't see a reason why to repeat arguments which may be read extensively not just in this DRN, but the article's talk).(KIENGIR (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC))

Fifteenth statements by Boynamedsue
1) Is the question of the title maybe better dealt with as a separate question? I don't know how this would work, but I'm happy to accept your opinion on whether it is desirable and the form it would take.

2)Will you summarise the differences between our versions as a first post when the RfC goes live, or will that be up to us?

Boynamedsue (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Sixteenth Statement by Moderator (Hungarian Romani)
I have included a subsection called Statement by Proponent under A and under B. Fill that in with your explanation of the reasoning for the language, with your signature at the bottom. This will then be in the RFC on the article talk page. You will also be able to explain further in the Threaded Discussion. Please provide the statements within the next 36 hours. I will then copy the draft RFC to the article talk page, and it will go into live discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The statements by proponents should go into Dispute resolution noticeboard/RFC on Hungarian Romani. If the statements are not included in a timely manner, I will copy the draft RFC into the talk page without the proponent statements, but they can then be added by the proponents during the live discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sixteenth Statements by Editors (Hungarian Romani)
Just a quick response to 's point. I find it very surprising that he considers the arguments of both users to be displayed clearly on the talkpage. He was actually contacted by an uninvolved user on his own talk section who advised him in no uncertain terms that they considered the talkpage discussion to be incomprehensible. I tend to agree, even though half the posts are written by me, I still find the talkpage largely incomprehensible. I would suggest that some exposition of each user's views is absolutely necessary for any kind of reasonably informed RfC. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I would also add that the moderator has explicitly told us that we were unclear and imprecise in our communication here. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Seventeenth statement by moderator (Hungarian Romani)
User:KIENGIR - The explanatory statement is necessary if you want to provide an explanation. User:Boynamedsue has provided an explanation. If you choose not to provide an explanation, I have no intention of omitting his statement. If you want the community to understand your proposal, you should explain your proposal concisely. I have been asking for explanations because I did not understand what you, User:KIENGIR, were saying, and I did not expect that the community would understand. I have been asking you to explain clearly what you are asking for nearly a month because I had difficulty in understanding and was asking you to explain.

I am providing both editors with an opportunity to provide concise explanations, since the explanations on the article talk page are neither concise nor comprehensible. When I said that I did not parse versions A, B, and C, that was because I did try to parse them, and was unable to do so (and I am a computer scientist and I can understand mathematical logic). If you choose not to provide an explanation when I ask you to explain to the community, you are correct that the community's understanding will be one-sided, but that will be your choice. Either provide a concise explanation, or don't provide a concise explanation, in which case the community will not understand your version.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Seventeenth statement by KIENGIR
, I will provide then that section that too (indeed, I know your skills and I have serious doubts you would not be able to parse it, it is just dependent on time and devotion, I share in an advanced level these areas as well, and the level expressed is not even a difficult one).

, I saw you tried to represent the user's contact with me as a kind of justification - even thanking to him - but you ignored a very important fact, the user also expressed that "I’m not saying that the other party is entirely blameless...", on the other hand he might not have read from the beginning, but only from that part where you subsequently opened new unnecesarry sections and generated a useless redudancy. It's never a good solution to miss important parts from the full story.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC))

Eighteenth statement by moderator (Hungarian Romani)
The RFC has been posted, and will run for 30 days. If there are any other issues, please state them below. Otherwise this dispute will be closed as being resolved by the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Otokonoko
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There is an edit/revert war over the reference to the derogatory word "trap", whether it deserves a mention or whether it should be deleted altogether, whether that mention should be critical or uncritical, whether the term is offensive at all, etc. My personal opinion is stated in the talk page.

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

[]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide an outside opinion Discourage user SlySneakyFox from further reverting edits to the page (see their past behavior in the doc history) Restrict edits to the page (I am not familiar with moderation protocol so I don't know how feasible this is)

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

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

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

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

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

Arab states–Israeli alliance against 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

User:Selfstudier continues to allege that this article lacks verifiable sources and has requested the article be deleted, merged, or moved. All three discussions resulted in not to. He has since added the verifiability tag and if any user removes it, Selfstudier will claim it is disruptive editing and claim edit warring. Selfstudier is the only one making such claims against the article. Steamboat and I have tried to explain in lengthy discussions to Selfstudier going against his claims about the lack of verifiability, however, he continues to dig in his heels. We believe that he does have a bias against the article's subject matter. I've asked him many times to provide sources going against the article claim that such an Arab-Israeil alliance doesn't exist, instead, he demands the onus is on us to prove it even though sources are provided throughout the article. He has made virtually no contributions to the article.

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

Talk:Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran Talk:Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

You can resolve the dispute hopefully by going things over one last time to Selfstudier about why the article meets notability, factually, and verifiability standards on Wikipedia. Steamboat and I have tried everything. Perhaps he will listen to an administrator.

Summary of dispute by Steamboat2020
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Lawrence W. Jones
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

Another user added month and day to the date of birth of a living subject and I reverted, giving reasons having to do with identity theft and fraud, preferring to give only the year of the subject's birth. He reverted, noting he had provided sources for the month and day. I sent an e-mail to the subject, asking his preference, and received a reply from his son saying his father was no longer reading his email. Subsequently I received a reply from the subject's daughter who has power of attorney, who objected to listing the month and day of her father's birth for reasons of privacy. I removed the month and day, only to have the other editor revert again because he had provided two references.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jkaharper#DOB_and_ID_theft_concerns

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please provide a third opinion on whether under the WP:DOB policy statement,"If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it" applies when the objection is made by the subject's conservator with power of attorney, or whether "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources" applies.

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

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