Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 207

Antifa (United States)
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 has been and ongoing debate in the antifa (United States) section. I added under the Public reaction section three articles, one from Stanley G. Payne, R. R. Reno and Paul Gottfried. Some have objected and we have not been able to come to a disagreement. Some found that the sources should not be added and I found those arguments unconvincing. We have been unable to come to an agreement. I hope that a third party can come in and give their thoughts. Thanks.
 * Regarding some of the other points directly. Gottfried has currently written a book on antifascism, published by Cornel University He has also written books about the contempary Left "The Strange death of Marxism" & Fascism . So the point about him lacking expertise is nonsense. Regarding his connections to Spencer, Gottfried has denounced him and the connection appears marginal at best With that said his views are not what you usually see in America, but then again neither is Bray, West, or Chomsky who are also cited. First Things is a respected Journal on politics and Religion that has had numerous famous people write in it. Next Bray is cited in OP-ED pieces by him that are also "polemical" so that objection is nonsense. Finally the claim that Payne is not talking about American Antifa to some degree is in my view silly. Here are a few Quotes:


 * "In recent decades, one of the most popular terms of political abuse has been “fascist.” The practice of misusing this word quickly reached heights of hysteria during the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump in 2016."


 * "Objective analysis of contemporary political expression in the contemporary West might readily conclude that in terms of the use of violence and the search for an anti-traditional anthropological revolution, the term might be more readily applied to the left than to the right of the political spectrum."


 * "Though fascism has all but disappeared, antifascism has not. An antifascism without fascism makes it possible to create or imagine exactly the right kind of enemy, one that in fact does not exist. This has the further utility of seeming to justify an appeal to violence and the adoption of increasingly aggressive tactics, which impose ever greater centralized power and terms of censorship, and gain objectives less easily achieved through rational discourse and analysis. There is no simpler, easier way to stigmatize and to verbally assert power over an opponent. This rhetorical tendency represents the present and possibly culminating phase of a growing current in Western culture and politics since the 1950s, best analyzed in Paul Gottfried’s new book, Antifascism: The Course of a Crusade, out very soon."

To claim that he is not talking about modern day anti-fascism (Antifa) is to my mind absurd. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Talk Page

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I believe that all three or at the very least Stanley Payne's article should be allowed to stay up/ added although Reno's should be moved from academics.


 * Addendum: I included the editors that contributed the most to the discussion and most recent. The exception is Symmachus Auxiliarus who told me on my talk page of personal issues they are currently dealing with. I thought it prudent not to bother them at the moment with this. Regarding Payne and antifascsm here is a list of mentions and sources., , , . Regarding Gottfried, I felt that since it was under an opinion section and his merit as a historian he could be included. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bobfrombrockley
The dispute is pretty simple. On 25 April, one editor (3Kingdoms) boldly added three paragraphs of text to an "Academics and Scholars" sub-section of an already very long "Public reactions" section. The three paragraphs were mostly verbatim quotations from three opinion pieces (three sentences of quotation in one instance; four in another) and took the article from 196,125 bytes to 198,783 bytes. (Readable prose is currently 8,200 words, i.e. pretty long!) The inclusionk in the "Academics and Scholars" sub-section implies the opinions were from academics with some knowledge or expertise on the topic. The three pieces were: Paul Gottfried, described as a historian (although on the talk page it was disputed as to whether he can properly be called an academic, having retired from academia some time ago and not published in scholarly journals for some time), in Chronicles Magazine, the magazine he edits; R. R. Reno, who left academia in 2010, in First Things, the magazine he edits; and the historian Stanley G. Payne, also in First Things. This was swiftly reverted by as fringe, restored by  as expert opinion (an edit that to my mind goes against the BRD cycle: at this point it should've gone to talk). deleted Reno, a theologian with no relevant expertise, and then Gottfried, an ex-academic, describing them both as fringe, but left Payne. The original editor restored Gottfried, then Reno. correctly restored the status quo (but also left Payne, who had only been disputed by one editor at this point, Arms & Hearts), noting 3Kingdoms had violated the 1RR sanctions on the page and suggesting it should go to talk. 3Kingdoms did so. In the discussion (26 April-6 May), the original editor argued strenuously for inclusion of Gottfried and Reno, while several editors argued against, as fringe and/or undue. In addition, Aquillion, Symmachus Auxiliarus and I argued against Payne, as insufficiently noteworthy on this particular topic. The discussion then petered out. Ten days later, as it was clear to me that 3Kingdoms had not generated consensus for Payne's inclusion, I restored to the status quo. This was reverted, against the spirit of BRD, by, with the justification "let's represent viewpoints not suppress them". Terjen also re-animated the discussion on the talk page, now focusing on Payne but also arging still for Gottfried. ,, , , , presented arguments against; 3Kingdoms and Terjen arguments for (and  (which looks to me like clear consensus against inclusion). Calton and Ezlev have edited to return the artile to status quo pending consensus, while 3Kingdoms, Terjen and  have all re-added the no-consensus four sentences. (PackMecEng did not participate in the talk page discussion, but gave an edit summary here.)

Aquillion below summarises the arguments against, which I think are compelling.

I am unclear why all three of the editors who dissent from the consensus have been named in this dispute, but only three of the ten editors backing the consensus have been named. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Summary of dispute by Aquillion
Summarizing points from discussion: I won't be participating in this DR in-depth because consensus on talk is already overwhelming, the situation is so straightforward, and the entire argument long past the point of WP:DROPTHESTICK. If 3Kingdoms thinks that the things he says are so self-evident that these are important enough that secondary sourcing is not required and that Payne is talking about antifa, I would suggest an RFC instead - I see no chance of anyone changing their mind as a result of dispute resolution. --Aquillion (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * None of these sources have any WP:SECONDARY coverage, yet 3Kingdoms is trying to weigh them equal to (and in some cases above) sources that have significant secondary coverage. This lack of secondary coverage shows that these pieces and the opinions they express are not significant.
 * All three were published solely in the polemical journals - Stanley G. Payne and R. R. Reno in First Things, and Paul Gottfried in Chronicles Magazine (in-house journal of the Rockford Institute), where Gottfried is editor-in-chief. None of these are sufficiently noteworthy or influential publications to make an opinion noteworthy simply by being published there.  This further indicates that their inclusion is WP:UNDUE; and, again, if the only sources we can find for these opinions are essentially hired guns paid to express them in polemical sources, that makes it hard to argue that they are WP:DUE.
 * Reno and Gottfried have no relevant expertise - Reno is a theologian and Gottfried's formal expertise is in philosophy.
 * Gottfried is a WP:FRINGE figure even beyond that - he was Richard Spencer's mentor and played a role in the early formation of the Alt-right. See eg.
 * Payne's piece does not even mention antifa - trying to use it here is pure WP:OR.
 * As far as I can tell, no explanation or argument has been presented for including these people's opinions. 3Kingdoms has (attempted to) respond to some of the points made, but his responses are hopelessly off-base and seem to consist mostly of asserting by fiat that these people are of course famous important experts, what they say is significant, the journals are significant, and of course Payne is talking about Antifa, all based on nothing but 3Kingdoms' own personal opinions.
 * The only thing that could convince me even slightly is to find independent, high-quality secondary coverage for these pieces; since 3Kingdoms has repeatedly asserted that these pieces and their authors are important and impactful, finding independent secondary coverage should be easy, especially since we've easily found such secondary sources for every piece he challenged.

Summary of dispute by XOR'easter
I wasn't tagged, but I've participated on the Talk page slightly. I concur with 's summary above. Basically, there are real WP:OR and WP:UNDUE issues, along with the question of relevant expertise. I'd add that the Payne material was a lengthy, mostly verbatim quote of assertions and polemics. As such, including it would fail our standards of encyclopedic tone. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Antifa (United States) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.


 * What is the evidence that a preponderance of reliable, mainstream sources give any of these authors the credence necessary to clear the WP:UNDUE hurdle for their opinions to be noteworthy enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia article? I'm not even looking for their opinions to be mainstream, just that mainstream sources engage them enough to give them credence as notable experts whose opinion is worth engaging with, even to dispute it.  Looking at the arguments from both sides here, I have yet to see any evidence of that.  If you have it, please make it clear.-- Jayron 32 11:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , I'm not a direct participant in this DR but have been on the periphery of the discussion. Multiple editors have asked for the same evidence you're asking for, but I haven't seen it provided. ezlev $tlk ctrbs$ 20:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks to me like the disputed content is not closely enough linked to the specific subject (why aren't these authors talking about anti-fascism as an ideology or anti-fascist policy or anti-fascists who criticise this particular movement, some of whom are quoted within this article?) and there's no evidence of due weight. I don't see that any of it can be valuably repurposed for anything—it should just stay removed. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Message I am willing to mediate this discussion, however- Every single participant needs to be named and invited. Until that happens- this discussion cannot start. Also, be aware- the first thing I will be doing is testing the existing consensus- followed by checking the proposed references. Issues with this many participants are rarely successful here, a WP:RFC will probably have better results. If we do move forward here, this will have to be a very structured discussion- and I will need all involved to please be very respectful and follow directions carefully. Also- all responses will need to be 200 words or less to keep this manageable. Once the additional editors have been added and notified- we can begin. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Analysis before closing
Okay, consider this an extended 3rd Opinion. I'm doing this because its been days since there was activity here, and with this many users invovled- the chances of an extended discussion having a positive effect is slim to none.

I have read the entire talk page and most of the associated edit summaries. I made a chart to keep arguments and involved editors straight. And here is what we have:

4 basic "issues"

1. Include Paul Gottfried 2. Include R._R._Reno 3. Include Stanley G. Payne 4. Remove the section entirely

For issue 1: is in favor- Users, , , , , , , and are opposed.

For Issue 2:

is in favor- Users, , , , , and are opposed.

For Issue 3:

, and  are in favor- Users, , , , , , , , and  are opposed.

For Issue 4: No one is really in favor or opposed per say- so much as it was suggested as a "If we can't solve this, lets eliminate it entirely" solution.

For Issue 1 and 2- 3Kingdoms states that they are credible based on their being published by academic publishers and in significant periodicals. The others state that publication by academic publications are not indicative of endorsement, and that the circulation and reputation of these periodicals is not significant. They also point out that Gotfried has been out of academia for years. They point out that their positions are fringe. There has also been question of their expertise.

Based on both the quality and quantity of these arguments, as well 3Kingdoms not providing further proof of credibility beyond being published by an academic source (but not endorsed by said source) Nor did they provide specific reputable sources that cite these two authors, nor did they answer show that the periodical was indeed significant (40k distribution alone does not prove significance. We need secondary coverage to show significance.). My opinion is that there is a clear consensus against including these two authors.

For issue 3- It is a bit murkier. Terjen added that they felt including this author contributed to the neutrality of the author. And multiple people agreed that they were a respected academic in the past. The concern, then, is two fold. 1- that this author has fringe writings on this topic only. and 2- that they are not specifically speaking of ANTIFA in the source that they wished to include. From reading the arguments, I think there are equally good arguments on both side as to the reliability of this author on this topic. However, If there is not a clear quote that specifically says they are speaking of Modern (Past 5-10 years) American Antifascist groups- any assumption that they are is WP:OR and cannot be included. Because this author has focused on mostly European Antifascism- requesting a direct quote showing they are speaking of American Antifascism (not necessarily ANTIFA- but generic American Antifascism from the past 5-10 years will do IMO), is not out of line. Since 3Kingdoms has failed to provide such a quote- this author should not be included until or unless that quote is provided. And, since 3Kingdoms is the one wanting to add information- the burden of proof is on them. Not on those wishing to keep the article as it is. This is a clear and solid goalpost. The articles provided- specifically this one [] Do not constitute an acadmic study of Antifa- that article was clearly an opinion piece and in it Payne is not even sure himself he is referencing Antifa because he says "Probably Antifa"- That is not a clear indicator he is discussing Antifa. "Probably" is not good enough- it must be certainty.

For issue 4- I do not believe their has been enough discussion for a consensus to be established.

Finally- 3Kingdoms- the arguments against including the three authors have been professionally, clearly, and considering expressed. You have accused multiple editors of bad faith arguments when they have spent quite a bit of time researching and asking you questions. You did not answer many of those questions- instead repeating your same arguments with no new information. At times you approached personal attacks. Now, I'm not an admin. And this forum is for content disputes. Normally- I would close a dispute like this with a simple "the DRN will not override consensus" but I wanted to give you a detailed explanation of what is seen by an unevolved outside editor and suggest, strongly, that you WP:DROPTHESTICK. I will leave this open for another day or so incase you would like to present a quote for Payne that clearly shows they are speaking about Modern American Antifascist groups. Then I will close. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Nightenbelle.1 Here is a direct interview where he is point blanket asked about Antifa . He uses terminology he also uses in his first things article so yes he is talking about antifa in that article. I did not want to use this interview because I was certain that all of the talk would be about Dinesh D'Souza as opposed to the actual arguments. There here he is talking about antifa. 2 Gottfried here is what I wrote before edited "Now Gottfried, he has written numerous works on political ideologies of history and current development. The Strange death of Marxism is a study of changes in the post WWII left,, The Chesterton Review is a peer-reviewed academic journal, which wiki considers high on the reliable source mark, gave a good review of Gottfried's book shows he is an expert in the current left and can be asked to comment. This of course is not getting into the fact that this year he is release a book on Anti-fascism is more than enough proof of its merit. Here is a link to academic support of his books on fascism and antifasicsm which indicate he can talk about the issues & . 3 No I did not accuse multiple people of bad faith, I felt that the actions of one person constituted it based upon what I saw from them, I do not intend to bring that up again here. However, I will say a few things. Your claim that I provided no evidence is simply wrong I provided new sources when people questioned merit and responded to criticism. Finally to I have not found the response of some to be "professional" such as GUY and not I did not find many clear. Thanks have a good day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That interview is directly about Antifa- but because he is talking about Antifa in one interview does not clarify that he is talking about Antifa in a completely separate interview. So only this one interview relates to Antifa at this point. And if you want to submit it as a source- well that is completely different. But you cannot say "He says talks about Bananas here, so obviously he is also talking about bananas there." You can use sources ONLY that specifically mention Antifa or American Anti-fascism. So ONLY the podcast you posted relates to Antifa at this point.
 * I already read what you had written- So that one book that he got a good review on is a reliable source- that doesn't mean that anything else he says or publishes is reliable. Again- one thing does not make another acceptable. So that review of a completely different book, does not make his new book a WP:RS that book must be measured in his own light. And, I'm sorry- consensus is against you on Gottfried. Period. You can do a RFC- but you cannot overturn consensus. No amount of continued argument here will change that fact. At this point- drop that stick. Payne is the only one you have some wiggle room on- and only IF you find a source that specifically mentions Antifa (like the podcast) and then ONLY that source is acceptable. THat is not me making a decision- that is Wikipedia policy. I urge you to accept it and move on.
 * You are also not reading what I wrote. I didn't say you provided no evidence at all- I said you did not adequately answer their questions. And you didn't. So, I'm going to close this, you are still guilty of WP:IDHT at this point I will make one last recommendation that you WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. And if you continue to force the issue or bludgeon, I'm going to recommend the other editors take this to the ANI. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Electronic Harassment
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I am an advocate for electronic harassment abuse. There are numerous claims of electronic abuse and many patents that explain in detail how some of these technologies were created. Labeling this term as a conspiracy theory and only talking about victims as suffering from mental health is extremely damaging. I know if the discussion was created among editors and other users of this platform they would not only be more informed about what this is but will want to publish a page that is on the side of victims, not the abusers.

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

I have tried to ask for review on the talk page but the editors were uninterested in even discussing this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_harassment#As_a_victim_of_this,_I_request_the_review_of_this_material._It_is_not_a_conspiracy_and_it_affects_many_people.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Listen and learn. You cannot just shut something down as a conspiracy without listening to advocates. This is a real thing and victims are desperate for help. Open up this discussion among the editing community.

Electronic Harassment discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Pinging as the two editors who reverted, in case they want to say anything before the inevitable close.
 * Note that I'm not closing myself because I've recently edited that page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll say here what I said there: - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

What does this mean? What is the process for discussing this dispute?
 * It means we will not be discussing the dispute here. The DRN has rules and proceedures which the filing editor did not follow. Please review those at the top of this page, follow them, and you may try to re-open. However, WP is not a place where victims should be coming for help. We are a place to summarize information. If you want to offer victims of this help- you need to go find a better venue. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hlubi Mboya
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 title for the movie was initially reverted by Sundayclose and I disagreed. Now, I decided to use the title as stated on the title page on Netflix which I stated in my revert but this is close to an edit war which I am just being made aware of. Apparently the user has had similar issues with other users on other pages.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oluwapelumii

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Was I wrong on using the words as stated on the movie title page on Netflix or grammar should be followed at all costs?

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

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

Khazar hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry
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

Currently this article does not properly reflect how this anthropological theory is used as a conspiracy theory to harm Ashkenazi Jews around the world.

I had added in the words 'and conspiracy theory' to the opening line of the article and added sources to back up the claim that this debunked theory is used as a conspiracy theory.

Aside from having other editors agree and add sources of their own one specific editor keeps removing the edits.

I am not trying to resolve a dispute with the editor so much as I am trying to get a 3rd party in to help resolve this. Right now the dispute is heated between myself and the other editor so I want a 3rd party to help out so I can hopefully get this edit put up!

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

To look through our arguments and determine if my addition of, "and a conspiracy theory" is valid with the many provided sources.

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

Khazar hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - There were three editors including the filing editor who had a dispute at the article talk page. Only one of the other two editors has been listed, and neither of them has been notified yet.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

International Ice Hockey Federation
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

Whether International Ice Hockey Federation should have a section on controversy detailing recent events regarding Belarus and tournament hosting.

This is being resisted by other editors. As the proclaim it would skew the article.

I argue it should be included with the following:

The IIHF has played an active role in legitimising Lukashenko's regime in Belarus by holding it's tournament there in 2014, which was controversial and by intending to hold it again this year, in 2021 which was also controversial and was eventually cancelled and instead held in Latvia. At the beginning of this year, the IIHF's seeming willingness, confirmed by public statements by IIHF president Fasel, along with photo opportunities of Fasel hugging Lukashenko caused controversy. Several tournament sponsors pulled out of supporting the tournament. Most recently, developments that in my view are clearly controversial, have led to this unfortunate arbitration request. In protest to the recent hijacking of a plane bound from Athens to Riga, Latvian officials replaced the Belarusian flag in the flag stand with that of a flag associated with the Belarusian opposition. Fasel then sent a formal letter to the Latvian foreign minister asking for the flag to be replaced again or IIHF flags to be removed. IIHF flags were removed and so there is no branding of an ongoing IIHF tournament event.

The reason this belongs on this article and not just on the articles of the tournaments themselves is because this is shown to be consistent policy of IIHF. Even in January of this year, Fasel is giving public statements saying he is pushing for Belarus to be the location for the tournament.

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


 * Talk:International Ice Hockey Federation
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case
 * I have prepared a --->summary <--- to explain the issue.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Clearly I think is justified. This should be commented on by more neutral editors.


 * I would imagine this is an RfC issue - I think that is likely the easiest way to handle. Would be best to have a neutral editor do the summary and technical bit. Should be noted for discussion at relevant projects as it seems like a broader set of editors is also whats needed, not just a clearer resolution format. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Like so? --Jabbi (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

International Ice Hockey Federation discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Gramps (disambiguation)
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 sequence of ploys (nomination for Deletion failed; fallback to Move the article; then subvert the REDIRECT methodology) to marginalize a free and open source project.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gramps_(disambiguation)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Clarityfiend#Gramps_page_redirect

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Direction should be given on whether a MOVE of a page (created 15 June 2006‎ with continuous revision through the years) should have NOTICE and DISCUSSION.

Also whether the REDIRECT resulting from the MOVE should be allowed to have the target changed before robots can crawl the page. (This subverts the ability automated tools to effectively repair linkrot.)

And how a disambiguation page used to justify the MOVE can be arbitrarily restructured to disenfranchise the moved page.

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

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

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

Wikipedia:IPs are human too
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

IP editor User:143.176.30.65 made with edit summary "I've rewritten the lead section." This was reverted by User:Mr.choppers, with edit summary "better before, plenty editorializing here already" Discussion between the two editors then took place at User talk:Mr.choppers. Mediation is necessary to guide the disputants through a discussion and towards a compromise.

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

See User talk:Mr.choppers.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

It would be beneficial to both editors if a third party could compare the current lead section of IPs are human too with the rewritten version by the IP editor which can be found at this revision.

Summary of dispute by 143.176.30.65
In my opinion, my modification of the lead section of WP:HUMAN was unjustifiably reverted by Mr.choppers. Neither the added emphasis in the essay nor its increased length are, in and of itself, valid reasons for rejecting and reverting my edit, yet those increases appear to constitute the core of Mr.choppers' criticism. I also disagree with his stance that my version is "harder to read, while adding nothing". The essay attempts to convince its readers, and my version of the lead is more detailed and accurate, and thus better conveys the essence. The single-sentence-comparison by Mr.choppers doesn't get us anywhere. I believe he doesn't really see a dispute because the current revision is as he prefers, and that him being a registered user and me being an IP editor does play a role. Acknowledging an 'actual' dispute would require him to see IP editors, such as myself, as providing equally important input in building consensus. Given his comments on various talk pages, he does not. I would point him to WP:HUMAN, but... yeah. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Mr.choppers
143 changed the introductory paragraph at IPs are human too, I consider it worse than the original version. I don't really see a dispute, except 143 believes that I only reverted it because they are not editing under a user name.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  13:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IPs are human too discussion
I want to point out that, just now, Mr.choppers has "Because of these misconceptions, edits by unregistered users are mistakenly" to (emphasis mine) "Because of these misconceptions, edits by unregistered users may be", which my version improved by including "Occasionally, [...]". So, you see, he does see the same room for improvement; he just wants to leave the editing to himself. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tried to incorporate part of the change you wanted to see, in (arguably) less convoluted prose.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a much bigger problem with the lead section as-is. It fails to understandably convey the essence of 'IP editors are human too'. Because it starts with statistics about disruption, and then says misconceptions may result in unfair treatment of IP editors. WP:IPHUMAN is meant to say: policies and guidelines such as WP:GOODFAITH, WP:NEWBIES and WP:CIVIL apply to IP editors just as much as registered users, don't treat IP editors like crap, because just like registered editors, IP editors are first and foremost editors - humans. Therefore the article should start by acknowledging that disruptive IP editors may piss off registered users, because that's what results in what I'll describe next. Then it should state that such IP editors may cause registered users to approach IP editors in an unnecessarily hostile manner. Then it should explain that policies and guidelines such as those mentioned above still apply, because all editors should be treated with civility. Since we're then at 'in the end, we are all editors', we can then continue by mentioning the article title, that we're all human; that is, treat humans, including IP editors, humanely. Then, but this is way less important, we can go into misconceptions that may cause editors to 'forget' that IP editors are human. For instance by underestimation of IP editors' valuable contributions. And only then should we mention the old studies, that are discussed in tremendous detail in the rest of the essay. This is all right there, in my version. The current revision, that you prefer, is terrible. It barely manages to convey the essence of 'IP editors are human too'. It starts with a questionable claim. Then it immediately mentions the old research, that only serves as an example misconception, and only at the very end it kind of summarizes that editors shouldn't be dicks to IP editors. My version is better than the current revision. You disagree. A third party can compare the current lead with my version, and then give us feedback. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

People's Mujahedin of Iran
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The dispute is over this sentence in the lede of the article:

"...a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland."

I have proposed changing the wording to what I find is a more in line with WP:NPOV (and better represents sources):

"...which has since had a lasting negative impact on its popularity in Iran."

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

Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran

Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think that just by looking at the available sources (the ones currently in the lede of the article, as well the ones presented in the talk page discussion), an assessment can be made on whether the current version should be kept or if it can be changed into something more neutral.
 * @Mhhossein: like Idealigic writes below, stone-walling is the problem. A review by a non-involved moderator who looks at the presented sources should help resolve this stalemate. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by idealigic
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I support changing the sentence to something less POVish (like what Stefka is proposing).

There has been a lot of stonewalling in the talk page (this proposal was presented about one month ago in the talk page), so I also support a Dispute Resolution.

Here is a compilation of the sources in the article and in the talk page which also suggest a more neutral wording:

In the article:


 * This has weakened them in the eyes of many Iranians who correctly saw them siding with Iraq against their own country during the Iran-Iraq War.


 * there was a decrease in the Iranian people's support for the Mojahedin since it had joined since it had joined and cooperated with their worst enemy - Iraq - during the long years of the war.


 * its goals and violent activities were strongly opposed by the Iranian population–even more so its alignment with Iraq


 * During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the MEK carried out several armed attacks on Iran in coordination with Saddam's army, losing much of its domestic support in the process

In the talk page:


 * It can be said that the Mojahedin's presence in Iraq during the war minimized the people's support for the organization


 * Prior to its exile, the MeK was the most popular dissident group in Iran. It lost much of its popularity due to its willingness to fight with Saddam—the instigator of the destructive Iran-Iraq War—and to kill Iranian conscripts


 * MeK’s decision to align itself with Saddam against the IRI and to kill Iranian conscripts during the brutal Iran-Iraq War greatly eroded its popular support in Iran. Although the MeK repeatedly claims to be the most influential opposition group in that country, in reality it appears that this once-prominent dissident group can now validly claim only to be highly organized and well (albeit illegally) funded. Indeed, many Iranians observe that, since the MeK’s move to Iraq, the group is the only entity less popular in Iran than the IRI itself.

And this one (that also support a more neutral version)


 * However, the envisaged military and popular support in Iran did not materialize.

It is clear that the majority of the sources support a much more neutral wording. The stonewalling in the talk page has prevented a version that represents what the majority of the sources say about this. DR help is necessary here. Thank you. Idealigic (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

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


 * If destroying the MEK's appeal means losing MEK’s popularity, so we could say that MeK is no longer attractive to the people in Iran. But it does not mean that it is hated by the people in Iran.


 * So we have three proposals:

MeK might be attractive a little yet:
 * MeK’s decision to align itself with Saddam against the IRI and to kill Iranian conscripts during the brutal Iran-Iraq War greatly eroded its popular support in Iran. Although the MeK repeatedly claims to be the most influential opposition group in that country, in reality it appears that this once-prominent dissident group can now validly claim only to be highly organized and well (albeit illegally) funded. Indeed, many Iranians observe that, since the MeK’s move to Iraq, the group is the only entity less popular in Iran than the IRI itself.
 * During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the MEK carried out several armed attacks on Iran in coordination with Saddam's army, losing much of its domestic support in the process


 * MeK is not attractive any more, or, its popularity is destroyed (what we currently have in the article):
 * However, the envisaged military and popular support in Iran did not materialize—at least in part because the MeK had allied itself with the instigator of the war and had killed Iranian conscripts


 * MeK is hated:
 * its goals and violent activities were strongly opposed by the Iranian population–even more so its alignment with Iraq
 * Once it settled in Iraq and fought against Iranian forces in alliance with Saddam, the group incurred the ire of the Iranian people


 * Of course, there are more sources for each proposal that I could provide them if needed. For the time being, however, I just searched RAND report (written by multiple writers), which I think should be considered as the most comprehensive & reliable research in this subject. Thus, based on what I searched till now, I would like to take the middle proposal, which is currently in the article. Ghazaalch (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Mhhossein
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I believe it is too soon for DR to be started since the discussion is still ongoing on the article talk page. It appears that Stefka Bulgaria thinks negative things are not neutral – we know they are two difference concepts. He has not even responded to my query. -- M h hossein   talk 05:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Stefka Bulgaria: Can you explain why you have jumped into DR without trying to resolve the issue on the talk page? I see the discussion is still ongoing. -- M h hossein   talk 14:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

People's Mujahedin of Iran discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.


 * Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors. The other editors must be notified on their talk pages.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. They've all been notified in their talk pages now. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

First Statement by Moderator (MEK)
I will try to moderate this dispute, but I will caution the editors that I will have very little patience with complaints about the behavior of other editors. Complain about the wording of the article, but not about stonewalling, or about wasting of time. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. Read the rules, and comply with the rules. My own opinion is that the lede section is much too long, but that is not the issue. It appears that there is one controversial sentence buried in the middle of the lede that is the issue. Is that correct? Will each editor please make a statement, of not more than two paragraphs, as to what they think should either be changed in the article, or what they think should be left the same? Do not reply to each other. Address your answers to me, and to the community. If there are any questions about procedure or policy, ask them up front, because otherwise I will assume that you understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

First Statements by Editors (MEK)
This is the controversial sentence in question:

I propose changing the wording to something more neutral (I proposed "...which has since had a negative impact on its popularity in Iran.", but I'm open to other suggestions).

Also per your suggestion that the lede is too long, I would also support removing this sentence altogether (since the claim that the MEK is unpopular in Iran "is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran." ). Also there ins't a survey of any kind (be it neutral, independent, or credible) regarding the MEK's appeal in Iran. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon: I would support changing that sentence to "which decreased its support in Iran" (based on the sources shown in here and in the talk page of the article). Or what Stefka is proposing is also fine. I would also support removing this sentence to help make the lead shorter. Thanks. Idealigic (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That it "is difficult to prove because of the nature of the government in Iran" is itself a disputed claim which has nothing to with the mentioned sentence in the lede. For Robert McClenon's information: Stefka Bulgaria has used the "The MEK is the subject of propaganda by the Iranian government" to wash away criticism regarding MEK. This poor argument has been criticized by the admin watching the page (here and here). This new argument is closely similar to that. Moreover, the discussion is ongoing Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran hence this DR is something out of process. -- M h hossein   talk 11:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Second Statement by Moderator (MEK)
There are already two RFCs running on the article talk page, and we will decide this by another RFC. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Will each editor please provide their preferred wording for the controversial sentence. If we can agree, then the matter is resolved. Otherwise we will use another RFC. Be specific and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Second Statements by Editors (MEK)
I propose changing the wording to something more neutral like "...which has since had a negative impact on its popularity in Iran." Or 's suggestion ("which decreased its support in Iran") is also ok by me. This proposal is based on WP:NPOV per the majority of academic sources supporting a more neutral wording (as you can see on the article's TP discussion). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, thank you for your assistance. I support changing the sentence to something less POVish (like what Stefka is proposing, either one). Idealigic (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Third Statement by Moderator (MEK)
Do we have agreement to change the wording to "...which has since had a negative impact on its popularity in Iran"? If so, we can close this dispute as resolved. If not, I will put together an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with this change. Idealigic (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Third Statements by Editors (MEK)

 * I agree with the change. Thanks Robert. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List of_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States&action=history
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Incorrect information that has been supported by facts

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States&action=history

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Third party intervention....if you examine this talk page, the user has summarily blocked people for even trying to duscuss articles.....

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List of_one-hit_wonders_in_the_United_States&action=history discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Gabor Jozsef
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, my English version has been turned down today by @Theroadislong now. The wiki page is the English version of the career and life of Gabor Jozsef, the ex CEO of the Hungarian Oil and Gas Company. We already have the wikipedia page about Gabor Jozsef in Hungarian since 2019. THAT SHOULD NOT BE DELETED !!! My intetion was to create the English page and link it to the Hungarian page after your approval. I would be happy if you approved the English version. Thank you. Kind regards Kvantum71.

Link of the HUngarian wiki on Gabor Jozsef: https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zsef_G%C3%A1bor

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

Hi, my English version has been turned down today by @Theroadislong now. The wiki page is the English version of the career and life of Gabor Jozsef, the ex CEO of the Hungarian Oil and Gas Company. We already have the wikipedia page about Gabor Jozsef in Hungarian since 2019. THAT SHOULD NOT BE DELETED !!! My intetion was to create the English page and link it to the Hungarian page after your approval. I would be happy if you approved the English version. Thank you. Kind regards Kvantum71.

Lin

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please approve the English version so that I can link that to the Hungarian version. Thank you.

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

Trans Fat
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

In mid 2020 Trans Fat was merged with fat despite a strong consensus against doing so. Starting last month, I restored the page and made major improvements, after first giving prior notice I would do so, and nobody objecting.

Since then, several editors have deleted my changes and replaced it with a redirect.

It is hard to convey just how stupid not having a wikipedia article on trans fat is. From 2006 to 2020, there was a trans fat article. There's a trans fat article in every other major language, at least 40 total I can see.

The people who keep deleting the article and replacing it with a redirect refuse to engage with any of the points that I made against not having a trans fat article. They also refuse to engage with the large opposition to merger from 2020.

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

Talk:Fat Talk:Fat Talk:Trans_fat

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Ask editors to stop deleting all trans fat content and replacing it with redirect. The merger was strongly opposed, and nobody is even willing to defend it now, as editor who did it without consensus no longer is interested and has not edited it since.

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

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

Summary of dispute by Firejuggler86
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Summary of dispute by Onel5969
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

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

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

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

Summary of dispute by Ozzie10aaaa
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by CV9933
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Mdewman6
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Summary of dispute by Gah4
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Trans Fat discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * I'll moderate this if we can get some statements from the other listed parties., you must notify all the other names parties. You may use  to do so.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Miss Universe 2017
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Disagreement of who won Miss Photogenic for this pageant. There are possibly issues of nationalism involved as each contestant is identified by their nation. I have tried to moderate but it is really in an edit war state now between two other editors. The talkpage discussion has not been fruitful yet, one is accusing the other of sockpuppetry and the other is not responding.

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

Talk:Miss Universe 2017#No Miss Photogenic on Miss Universe 2017

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

More independent editors may be able to unravel what should be in the article or provide dispute resolution advice. If someone can read Indonesian sources, it might help as well.

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

First, I have the right to defence and protect myself and fellow wikipedians from being accused as a vandalism by User:Nguyenquochieu2107. I speak for the truth, not only for the sake of my own but for all of the other wikipedians who try to reach User talk:Nguyenquochieu2107 talkpage and Talk:Miss Universe 2017 talkpage but there's no further answer and feedback on what she does. I speak for a cause and the truth is there. Her only Special:Contributions/Nguyenquochieu2107 Contribution page is all about reverting, her rude behaviour and attacking all editors can be seen on the [Miss Universe 2017 Revision history] page and her edit summary. started from a YEAR AGO, on 5 July 2020 User:Nguyenquochieu2107 reverting many other user edits, always deleting on Miss Photogenic award + the reliable references. And by this, I stop my contribution to Miss Universe 2017 page since 5th June 2021. But I do hope that the fellow administrators here can gave the answer for all of us that being accussed as vandalitators by User:Nguyenquochieu2107!


 * My first and only intention: I came to Miss Universe 2017 page just at 15 March 2021‎, to add a reliable references supporting Miss Photogenic title. One reference came from the biggest and oldest Indonesian national newspaper - Jawa Pos, second reference is from RCTI national TV channel page. Both are stating that Miss Indonesia-Bunga Jelitha is the winner of Miss Photogenic. I’m Indonesian so I can translate this for you; on the stated reference it said that (in Bahasa Indonesia); “Bunga Jelitha mengajak penggemarnya untuk flashback dengan perjuangannya saat mengharumkan nama Indonesia di ajang kontes kecantikan sekelas Miss Universe. Saat Tahun 2017 diajang bergengsi dunia itu, Bunga Jelitha menjadi pemenang Miss Photogenic dan membuat Indonesia bangga.” Here I’m translating for you in english; “Bunga Jelitha invited her fans to flashback with her struggle to made Indonesia proud in the Miss Universe beauty pageant. In 2017, on that prestigious world event, Bunga Jelitha won Miss Photogenic and made Indonesia proud.”

--- down bellow is the things that administrators need to investigate
 * User:Nguyenquochieu2107 rude intention started from 5 July 2020, possible ganged up with sock-puppet users, attacking everyone by saying that we all doing vandalism: User:Nguyenquochieu2107, User:Ronaldpangasinan, User:Panikilicious and User:Sandy Anugrah has the similarities on edit behaviour; they only deleting on Miss Photogenic award + the reliable references since 5 July 2020 until today precisely on:


 * User:Nguyenquochieu2107: HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE
 * User:Ronaldpangasinan (sock puppet of User:Whiteproperton97): HERE
 * User:Sandy Anugrah (sock puppet of User:Whiteproperton97): HERE, HERE, HERE,
 * User:Panikilicious (sock puppet of User:Whiteproperton97): HERE, HERE

'''WHY? they only deleting on Miss Photogenic award + the reliable references since 5 July 2020 until today? While the one that suppose to be deleted is Miss Congeniality and Best National Costume award that is NOT''' supported with any references (Miss Congeniality even supported by wrong un-found page). another users who intended to add references on Miss Photogenic BEFORE ME also being reverted by her gang and said that they’re doing vandalism, which is NOT.

WHY no clear reason and NOT RESPONSIVE on the talkpages? I saw so many editors trying to reach User:Nguyenquochieu2107, including me on her talkpage but she does not even gave any response! since then User:Nguyenquochieu2107 kept on doing her reverting habit without clear reason and reference point on why she is doing that? after check her Special:Contributions/Nguyenquochieu2107 Contribution page, this user only created account just for deleting information and reliable reference even page blanking just because she doesnt agree with the information and references that appear on wikipedia. so It’s clearly biased disruptive edit which another users also complaint the same thing too in User talk:Nguyenquochieu2107 talkpage.

I DID NOT allege anyone doing sock puppet. read again.. I said that User:Nguyenquochieu2107 edit SEEMS look like already confirmed sock puppet users of User:Whiteproperton97 (User:Ronaldpangasinan, User:Panikilicious and User:Sandy Anugrah). SEEMS means their edit content and behaviour are SIMILAR based on the stated history page above. WHY both of them only removing miss photogenic+the references?? which is completely strange, the same edit made by them.--Lukewon (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Nguyenquochieu2107
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Miss Universe 2017 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Sri Lankan_Civil_War
{{DRN archive top|Closed. As User:Nightenbelle noted, she had previously mediated what appears to be the same dispute, a question about how many were killed in the Sri Lankan Civil War. {"Too many" is true but not an answer.) I have closed this dispute because it is clear that someone is editing disruptively.  I have not determined who is at fault, and I probably will not try.  I have taken this dispute to WP:ANI.  It may be necessary for the community to impose Community General Sanctions to control battleground editing with regard to this historical real battleground.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)}} 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

re: Infobox

Can Oz346, Obi2canibe and 84.209.141.236 please provide a WP:RS to support their edits/reverts listed below that claim 276,000 casualties? Like last time, the discussion has descended into accusations/incivility and stalled.


 * On 15th Feb 2021, the user made edit 1006891705 with no WP:RS.


 * On 28th Feb 2021, the user made edit 1009458455 with no WP:RS.


 * On 9th May 2021, the user made edit 1022318321 with no WP:RS.


 * On 12th May 2021, the user made edit 1022832126 with no WP:RS.


 * Finally on 3rd Jun 2021, the user made edit 1026680246, however the source states 54,053 casualties. Not the claimed 276,000 casualties.

WP:Verifiability clearly states, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." and "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." --Jayingeneva (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

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



How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Can the WP:DRN process please elicit WP:RS to support their 276,000 figure in the Infobox?

Summary of dispute by Oz346
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Obi2canibe
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by 84.209.141.236
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Sri Lankan_Civil_War discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Comment- DRN Volunteers please note this same issue was discussed [|here]. An agreement was reached, implemented, and less than 24 hours later an involved editor decided to toss it out and re-add the information that they wanted and ignore the agreement. Since then, the discuss on the talk page has been filled with nationalism, POV pushing, and general rudeness and aspersions. I would not recomend we make a second attempt at this dispute, but instead send them over to the ANI until they learn to behave in a way that is appropriate for WP editors, however- other than this statement, I'm going to recuse myself and let other editors make the final decision. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Rainbow Bridge (album)
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 removed the "Rainbown Bridge is a compilation", and changed to "posthumous album". Because the only fact and neutral view is that Rainbow Bridge is a posthumous album by Hendrix. Is it a compilation? Depending on the definition of "compilation" it might be, but unless we are talking about typical compilations, (like Greatest Hits, The Best Of, Smash Hits in Hendrix's case) those definitions are usually vague and arbitrary. For example. before my edition, the Rainbow Bridge article quoted a book to support that Rainbow Bridge is a compilation. If we look at the source, the writer is asserting that despite the effort to create an album that worked as a unit, there is a wide range of dates, sessions and involve multiple band lineups, so it is "almost like a greatest hits album", and the release was intended to "milk as much money as possible". As we can see this is his opinion on the subject. His definition of compilation is vague an arbitrary. Based in this guidelines many "studio" albums released during past 60 years would fall under the "compilation" category. For example, we can't put "this is the best Jimi Hendrix album ever" on an "Electric Ladyland" article, even if we quote 50 books where people claim thats the best Hendrix album, because thats against the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) standard. Also, an article must be precise and explicit and clear, to avoid ambiguity, misunderstanding and to be free of vague generalities and half-truths. "Compilation" for many people mean albums that are officially intended to be viewed as such, like Greatest Hits as I mentioned before, or compilation of "never seen before" material, like Hendrix's purple box set or West Coat Seattle Boy, so putting the album is that category create a lot of confusion, specially because Rainbow Bridge was not released as an compilation, but as an "official soundtrack album" consisted by songs never released before. Another user reversed those changes.

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



How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Uninvolved volunteers might help us.

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

Rainbow Bridge (album) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

List of Catholic bishops in the Philippines
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

When Catholic bishops are elected, some editors wish to place them immediately in office at their new (arch)diocese. However, Canon Law specifies that a bishop does not take authority until he has been ceremonially installed there (e.g. inauguration of American presidents). Furthermore it specifies that he remains in authority in his previous (arch)diocese, if he has one. Is it proper to insert an (arch)bishop-elect's name in the table here under his new diocese, and is it proper to remove an outgoing (arch)bishop from his previous office in the table?

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


 * Talk:List of Catholic bishops in the Philippines
 * User talk:Elizium23
 * User talk:Foxtrot2021

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please decide on the applicability of WP:CRYSTAL to newly-elected bishops as regards us listing them as having taken office, and whether that should occur upon appointment or installation.

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

Summary of dispute by Foxtrot2021
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

List of Catholic bishops in the Philippines discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Ivy Latimer
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

Should we use feminine pronouns to refer to a female actress?

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


 * Talk:Ivy Latimer

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Suggest how to apply MOS:GENDERID

Summary of dispute by Oakshade
I don't know for sure what gender this person is. But some editors and anons have been citing WP:SELFSOURCE as this person, primarily through what might be their genuine Instagram page, identifying themself as a transitioning male. An anon has specifically pointed to one the Instagram stories in their "very trans" stories heading that they are starting testosterone treatment (13th story in).

WP:MOS's WP:PRONOUN stipulates "Gender-neutral pronouns should be used (or pronouns avoided) where gendered language is not necessary, and especially when gender is not specific or unknown." Most secondary reliable sources are from years ago. While the person in pictures from years ago looked liked the traditional perception of a female, I honestly I can't find any actual reliable source from recently or even years ago that indicate solidly that this person was and still is female.

I've proposed that since we don't have apparent confirmation that the linked Instagram account belongs to the article subject that we use non-binary language as it doesn't seem to be necessary to be gender-specific as a compromise until we can get confirmation either way. Oakshade (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by BrxBrx
Hi, I'm afraid this is the first time I've ever been dragged to DRN, so please forgive me if I make some mistakes on the format here.

From what I can tell, it seems that
 * 1) GENDERID prescribes that we should avoid the use of previous names unless a person has been notable under that previous name. In the case of Latimer, I think that is amply met - Latimer became notable under the name Ivy Latimer. However, the source that alledgedly states Latimer no longer identifies (in a gender sense) as female does not go so far as to state that a new name has been identified either, so this element of GENDERID does not apply.


 * 1) GENDERID further encourages the use of pronouns that are generally recognized as appropriate for the identified gender, ie. she/her/etc for females, he/him/etc for males, they/other neutral pronouns for persons who do not identify as either. In the event that reliable sourcing can be produced that Latimer indeed now identifies as a male, GENDERID would encourage that the use of male pronouns be used, except in explanatory contexts to mitigate WP:SURPRISE.

Consequently, GENDERID is a fairly straightforward guideline in this scenario, and requires no particular analysis.


 * 1) Reliable sourcing is the most fundamental principle of Wikipedia. It is policy and not subject to negotiation. All claims, especially highly contentious claims, must be rigorously and unimpeachably sourced, and even more so in cases of unusual sensitivity, such as in BLPs. This fundamentally, IMO is the locus of the dispute - does instagram count as a reliable source in the context of a declared change in gender identity?
 * 2) The biggest problem is that as of yet, no secondary source exists that can verify that Latimer is indeed in control of the account that made the instagram post in question. SELFSOURCE applies in situations where the claim is a) not unduly self serving or exceptional, b), does not involve 3rd parties, c) does not involve unrelated subjects, d)there is no reasonable doubt to the authenticity and e) the article is not based primarily on SELFSOURCE.
 * 3) As a result, only d) is in question - is instagram by itself a good source? In my view there are several problems with Instagram as a source. Instagram is a proprietary social media platform that does not lend itself to stable citing. One cannot view instagram posts without acquiring an Instagram account. Instagram posts may vanish at any time for any reason. Instagram posts cannot be easily archived using tools such as a web archive, making permanent links impossible.
 * 4) Consequently, I am of the opinion that Instagram by itself is an unacceptable source for SELFSOURCE purposes. The volatility of information there, and the difficulty of verifying information posted there leads one very close to having to do original research, which is fundamentally prohibited by policy.
 * 5) As a result, without a source to support this claim, requests to change the gender information cannot be sustained. GENDERID considerations thus do not apply.

Best, BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 05:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Ivy Latimer discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - The issues here seem to be more about interpreting and applying the policies on biographies of living persons than on achieving a compromise on matters of article content. Since policy is all-important here, the parties might want to consider filing this matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard rather than here.  I will put this case on hold to give the parties some time to look at the BLP noticeboard and decide if it is a better forum.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Pahonia
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

Pahonia mainly is just a Belarusian language name (romanized) of the Coat of arms of Lithuania and since 1918 of the National emblem of Belarus, but other names exists (see: Coat of arms of Lithuania). Most notably there are equivalents in the Lithuanian language: Vytis, Waikymas and the earliest known written variant of it is in Polish as Pogonia by Marcin Bielski from 1551. English: Chase. This symbol is the official CoA of Lithuania since the 15th century, first adopted by Gediminids. But some nationalists try to present this symbol as exclusively Belarusian (edit1, edit2)

The early statehood of Lithuania was created by Lithuanians (same as the modern state), who expanded their territory into the Ruthenian territories and ruled them. According to Encyclopedia Britannica: "Lithuanians are an Indo-European people belonging to the Baltic group. They are the only branch within the group that managed to create a state entity in premodern times".(ref1)

While Belarus according to Encyclopedia Britannica is: "While Belarusians share a distinct ethnic identity and language, they never previously enjoyed unity and political sovereignty, except during a brief period in 1918".(ref2). Also: "The Slavic peoples of what is now Belarus were in the past ruled by Prussia, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia. Consequently no distinctive national symbols were developed until the 20th century, when for the first time Belarus became independent".(ref3)

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


 * Talk:Coat of arms of Lithuania (suggested by Itzhak Rosenberg since 14 May 2020; absolutely no agreements)
 * Administrators%27 noticeboard/Archive332 (because of it article Pahonia was made slightly more neutral, content added by users Kazimier Lachnovič and Лобачев Владимир was removed with help of an admin)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

As a result, I request to remake article Pahonia into a disambiguation page with 2–3 forks like Pogonia because one "right" name of it doesn't exist and mainly mixing two different countries history under a Belarusian name is an absurd. Articles Coat of arms of Lithuania, National emblem of Belarus, and similar does its job perfectly and complies with the WP:NPOV.

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

The two articles (Coat of arms of Lithuania & Pahonia) should be made into one because they are mostly identical and about the same thing, but one article, i.e. Coat of arms of Lithuania, is written following WP:NPOV, is sourced with many international sources and is B-Class, while another, the Pahonia, is a start-class article with a mere 13 sources and the majority of the text breaking WP:V as most of it is unsourced.

Currently, Pahonia exists only due to Belarusian nationalist POV-pushing, which is evidenced in the consistent distortion (visible in the revision history of the article) of internationally accepted names of Mindaugas, Gediminas, Vytautas into Mindouh, Hiedymin and Vitaut in the Pahonia article, thus unnecessarily complicating an already little known part of European history. The whole existence of the article Pahonia is itself a manifestation of Belarusian POV-pushing, as there is no will to simply agree that it is one symbol, which originated from Lithuanians, but has gained importance for the whole of former Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL). To illustrate this, there is one region that is currently in Poland but was formerly in the GDL and so has Vytis on its Coat of Arms.

An example of an article about a symbol that is important for many different countries AND has a shared history is the Cross of Lorraine, where an important symbol for the French, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Belarusians and Slovakians is presented in one clear and unified article. The Cross of Lorraine and Vytis are very similar in terms of history, as they both started in one place, but later dissipated through many places. The difference is that in one case, the case of Vytis, Belarusian nationalists are trying to appropriate it with the article Pahonia, even if the most reasonable thing is to join Vytis and Pahonia, which is already the case with the Cross of Lorraine.

Moreover, even the section on Belarus of the Vytis article is far lengthier, better sourced and informative than that of the Pahonia. For the sake of simplicity, clarity and objectivity, there should be a fusion of the two articles into one.

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

I initiated Talk:Coat of arms of Lithuania. I suggested combining the two articles since 14 May 2020 and over the space of one year, nothing has been done about this.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Make one article from the two and have the names Pahonia and Vytis redirect as forks to the same article, i.e. to Coat of arms of Lithuania.

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

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

Pahonia discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - This appears to be almost the same as a pending Request for Arbitration. DRN is probably a better forum to address this dispute than Arbitration.  I am placing this case request on hold because it is also pending at ArbCom.  If the ArbCom request is declined, as is probable, discussion can be conducted here.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Pahonia)
Arbitrator User:Bradv has advised me to go ahead and open this case. Please read the rules that are in effect. You are responsible for understanding the rules. Do not edit any of the articles. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements may make the person making the statement feel better, but they usually do not clarify the issues. Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. Now: Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what articles they think are covered by the dispute, and in one other paragraph, please state what you either want changed or want left the same. At this point I am trying to focus the discussion, and will ask more questions in future rounds. Do not respond to each other's statements. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your statements to the moderator (me) and the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I am not always very patient with editors who don't follow the instructions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Pahonia)
Statement by Pofka (initiator). First of all, Wikipedia:Arbitration request was already declined (diff) and I discussed this issue with administrators there who told me that it should be moved here. Now about this case. The main problem is that section National emblem of Belarus was expanded by Belarusians into a separate article named as Pahonia as well. As stated above, Pahonia is just one of the names of the Coat of arms of Lithuania in romanized Belarusian language (see: Coat of arms of Lithuania) and since 1918 of the National emblem of Belarus (a similar knight riding a horse, which was first used officialy in 1918 when the Belarusians created their first state; now this symbol is unofficial and is used only by the opposition; moreover, in 1995 Belarusian referendum 78.6% of Belarusians said that this symbol does not represent them and that they want it changed, so it is doubtful if it is supported by the majority even now, despite recent protests against Lukashenko)

So what is wrong with article Pahonia? The problem is that the absolute majority of this article is about the Coat of arms of Lithuania (as stated above, official CoA of Lithuania since 15th century; the early Lithuanian state was created by the Lithuanians and this state-empire expanded into the Ruthenian territories and Lithuanians ruled the Ruthenians; however, Lithuania had to be recreated in 1918 by the Lithuanians again because our statehood was destroyed by the Russian Empire (see: Russian partition), which annexed Lithuania in 1795), not Coat of arms of Belarus (official only since 1918 when the Belarusians, known as one of the Ruthenians / East Slavs, created their first state as in the past they were ruled by foreigners, including by Lithuanians), but article Pahonia is named in Belarusian language and this way it is presented as the "right" name of it, however it is inappropriate because other names in other languages also exists, so there is no "right" name of it. Consequently, such in-between article cannot exist as it violates the WP:NPOV and presents the Belarusian variant as the "right" one for no reason in a topic which is mostly about Lithuania and Lithuanians, who have their own names of it: Vytis, Waikymas in the Lithuanian language. In my opinion, articles Coat of arms of Lithuania, National symbols of Lithuania, National emblem of Belarus, and National symbols of Belarus are enough to cover this topic and other names of this symbol should either be redirect pages or disambiguation pages, same as: Pogonia, Pogoń, Pagaunė, Vytis, Waikymas, Vaikymas. Probably the best example how it should be solved is the Polish language equivalent named Pogonia (disambiguation page) because Lithuania is not Belarus and these countries and their CoAs have their own different histories, most notably that the Lithuanian CoA is incomparably older and dates to the Middle Ages.

It would be an equal absurd if the Lithuanians would have created an identical article named Vytis or Waikymas and this way presented it as the "right" name of it even when we speak about the CoA of Belarus since 1918. Just imagine if, for example, very similar CoAs existed and the Germans would create an article named in German language word about their own CoA and at the same time about the French coat of arms, thus presenting the German name as the "right" name of both CoAs. Article Pahonia is exactly like that.

I would like to note an important fact that Kazimier Lachnovič was already tagged as a disruptive user in Eastern Europe topics by two administrators (Barkeep49, Ymblanter), in a talk page discussion almost immediately called Lithuanians as rubbish (1, 2, 3), so it is certain that he and his friend aggressively defended this anti-Lithuanian naming on purpose by performing nationalistic edit warring, censoring of other names of this symbol (see edit history of article Pahonia from 6 February 2021 to 23 April 2021, especially clearly demonstrated at these previously mentioned edits: 1, 2).

If you will have more questions about this symbol, I will gladly answer to them, but from Lithuania's perspective I think you will find all the required information with international, neutral references at article Coat of arms of Lithuania. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

.

First statement by Itzhak Rosenberg. The dispute covers the articles Coat of Arms of Lithuania and Pahonia. What I want to change is to make Pahonia (1) redirect to Coat of arms of Lithuania (2), with any information not present in 1 being transferred to 2. Reasons for this are that both 1 & 2 share identical information and it is unnecessary and problematic having two articles about one and the same. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Pahonia)
The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is a forum to discuss article content. We do not discuss editor conduct here. I had written that overly long statements do not clarify the issues.

I asked the editors to provide concise statements as to what articles were in dispute and what should be changed. One editor complied; thank you, User:Itzhak Rosenberg. I will be preparing a Request for Comments based on his statement. Either this dispute will be closed after the RFC is published, or we will discuss any related issues that are identified in any further concise statements. Any editor may make a concise additional statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Pahonia)
Second statement by Pofka (initiator). I support Itzhak Rosenberg's suggested solution or, as described above, I suggest to remake article Pahonia into a disambiguation page with 2–3 forks like Pogonia. Naming of article Pahonia is just a nationalistic POV pushing, thus violating the WP:NPOV rule. Question: if this dispute will be moved to RfC, then it will be solved there following the discussion or a new case will have to be opened somewhere? -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Pahonia)
The draft RFC is at Talk:Pahonia/RFC. If there are no comments or only positive comments, I will publish the RFC, and it will run for 30 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

John Barilaro
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 don't believe the full context is being allowed to be added onto the article.

Due to the protection on the page everything is going through Damien Linnane right now, but as they claim that the evidence I provided is not sufficient to meet the guidelines of Wikipedia.

They referenced an article though which I said would be a good compromise to use the full details from. They refused to compromise because they disagree with the part of the article I want adding which provides important context. They did agree though with the claims of the article that the subject in the video was attempting to do something that was never said, nor shown in the video but because they agree with it, it was added. They have then attacked me for having a new account with one real edit on a political page and started attacking my character and opinions even though I hadn't stated any of my opinions at that point and only requested accurate details be added to the page (I don't care about any moderation on this behaviour right now though. I just want the page to be accurate because right now it is not and there is a lot of contention around this issue so I don't want uninformed people reading the article and having a biased take from Damien Linnane's cherry picked information). I only add this in because it displays their inability to compromise which is making this situation quite difficult to navigate.

It seems like there is a clear political bias of opinions and an unwillingness to compromise on a hot button topic due to that political bias. Any help with ensuring the correct, and full context is added into this article would be much appreciated.

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



How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like somebody to weigh in so we are able to add the full context provided by the article currently being used as reference rather than allowing somebody to cherry pick one part of the article that supports their political narrative.

Summary of dispute by Damien Linnane
Firstly I would like to note did not notify me of this discussion, which is clearly listed as a requirement for starting a dispute resolution. This does not surprise me, however, as it is consistent with his refusal to follow any of Wikipedia's guidelines. Secondly I would like it noted that Ladvirex appears to be a single-purpose account, only logging in to edit articles related to the Coalition (Australia) (and in one case, a right-wing media outlet that is typically supportive of them). And yes, the edits are minor, though it is interesting over a period of three months the only time he feels the need to log in is to improve (or defend) these articles. This is not someone who is interested in improving Wikipedia as a whole, as is evidenced by him taunting the fact I have made many edits to Wikipedia over a number of years.

It's ridiculous for him to insist everything on the page is going through me. I only made my first edit to the article two days ago, and was subsequently involved in a discussion with on the article's talk page, discussing how we could improve the article together. After initially disagreeing in our edit summaries, we had a constructive conversation, and reached a consensus. Since I made my last edit to the article, the article has also been edited by and. The fact remains, Ladvirex is the only person pushing for the above changes to be made.

As is my understanding based on his post here:, Ladvirex is unhappy that the article containing the following text: "Video footage of the incident shows the producer attempting to return legal documents to Barilaro regarding the defamation suit". This text is based on the following quote at an article published on The Guardian: "Vision of the incident shows Langker attempting to return legal documents to Barilaro while filming him." If you read his post on the article's talk page, Ladvirex wants to remove the text on the grounds he thinks it is factually inaccurate, based on his interpretation of the primary source (a video The Guardian reported on). He has openly accused me of bias for covering the incident with reliable journalism, when according to him, we should instead be interpreting the primary source. I've explained to him on the article's talk page the limitations of primary sources, and personal interpretations, but he has ignored this, and instead responded with petty insults and accusations. And yes, after he first initiated personal attacks here I have responded with insults of my own.

I can agree with Ladvirex on one thing at least. I also want someone to weigh in on this issue, and look forward to comments from anyone regarding the matter. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Atl%C3%A9tico Ottawa
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There is a dispute over the use of Current Squad table section for the article. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Football currently seems split on the use of - Should the template display the table in one or two columns - located here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Football_squad_player/Archive_2#Redesign_RfC. I have noticed a few problems with splitting the table, on desktop it breaks the ability to retrieve the data on Google Sheets with =IMPORTHTML, while on mobile it makes it difficult to view the table information, because if forces the user to scroll from the right - which pulls up the context menu. I further wonder if it causes issues with the import function on Google Sheets, does it impair the ability of Screen Readers to retrieve the data as well? 87.5% of the clubs in the Canadian Premier League use the single table layout for the club articles. This one club does not, because one User believes that it should follow a different system. I would like this club article to behave like the other club articles in the league.

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

I have used the "talk" option with the other user. I have communicated with Wikimedia:WikiProject Football, and I intend to help them solve part of the issue. I have only now added the discussion to the article's Talk page. Previously the discussion took place on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mongeese and on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tamccullough

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

For now, until WikiProject Football figures out a solution to there css issues, which I will now attempt to help solve; maybe you could decide from a user perspective which solution works? And whether or not, the tables should be shown side by side like this at all?

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

Atl%C3%A9tico Ottawa discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Public housing
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

Need a 3rd opinion about reverts. Unfortunately this is happening consistently on other articles.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rdp060707#13th_June_2021

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Simply provide 3PO :-) Thx

Summary of dispute by Rdp060707
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Deletes content without trying to fix.

Has done several times. Does not provide answers when requested help in correcting things that they/he/she deleted.

Deleting behaviour without correct improvement really turns other people off from contributing.

Public housing discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Added discussion on Article talk page as well. Thx 184.146.44.68 (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

James Charles (Internet personality)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

In the "Public image" section of the article, there was information about controversies in which Charles had been involved, including a tweet made by him about getting Ebola from going to Africa, his participation in a social media challenge, and his attending of crowded parties during the COVID-19 pandemic, all of which were reliably sourced. This information was removed by on the basis that it was trivia and unduly negative for a BLP, and she later mentioned the ten-year test and said that, in her opinion, this information would not be relevant in ten years because it would most likely not appear in his obituary, which I suggested was attempting to be a crystal ball. She added that these controversies were only covered at the time because these outlets needed to "feed the beast" and that the only way to properly have this discussion was to wait 6 years from now so that the ten-year test could be used. She also stated that we should try to be kind to Charles, as he was only 17 when he made the tweet being discussed, to which I replied that no further harm would be caused to him by including these things in the article as they were already talked about extensively by RSs, and that someone being 17 at the time of doing something does not mean it cannot be addressed on Wikipedia. I argued that due to the prevalence of these controversies in a number of articles from reliable sources, both from when the controversies originally occurred and in the years that have followed, it was clear that coverage of them was not solely due to recentism nor was including them in the article undue negativity, as they were addressed in proportion to their prominence in RSs. I also said that several of her arguments against putting that information in the article were introducing bias to the article, as they were based on her opinions about these situations. Prior to this discussion, said it was trivia.

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

Talk:James Charles (Internet personality)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide suggestions on how to move forward with this discussion, and what to do about the content removed.

Summary of dispute by valereee
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I believe this is trivia that represents undue negativity at a BLP. These things -- the ebola tweet, the mugshots post, the botox injections -- were included in lots of "Everything you need to know about James Charles" type of articles. If the ebola tweet is still being mentioned in ten years, sure, we include it. But listing every incident is just undue negative coverage of a BLP, IMO. None of this stuff seems important enough to include, really. Not for a living person, not this soon after the initial flurry of coverage. I've been arguing that we're including these things when we say "Charles has been involved in multiple contoversies" and don't need to provide a list of each of them.

Summary of dispute by Dreamy Jazz
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The diff where the information was removed is here. I would note that from my point of view a lot of what was removed was "James Charles did X and then Y and Z said that was bad and then James Charles apologised". My thought was at the time if I asked someone in 5 years time about controversies from James Charles would these be even mentioned? Some of these may be the case, but personally I don't think any of them have enduring notability. However, this is just my point of view and I haven't been following the discussion since my last comment in May in that section. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

James Charles discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * I'll be happy to help you work this out. Have all the parties been notified? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @MPants at work, yes, I believe all parties are aware. —valereee (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Good! If they agree to participate, we'll get started. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I think we're ready to get started. The locus of the dispute seems to be the content removed in this edit, by.
 * As a reminder, our policy on writing about living people is very stricts, so objections like those outlined above by valereee and must be taken seriously. But we're also writing an encyclopedia, and we can't do that if we exclude anything that might reflect poorly upon a subject, which means that we must also take 's desire to include this material seriously.
 * Now, I understand the objections by Dreamy Jazz and valereee from their statements above, but Benmite, your arguments thus far seem very focused on refuting those objections. So I think a good place to get started would be for you to write up an argument for inclusion, to explain why the documentation of these incidents improves the article. Once we have that, we'll have a clear picture of everyone's ultimate goals here, which will help us find an outcome that resolves this.
 * Benmite, feel free to be as verbose or succinct as you like. But please focus on how this content improves the article, instead of explaining why you don't feel the objections to it are warranted. And Dreamy Jazz and valereee, I'd ask that you not respond directly to Benmite's edits (at least not this one, there's no requirement that you not engage at all with each other, here), but let me read it and ask everyone some questions regarding it and the objections above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My main rationale for including this information is that the prevalence of each of these individual controversies in reliable sources, both from when they first happened and in the year(s) that have followed, shows that the impact that they've had on Charles's public image is undeniable. The scandals he's been involved in have evidently been a defining factor of his career, as shown by the many articles chronicling them, but simply lumping them all together is borderline WP:SYNTH since many of those that were only reported on in these exhaustive lists or less reliable sources are non-notable, while the ones I'm arguing to keep in the article were written about in detail by reliable sources when they happened.
 * Even retrospectively, these are easily considered by RSs to be some of the most prominent events, let alone controversies, to take place in Charles's lifetime as a public figure: The New York Times wrote in 2019 about the Ebola tweet, writing that it caused "a storm of controversy" to rage around Charles and also referencing his apology for the tweet. Also in 2019, ABC brought up the Ebola controversy to show how he had "courted controversy" in the past, as did The Atlantic. In 2020, PinkNews wrote an article about the "Mugshot Challenge", which they ended by talking about the Ebola tweet as an example of how Charles is "no stranger to controversy". Months after the "Mugshot Challenge" became a trend, Teen Vogue compared another trend (the "Holocaust Challenge") to it, and the only person who they noted participated in it was Charles. At the end of 2020, Insider included Charles's and other influencers' involvement in the "Mugshot Challenge" on their list of the "biggest beauty moments" of 2020. Last month, NBC News mentioned all of the instances in question to illustrate how a lawsuit against him was "just the latest scandal" for Charles. A Vulture list from 2021 also mentions all of the aforementioned scandals, marking the Ebola tweet as his "first taste of backlash" and adding that CoverGirl even tweeted out against Charles's post. While my edits on the talk page have been more defensive than explanatory or assertive, you can still check those to see some further explanations. ben ǝʇᴉɯ  06:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you . That seems a very reasonable justification. So now my question is to and, if this material were to be condensed down, say, to 1-2 sentences each, and placed at the end of the section, rather than the beginning, would you still object to it? If so, please explain why. If you object to content on specific incidents, like the party during the Covid19 lockdown, we can discuss them individually.
 * Based on what I've read all around, shortening the content and moving it to the end as befits the less prominent controversies, while excluding the bit about the party entirely per WP:DUE seems like a great compromise, but of course, you all need to agree to it. If that's not the right route, we can still work to find something that is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with leaving out anything about the partying. ben ǝʇᴉɯ  02:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, no, not really. Pretty much the entire article is negative already, and it's a BLP. There are whole big sections about the feud, the sexting, the lawsuit for mistreating an employee...I don't think any of these minor bonehead moves adds anything for the reader. —valereee (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll note that Benmite is also insisting the other incidents all need their own section head, which again I think is undue negativity in a blp, and on including full date of birth from iffy sources. —valereee (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So from what you're saying here, it seems you believe the entire article has an NPOV problem, in that it's unduly negative. If you like, we can do a source review here, and compare those results to the state of the article. It can be somewhat tedious, but I don't mind taking on much of the tedium of sorting the sources and compiling them into a data set. I would ask, however, that all the participants find any sources we're not currently using. It's a bit much to track down them all and do the work of compiling them.
 * As for the section headers, I think that may be worth discussing as well, but I'd like to hear what Dreamy Jazz has to say about my question above, first. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @MjolnirPants, yeah, I do really think the whole article is already unduly negative for a BLP. I feel like we're compromising already by including the lawsuit, which to me until we have an outcome feels like it might not even be worth including. If this were not a BLP, I'd be fine with just finding some middle ground and compromising, but with a BLP I just don't feel comfortable doing that. This is a living human being we're writing about, someone who has feelings. We can do actual harm. —valereee (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: sources. You'll find eighty gazillion, because it's clickbait. This is what online media is now, unfortunately. I'd suggest we limit ourselves to only top-level sources for assessing noteworthiness of the crap this guy's gotten attention for. —valereee (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Repeated re-addition of BLP DOB by Benmite. —valereee (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This is a living, breathing human being who can be hurt by this stuff, and this editor is simply refusing to leave it alone until we get consensus. Would someone please protect that article until we have consensus? —valereee (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There are now two separate disputes regarding the same article, which already alluded to here. The first is about whether or not there should be subheadings underneath the "Public image" heading about Charles's feud with Tati Westbrook, the sexting allegations made against him, and the lawsuit filed against him by his former employee, discussion about which can be found here. The second is about whether or not his exact birth date should be included on his page, which was discussed here, here, and here. I can give a summary of each if necessary, though I first wanted to ask if it would be okay to discuss those in addition to the material already being disputed. I also saw above that you said we should wait for 's input before going further.  ben ǝʇᴉɯ  10:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm away at the moment with unreliable internet, so I won't be able to properly reply until Monday though don't feel like you need to wait for further reply by me if things move on. I agree with valereee that as this a living person we are talking about we shouldn't make the article about them into a list of negative things they have done. Although the points we are discussing may be covered in many sources there should be a limit as to how much negativity should be in a BLP and the negative points should be weighed up to work out if such points are worth including in what is in effect a summary. However, I do see that we shouldn't make the article into a promo piece for him. I would say that the COVID party really is run of the mill and I would like to see it not included. However, I am more happy with the idea of having short sentences if any of the negative points here are added. Although I would argue that a good number of these negative points may not have a 10 year test pass, negative points with reliable sources shouldn't be ignored. Due to my use of mobile to edit right now I don't think I'm in a place to comment on any of the other points being discussed until I can use my computer. I'd like to add that I think section headers should be not used to give the name of a specific incident unless more than a medium to large paragraph is written about it. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you're not willing to compromise, why did you agree to participate here? If we can't have an earnest attempt by all involved to reach a resolution, then there's nothing we can do, here. and  have both indicated a willingness to find a compromise. I can help them do so, but I can't order them to do things your way.
 * and, thank you both for indicating a willingness to compromise. Do you think that the a more succinct description than the one Valereee reverted, combined with the removal of the subsection headers would be something you both can agree on? I have to say that valereee's concerns are not unwarranted; for example, the fact that Charles became the first male spokesperson for CoverGirl is extensively covered in the sources, but given nothing more than a bare, single sentence in our article. Valereee may not be willing to compromise on this just now, but if the more neutral and positive information were to be expanded, the addition of these controversies would certainly have less of an overall impact on the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @MjolnirPants, my apologies if I've misunderstood the process. Not very experienced here. I guess I didn't realize it was aimed at finding some middle ground even if that middle ground still represents a BLP violation? I usually -- in cases not involving a BLP -- would just let trivia go if some other editor was hellbent on including it. Are you saying I should have said I didn't think this dispute was appropriate for this noticeboard?
 * I am willing to compromise on almost everything, but on undue negativity in a BLP, not so much. Maybe this needs to be at BLPN so that others can comment on whether or not the section heads/listing of all negative incidents represent a BLP issue? Maybe also weigh in on whether the sources provided are enough to include full dob.
 * Also I feel it's not fair to say I'm unwilling to compromise. I've already compromised on including the lawsuit, which until it's settled is probably just recentism. People get sued all the time. I've compromised with the terms "Throughout his career he's been involved in multiple controversies" which is in both the section and the lead and was inserted to cover all the little random ones like botox injections, pandemic partying, ebola tweets, etc. I've already compromised, at the talk. I cannot figure out why anyone wants to include every bit of negative trivia just because low-quality sources are writing articles that list every stupid tweet. What's the rush? We have all the time in the world to get this right. If after ten years people are still mentioning the silly ebola tweet, fine, we add it. Ditto the pandemic partying, the botox injections, the whatever. But a sentence or two each for all of those things? No, it's undue negativity at a BLP IMO. Undue negativity at a BLP not something we can compromise on. The stuff is either undue or it's not, and this is a BLP so we have to get it right and we ought to err on the side of excluding, if we aren't sure. Undue negativity at a BLP is only something we can get consensus on, and so far we don't have consensus on including those things individually.
 * How about the sentence in the section, which is now Throughout his career Charles has been the focus of multiple controversies. we expand to Throughout his career Charles has been the focus of multiple controversies, starting with an early tweet about ebola.? That seems to be how the actual RS are using it -- as a demarcation point. —valereee (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * my apologies if I've misunderstood the process. Not very experienced here. I guess I didn't realize it was aimed at finding some middle ground even if that middle ground still represents a BLP violation?, I don't believe that any middle ground we find would be a BLP violation, and I don't think that either of the other two participants would, either.
 * This process aims to find a resolution. In some cases, that resolution would heavily favor one side, but in this case, both sides make valid points. For example, you said you wish to only use top level sources, while Benmite cited the NYT, The Atlantic, ABC and NBC News, all of which would rather easily qualify as top level sources.
 * I do think the mention of the controversies in the lede might be WP:UNDUE as well. It's certainly reflective of the article, but as you said, the article as it stands seems overly negative. And as I mentioned already, I think more positive/neutral material should be expanded. I wonder if much of this specific disputed material might seem less egregious in an article that's less overly focused on the negative.
 * If it helps, I will be happy to assist in expanding the positive and neutral coverage, but I'd like to see some agreement all around here before moving on to the next thing. So here's my proposal, which I believe and  will agree to as well:
 * Remove the subsection headers in the public image section.
 * Shorted the sexting and lawsuit paragraphs, merge them together and add mention of the mugshot challenge and a brief description of the ebola tweet.
 * Mention (but don't describe) the ebola tweet at the sentence from the lede about courting multiple controversies as a jumping off point.
 * Move that sentence from the end of the lede to in between the second paragraph and the (current) feud subsection.
 * Do not add mention of the controversies to the lede without a source characterizing his career as engendering many controversies, and in that case, keep the mention very brief, like "His career has been characterized by a number of controversies."
 * I believe these are changes we might all agree to. If we can do that, this I think this discussion can be closed as resolved and I'll be happy to watchlist the page and get to work expanding some of the more positive coverage. Or, if you like, we can address the DOB issue, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, give it a try. If I object to something, we can talk there. —valereee (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * and, would you agree to the changes in the bulleted list in my comment above? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. Fine by me. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 15:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response. I'm in favor of some of the suggested changes, and against some others, due mostly to the fact that discussion about them hasn't been thorough enough. The discussion about whether or not there should be subsection headers stemmed from a prior discussion about the wording of the headers, and only involved three relatively short messages between and I (two from Valereee, one from me) so I think that should be discussed further before any conclusions are reached about what to do. Shortening the paragraph s about Charles's feud with Tati Westbrook and the sexting allegations made against him should also be discussed more extensively, since both paragraphs it were was already cut down by Valereee in these this edit which were was briefly discussed briefly discussed on the talk page, with the suggested changes to the Tati Westbrook section being supported by  . Small changes have been made to both the section s since those edits, but nothing drastic. I'm not sure if Valereee and Dreamy Jazz feel strongly about condensing these sections and merging them together now, but if they do, I think that also warrants a separate discussion. Everything else sounds fine.  ben ǝʇᴉɯ  01:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , my initial thought for the need of a section for the lawsuit was because the structure of the sections didn't allow the lawsuit to fit in any other section. Ideally this is not "big" enough to warrant its own section at the moment. However, as it didn't fit in the other sections while also keeping the content chronological, a seperate section would have to do if we were not going to change or remove the other section headers. My thoughts are that having a section for something should generally only be there if it would be notable enough for inclusion in the lede. This is because if we don't think it is notable enough for inclusion in the lede, then having it listed just below the lede would suggest that it's notable enough for the lede. For those interested in reading about the lawsuit, scrolling down to or clicking in the TOC on "Controversies" will lead them to the information. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 10:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, I completely misunderstood the compromise. Reading is fundamental! I would be in favor of shortening the lawsuit section, removing its header, and merging it with the rest of the "Public image" section. I'm not sure if it makes sense to combine it with the sexting section (or, if we decide to remove section headers, the information outlined in that paragraph) because the two instances only seem to be related insofar as they happened around the same time. I'm still not sure about cutting down the sexting section, though. Also, per WP:CRITS, we should probably avoid having a "Controversies" section. ben ǝʇᴉɯ  20:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And I'm really not sure any of these needs a subsection. Three negative subsections makes all our subsections under public image negative, which I think is undue negativity in a blp. I don't like "controversies" subsections in a blp, either. I'd rather just have the various paragraphs appear with no subsection headers calling them out. —valereee (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * raises a valid objection here., I suggested that not as something that needs discussion, but as part of a compromise. I understand that there is discussion to be had on this particular topic.
 * Valereee, would you and be okay with Benmite's counter proposal? That is to say, removing the section head from just the lawsuit bit, but otherwise implementing the compromise I suggested above?  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with DJ that having the other two set off makes it hard for the lawsuit to not be set off. I really just don't see the need. The article isn't that long. It's basically half negative. Why do we have to emphasize the negativity with named subsections? It's a blp -- and a blp of a young person, which I know shouldn't bother us, he's an adult, but I always worry we're going to end up with someone harming themselves over their wikipedia article. —valereee (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To remove the third section detailing the lawsuit you either break the chronological order by placing at the top of the Public image section or remove the section headers. I don't have a strong opinion on whether the two non-lawsuit sections exist, as these things are mentioned in the lead of the article (so it's not like the reader if they are reading top to bottom has not read about the issues already). However, I would lean towards no section headers as size wise the Career section is only a bit smaller than the Public image section so having no section headers shouldn't make it the section too long. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your answer.
 * , there seems to be agreement among the others that the section headers need to go. Could you reconsider, or at least give voice to what might change your mind on this? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I already outlined part of why I object to removing the section headers in the discussion on the talk page—both events were undeniably prominent in Charles's career as a public figure, as illustrated by the abundance of reliable sources that covered them when they happened and afterwards, and they take up enough of the article that they deserve their own sections—but my main reason for opposing the removal of the section headers, at least on the basis that they constitute a BLP violation, is that the information underneath them will still be there even without the headers. Unless we decide to remove that information or cut it down significantly and take it out of the lead, as you suggested (which I definitely think would warrant a more thorough discussion before being brought here) the content is still presented just as prominently in the article without the section headers, meaning that whatever negativity is believed to be present in those sections is still there, just without a header. Also, something being negative does not make it unduly so if its coverage in the article is proportional to its coverage in reliable sources, and the information outlined in both sections is done so rather objectively. I also don't believe that the header Tati Westbrook feud unequivocally paints Charles in a negative light, especially since, in the section itself, his rebuttal is discussed with a focus on the positive reception it received.
 * The arguments brought forth by, which are that merging the lawsuit section with the rest of the public image section messes with the flow of the section by interrupting the chronological order in which the text is laid out and that both sections are too short to warrant their own subheadings, are convincing. However, I am still compelled to leave the headers, since not only is there no requirement that the information be presented in any specific order, but also, the length of the sections is due to aforementioned edits made by Valereee which took out much of the information that was there and left an issue of WP:OVERCITE that has yet to be addressed (which is why it would make more sense to address all of these separate disputes outside of this page before deciding what to do about them based on a few relatively short discussions).
 * All in all, though, the main discussion here was about the incorporation (or lack thereof) of the Ebola tweet and the Mugshot Challenge into the article. At the top of this page, it reads, "The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN." The discussion about the Ebola tweet and the Mugshot Challenge was extensive, while the multiple other discussions that have become intertwined with this one, about the other three sections, their lengths, Charles's birth date (which has since been resolved, but was nonetheless mentioned here), expansion of positive info, and more, were not. Some weren't discussed at all (expansion of positive info) and while I agree that expansion of positive material would be a good way to counteract any potential negativity found throughout the article, I haven't seen that suggested or directly supported by either of the other editors involved. The other disputes involved a number of other editors who I did not list as being involved in this dispute because those discussions took place separately from the one that I linked to when I first made the request. We should solve this specific dispute before trying to address everything else.  ben ǝʇᴉɯ  00:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree that the information is presented just as prominently when it's in the section but doesn't have a section head. Section heads make information more prominent. The TOC is the first thing people see. Ben, the walls of text just feel bludgeon-y. —valereee (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasons for wanting to keep them. The issue of the chronology is especially compelling, and I agree with you that the first subsection name is very neutral (not so much the other two, though they're not particularly bad).
 * I suggest this as a compromise, not to pull multiple disputes into this discussion. And if it's a compromise that everyone could agree with, the fact that it would resolve a separate dispute is just a bonus. But you aren't willing to accept this, and the compromise you offered was not sufficient (because it did not include removing the section heads) to satisfy.
 * So it seems we've arrived at something of an impasse. The article in the current state seems to be too negative for the tastes of Dreamy Jazz and especially Valereee, and your proposal to add more negative material is thus experiencing pushback. This being partially the product of the current state of the article is noteworthy, because it implies a route forward, but only after changes are made to the article.
 * So if there's work to be done before we can find a solution, then I would have to either close this discussion as failed or place it on hold, so that the work could be done. Which would be up to you three: If you feel that we can return to this discussion with a fresh outlook after improving the article, then we can place it on hold. Otherwise, it would be best to close it as failed.
 * So that's my final questions to all of you: Do you three, and  believe that you've seen a way forward through this discussion, or does additional work need to be done to the article before a solution to this dispute can be had? If not, do you believe that continuing this discussion after taking time to work on the article will present a solution?  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Other than the section heads, I'm not all that fussed with the article as it is. I don't like the section heads, I think they're undue, but I can live with them -- at least until we figure out whether the lawsuit is even going to turn out to be worth mentioning, at which point we may want to simply remove it altogether as trivia -- but to add more negativity by adding in all the other minor trivial stuff? Notsomuch lol.
 * I don't really have any interest in working on the article. This is not a subject I have interest in whatsoever. ZERO interest in celebrities, period. Literally only here because I stumbled across an article that felt like way too much undue neg for a BLP, and I tried to fix it. —valereee (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I also don't particularly have any major investment in this article, and my involvement with this article is trying to avoid to much undue negativity. From my point of view, the section headers are the last thing I am involved in with regards to this article. From the state it was at when I came from a report at ANI (serious BLP violations with regards to some kind of image) I think we have got to a point where it's good enough for me if compromise is needed. Personally, I am not invested enough to discuss further about the section headers, so if valereee is not interested in continuing with the section headers I think this is ready for closure. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 14:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's how I ended up there, too -- a BLP concern at ANI. —valereee (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really have any interest in working on the article. This is not a subject I have interest in whatsoever. ZERO interest in celebrities, period. Literally only here because I stumbled across an article that felt like way too much undue neg for a BLP, and I tried to fix it. —valereee (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I also don't particularly have any major investment in this article, and my involvement with this article is trying to avoid to much undue negativity. From my point of view, the section headers are the last thing I am involved in with regards to this article. From the state it was at when I came from a report at ANI (serious BLP violations with regards to some kind of image) I think we have got to a point where it's good enough for me if compromise is needed. Personally, I am not invested enough to discuss further about the section headers, so if valereee is not interested in continuing with the section headers I think this is ready for closure. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 14:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's how I ended up there, too -- a BLP concern at ANI. —valereee (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm going to close this as failed. Thanks to everyone for participating, and I'm sorry we couldn't find a solution. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Augustus
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

Controversy about the first sentence of the article. Should it start with "Augustus", the article title, or with "Caesar Augustus"? Also, I propose adding the person's birth name, Gaius Octavius, in the first sentence, as per Wikipedia's tradition, making the first line: "Augustus, born Gaius Octavius, also known as Octavian, was a...", but one user insists the birth name should not be in the first paragraph and "demands" this edit be "discussed".

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

Talk:Augustus

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Any third opinions would be welcome.

Summary of dispute by Avilich
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Basically, Palraz wants to undo a version of the article that had been in place for months without discussion. He ignores the sources both in the article and those I provided in the talk page, and he twists the meaning of the relevant MoS guideline. He had done the same thing before (February 2021) with another account, presumably a sockpuppet since Palraz just so happens to have become active at the same time Jlvill became inactive (March 2021). Compare Jlvill's edits 1, 2, 3 with Palraz's 1, 2, 3. Avilich (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Augustus discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. It's not "sock puppetry" as this account was only made after losing the password to the old one which has never been used again. Also, the topic here is solving a dispute resolution in which two very real users, myself and User:T8612, believe the article should start with "Augustus", you alone think otherwise and are unwilling to accept anything other than your way. Dan Palraz (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * T8612 and I have been exchanging opinions without incident whereas you have steamrolled through the article pushing your own preferred revision without explaining how you're improving it. Incidentally, T8612 agrees with me, not you, on that subject of the defective example in the MoS. Avilich (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, you keep trying to divert from the topic. No one here cares who agrees with whom in any other issues. The issue I proposed for discussion here is what the first line of Augustus should be. Two users, myself and User:T8612, have expressed the view that it should start with "Augustus was..."; you have a different view that it must start as "Caesar Augustus was...", and are not willing to concede. That is what's being discussed here, and that's on what other people's opinions would be appreciated. Dan Palraz (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Dan Palraz (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * T8612 has expressed one view that only partly matches that which you specified in your nomination here, and the discussion between me and T8612 wasn't even over yet. Avilich (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Damn, you're quick to go to DRN. Avilich and I were discussing the issue, and you made edits to the lede without waiting for the end of the discussion. The article on Augustus is particularly difficult to format, and I don't have a definitive opinion on the subject. The MoS indeed uses an outdated version of Augustus, and should be updated. T8612  (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Nikola Karev
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

From what I understand this is a dispute about consensus. Three editors discussed and agreed about adding this additionally explanatory section to a part of the article about an interview "On Stanatiou ironic question whether he was a direct descendant of Alexander the Great, Karev answered positively, confirming Alexander was a Greek from historical perspective, but refused to answer on the question whether he himself was a Greek. In the interview Stamatiou describes Karev as a Bulgarinized Macedonian. During this period of time, the label 'Macedonian' had various meanings, as today.".

We did not add it as there was a number of other discussions going on the page right after. When I eventually got on to adding this passage I was reverted by another editor called Local hero. From whose point of view there is no consensus for this edit and also is against the secondary sources that we added to explain the meaning of the term 'Macedonian' during that period of time. After three days of back and forth of reverts, I decided to open this for dispute resolution.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nikola_Karev#Pure_Macedonian_consciousness_in_1902-1903_among_activists_of_IMRO_and_SMAC

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like third-party opinions about whether there is consensus and also opinions on whether to add the secondary sources to give extra context to the interview which is a primary source.

Summary of dispute by Local hero
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Thanks for opening this. While I indeed disagree that the edits by SeriousCherno that I have reverted had achieved consensus on the talkpage, I see the issue here as being of a WP:NOR nature. In the paragraph in question, we are discussing an interview (translated version) in which Nikola Karev identifies himself as a Macedonian and a descendant of Alexander the Great, and is described by the interviewer Stamatis Stamatiou as a Bulgarophile. Karev also states that his group is not Bulgarian and would accept help from anyone to achieve their goals, etc.

SeriousCherno has inserted a general source about the Macedonian identity immediately following this wording that, at this time, "Macedonian" was a "regional identifier". This source does not describe Nikola Karev, much less this particular interview. I believe this to be a violation of WP:NOR because it implies a conclusion not stated by the sources: that Karev, while he identified himself as a Macedonian, meant it only in a geographic sense.

No sources presented support that implication. That's really the bottom line of this dispute for me.

Just to throw this out there, there indeed were several instances of ethnic Macedonian identification both around 1903 and prior. And I'll also point out that the first reference for this addition states until the late 19th century, while this interview occurred in the 20th. -- Local hero talk 00:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Summary of dispute by Ashmedai 119
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Nikola Karev discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - Two of the five editors have made statements. Participation in dispute resolution is voluntary, and moderated discussion will require the participation of all or nearly all of the editors.  If two or three editors wish to participate, and the others do not, what we can do is to develop a Request for Comments, because an RFC is binding on the community.  At this point, I am waiting to see how we will proceed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Nikola Karev)
I am opening this case for discussion leading to a possible RFC. The editors should please read the usual rules and follow them. In particular, be civil and concise means do not make overly long posts that make you feel better but are difficult to read and understand. Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. Do not complain about the other editors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. If you improve your own editing ability, that is good, but we are not trying to improve each other. Will each editor please state, concisely, what they want changed (or left the same) in the article? That means to state what you want in one paragraph. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Patricia Moreira
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

We believe that this page has been vandalised by a user with a conflict of interest according to the Wikipedia guidelines on vandalism and conflicts that can be found at WP:VANDAL and Wikipedia:CONFLICT.

The user "turks sephiroth" made a number of changes to the page between June 2020 and June 2021 that appear to be deliberately, maliciously and dishonestly designed to damage the subject. We note that this user does not have an established user page.

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Review all changes made by turks sephiroth and asses whether the user has a COI. If so, disregard changes made by this user.

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

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

Rage Against the Machine, Breaking Benjamin
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

Long story short, I was looking at sources used to describe bands such as Breaking Benjamin and Rage Against the Machine. I noticed that these sources not only stated the genres currently listed, but they also said nu metal. So I changed this, and Hot me thinking other about groups labeled as such. I then checked their links, and they didn't say they were. I then went to List of Nu Metal bands, and noticed they used sources from either articles deleted from long ago, but even noticed were using Parody sources for credit. They then reverted every change I made even when specifying where I got the sources from

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

I couldn't do anything because they were administrators themselves

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Stop punishing people who edit genre articles trying to correct them by reverting all edits even if the sources aren't reliable

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

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

Rage Against the Machine, Breaking Benjamin discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.