Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 217

Union Theological College
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 college article has a section on controversies. Two items are listed which do not seem to be justified.

One is about the use of college premises by the Orange Order. It is not normal practice to list organisation which make use of university of college premises. No other external groups are mentioned in the article. And no links to evidence of their use being controversial have been provided. This has been discussed in Talk but users insist on including this information.

A current employee who faced an employment tribunal in his previous job and was cleared of all charges is listed. No other employees are mentioned. The incident predates his employment at the college. There is no evidence of his employment being controversial. No other employees are listed. There is no mention of him or the case in the article for his former employer (Belfast Bible College). This has been discussed on Talk but users insist on inserting the material.

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

Talk:Union_Theological_College

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide a neutral opinion on whether the disputed matters are sufficiently notable and relevant to be included in the article.

Summary of dispute by Notabigot
Regarding the relevance of the use of college premises by the Orange Order, I believe that I had already addressed the query by Ardenssedvirens satisfactorily in the talk page for the article at 09:45 UTC on 19 March 2022. Ardenssedvirens seemed instead to be looking for evidence of various groups concurrently making an extraordinary outcry over specific events of which they were seemingly unaware at the time. I am not persuaded that this is a necessary criterion for something being a controversy. According to Benford's law of controversy, the less factual information that is available on a topic, the more controversy can arise around that topic. Conversely, the more facts that are available, the less controversy that may accordingly arise. It is notable in this regard that the Orange Order has been characterised by an academic authority as "a society with secrets", as cited in the article. Therefore the apparent absence to date of overt evidence that staff, students, faculty, the church, or the media were made aware of Orange Order activities in the college at the time when they originally took place could now be a pertinent factor in contributing towards the current controversy. Meanwhile, the very fact that Ardenssedvirens now feels that arbitration is necessary seems to only further confirm that there is a real controversy at hand.

Regarding the known facts and the evidence that is recognisably available, is there evidence that the Orange Order is controversial? Plenty, as amply illustrated by far fuller content in the separate Wikipedia article on that subject. Is there evidence that the college was repeatedly used by the Orange Order? Yes, multiple independent and reliable sources (as cited in the article on the college), whilst the credibility of these sources as relevant to the text does not seem to have been disputed so far. Is there evidence that either the Presbyterian Church in Ireland or Union Theological College sought to publicise use of the college by the Orange Order in the same way that a separate but comparable "On These Steps" commemorative event was publicised? Not that I am aware of, and I am sure most reasonably minded people would agree that reluctance to court controversy does not make the associated issues any less controversial. This may be especially pertinent to the question of controversy if the apparent absence of immediate outcry might have reflected any desire on the part of those responsible for the college to contemporaneously cover over any potentially questionable activities on the premises, and insofar as the Orange Order has been characterised as "a society with secrets". The seemingly hastily expressed desire to entirely delete the section referring to repeated use of the college by the Orange Order (Ardenssedvirens, talk: 23:09 UTC, 18 March 2022 and 07:52 UTC, 19 March 2022) may arguably reflect similar motivations.

In light of Ardenssedvirens also professing a dislike of the Orange Order (talk: 09:30 UTC, 19 March 2022) but nevertheless seeming to see nothing controversial in repeated use of the college by this group, I sought some clarity by then enquiring whether he or she thought confirmed use of the college by the Orange Order was entirely appropriate. This seemed to me to be a reasonable question, especially if an organisation independently described as supremacist was invited into a building where students resided, and all the more pertinent insofar as the college claims to welcome students of all backgrounds. If the college directly profited from such use of the building by a controversial organisation, as Ardenssedvirens appears to presume by default (e.g. talk: 09:12 UTC, 16 March 2022) but without any direct supporting evidence so far, then I think this makes such use of the premises even more controversial rather than less. My question regarding the propriety of repeated use of the college by a group described as supremacist whilst students of all backgrounds may have still been in residence notably remains unanswered as far as I am aware.

Meanwhile, the greatest relevance of the Orange Order to the college is probably the apparent confluence between criteria for membership of the former and subscription to particular viewpoints required of professors at the latter. Although Ardenssedvirens further opined that I had not shown that the Orange Order had been promoted in any way by the college (talk: 10:04 UTC, 19 March 2022), Sola Reformanda (talk: 16:50 UTC, 19 March 2022) then pointed out how the college was effectively helping to promote the Orange Order, and may also have been simultaneously profiting from the Orange Order. I find it hard to see how this is irrelevant.

Summary of dispute by Curious Critters
Ardenssedvirens has opined how thinking that something isn’t relevant and shouldn’t be included is not evidence that it is worth including, describing this as illogical (talk, 09:30 on 19 March 2022). As far as I can see, only Ardenssedvirens has opined on the talk page concerned that the Orange Order isn’t relevant specifically. If it is illogical to see an apparently solitary opinion that such content shouldn’t be included as evidence that such content is worth including, then conversely it would seem unreasonable to see this seemingly solitary opinion as both evidence that such content is not worth including and to maintain that there is no controversy. Strikingly, it was only after I mentioned the alternative (but purely theoretical) possibility of evidence that the Ku Klux Klan might have been using the college that Ardenssedvirens seemed to express with greater urgency a desire to entirely delete the section pertaining to the Orange Order (talk, 23:09 on 18 March 2022).

As for whether it is controversial that a current employee faced an employment tribunal in his previous job and accordingly received media coverage, I would highlight the observations by Alias the Jester (talk, 17:05 on 19 March 2022) regarding who put the description of the appointment and employment history of the operations manager into the Controversy section anyway at 17:18 on 16 March 2022. The question of a double standard has accordingly been raised in this regard. Meanwhile, it is also factually incorrect to state that no other employees have been mentioned in the Controversy section as there has been far more discussion in this section of the dismissal of a former professor, whom Ardenssedvirens has identified as also having been involved in an employment tribunal (talk, 20:35 on 18 March 2022). Is there another double standard in this regard?

Union Theological College 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. Also, the username of one of the other editors was incorrect, but has been corrected.  The other editors should be notified.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I did notify the other editors. Why have you said I didn’t? Ardenssedvirens (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Note - Notification of any noticeboard posting must be done with an entry on the user talk page of the editor being notified. Notice on some other page is not sufficient.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry, I overlooked that detail. I’ll leave a note on their talk page. Thank you for the explanation Ardenssedvirens (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Where is the note on my talk page? Curious critters (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Now you mention it, I do not seem to have a note to this effect specifically on my own talk page either. Notabigot (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn’t on Wikipedia for a while and by the time I was on I saw that both of you had already commented here. I’m sorry for my initial error, but it seemed rather redundant to notify you once you were already aware and posting here. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by moderator (Union Theological College)
User: Ardenssedvirens, User:Notabigot, User:Curious critters - Do you want moderated discussion of a content dispute? If so, please read the rules and reply below to indicate that you are ready for moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks @Robert McClenon, yes, I’d be happy to have moderated discussion. I’ve stepped back from discussing the article on its talk page or editing it while this process is ongoing. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 07:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me too. Although I had made a few further edits to other parts of the article in the meantime, I have not altered the relevant sections that appear to be under dispute pursuant to the request for arbitration.
 * Notabigot (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am content to participate as proposed as long as other participants are likewise inclined.
 * Curious critters (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

First statement by Moderator (Union Theological College)
Okay. Please read the ground rules again. If you have questions about the rules, ask them now. Be civil and concise. Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Overly long statements may make the poster feel better without conveying information to the community. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion except in the space provided. I do not have any knowledge about the topic, and I expect the editors to provide me with the knowledge that I need to moderate the dispute.

Now: Each editor is requested to make a statement of one or two paragraphs, not more than that, summarizing the dispute by stating either what you want to change in the article, or what you want to keep the same that another editor wants to change. Be Specific at DRN. State briefly what the content issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

First statements by Editors (Union Theological College)
It seems to me that it might be helpful, at least in the first instance, to compare various authoritative definitions of the word controversy. The dispute as initially presented by seems to hinge upon this. What do others think of this proposal? Notabigot (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I am happy to go along with that but I am not sure whether it might necessarily be the underlying issue. Ardenssedvirens has requested a neutral opinion on whether the disputed matters are sufficiently notable and relevant to be included in the article. It would therefore seem important to firstly demonstrate that the Orange Order is not notable, despite publicly parading in brightly coloured sashes and carrying massive banners whilst accompanied by a booming band. Then it would be equally important to demonstrate the contemporary irrelevance of the Orange Order in light of such activity. Lastly, it would be of interest to better understand why Ardenssedvirens initially introduced the appointment and employment history of the operations manager into the Controversy section before then proposing deletion of all such content, and why that has now been linked here to dispute about the Orange Order. Consequently, is the operations manager either irrelevant to the college or relevant to use of the college by the Orange Order?
 * Curious critters (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The Union Theological College article mentions the use of the premises by an external body, the Orange Order, but nothing is cited to show that this is notable enough to warrant inclusion on the page, especially when the use of premises by other external organisations isn't listed. Some of the editing history suggests that some users included it because they see personally the Orange Order as controversial, but no evidence has been supplied to show that the use of the premises by the Orange Order was considered controversial by society, therefore it isn't notable and should be removed.

Similarly a non-academic member of staff is mentioned in the context of an employment tribunal convened during his previous employment, where he was cleared of wrongdoing. That doesn't seem relevant to the college article. It seemed to have been included as a controversy, so I moved it to the controversy section a while ago, but I don't think it is notable enough to be mentioned, especially when no other non-academic staff are mentioned. Both items have been included as matters of controversy, but neither have actually attracted controversy nor are they notable. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Union Theological College)
The purpose of this dispute resolution is to improve the article. So I am asking what exactly each editor wants to change in the article, or what they want to leave the same that someone else wants to change. We will identify what content in the article is the subject of the content dispute before we discuss how to address the content dispute. Discussing the various meanings of "controversy", for instance, may be useful after we identify what paragraphs and sentences in the article are the subject of the content dispute.

Please state, in one paragraph, what you think the content issue is. You may state, in one other paragraph, what any other issues or questions are. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Statement 2A by moderator (UTC)
If no specific issue with the article content is stated within 24 hours, or anyone makes any other specific request, I will close the case as having fizzled out. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry @Robert McClenon, I didn’t realise further statements from you would appear above the ‘Back-and-forth discussion’ section so I was looking below there for updates. Apologies for my error. I’ll look in the right place in future! I’ve now made my second statement. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, Ardenssedvirens. It would be appreciated if you could also please respond to a few ensuing queries in the Back-and-forth discussion below. Notabigot (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the invitation to participate in back and forth discussion,@Notabigot, but that is what we were doing on the article talk page without a positive outcome. I am following the directions of the moderator who has recently said ‘We will identify what content in the article is the subject of the content dispute before we discuss how to address the content dispute’ and given clear instructions about what to post. If instructions from the moderator change then I’ll participate in discussion accordingly. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK Ardenssedvirens, I look forward to hearing further accordingly. Notabigot (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Union Theological College)
Thanks, Robert McClenon. I am broadly content with the article as it currently stands and I do not yet see a consistent reason for wholesale deletion of any sections. There seem to be varying opinions being expressed by one individual regarding whether something is controversial but not controversial enough, or having public coverage but not enough media coverage, or being both part of normal practice and also without precedent. I would have been content to conclude that edits latterly made independently by SovalValtos should have sidestepped any dispute over what is necessarily a controversy but it seems that one particular editor wants to keep this open as a dispute whilst simultaneously asserting lack of notable controversy. Notabigot (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I am reasonably content with the article as edited by other editors in the meantime, unless there happen to be any other new developments worthy of adding. I gather from the comment left latterly by Ardenssedvirens on my talk page that life has got rather busy in the past two weeks.
 * If any editor who originally requested content dispute resolution does not then have sufficient time to commit to this process insofar as this apparently requires checking on the case regularly in order to answer questions within 48 hours, then what is the fate of the requested content dispute?
 * Curious critters (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I will address the article as it currently is. My concern is about two subsections of the History section: ‘ Hire of Alan McCormick’ and ‘ Orange Order use of premises’. No other administrative staff other than Alan McCormick are mentioned and nothing about him seems to be worth mentioning in a history of the college so I think that whole subsection should be deleted. The Orange Order is unaffiliated with the college and has merely used their premises on occasion — a common practice among universities. I don’t see a justification for singling them out for mention and the current material that is there reads like a blog written by someone who dislikes the Orange Order rather than an impartial description of the history of the college. I think that subsection should also be removed as irrelevant.
 * Ardenssedvirens (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion (Union Theological College)
In the meantime, I see that SovalValtos has now incorporated the previous 'Controversy' section into the History section. There do not appear to have been any objections to this so far. If the initial dispute related primarily to definition of what might be reasonably considered as controversial, does this therefore resolve the dispute? If not, what are the outstanding issues, @Ardenssedvirens and @Curious critters?

Notabigot (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Robert_McClenon, I don't see precedence for the use of premises by outside bodies or the hiring of non-academic staff being mentioned in the history of the college so I don't see why the Orange Order would be included. If there was evidence that this was a notable and provoked public discussion or that the college itself considers it a notable part of its history, then I think it would belong. I don't see that at the moment. I don't intend to alter the article while we're having the discussion here. Even in the case of Alan McCormick the press articles don't relate to his employment at the college and him being cleared at the tribunal doesn't seem to have been mentioned when he was hired, so it doesn't seem relevant. It's not even mentioned on the article for his employer at the time of the tribunal, Belfast Bible College, so I'm not sure why it would be mentioned in a later employer. So I disagree with Notabigot. (Apologies for multiple edits to this — I haven’t really used the non-visual editor before, so I made a few mistakes.) Ardenssedvirens (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to pick up on some points that Ardenssedvirens has made regarding the mention of the operations manager in the article. It is true that no other non-academic staff are mentioned in the article apart from the operations manager, though this would seem to be simply because no other non-academic staff have received comparable media coverage (whereas a former professor who was dismissed has received far more media coverage and was accordingly included in the previous Controversy section). Meanwhile, I would not necessarily rely on the Wikipedia entry for Belfast Bible College as a precedent for which staff should be mentioned, since the only staff currently listed therein are principals of the college. If the article on Union Theological College similarly listed only the principals of the college, then much of its history in relation to other faculty members would correspondingly need to be expunged. However, wherever notable faculty are mentioned in most other articles, this is not necessarily limited to principals of colleges, university presidents or chancellors. And who would wish to assert that faculty members are the only members of staff at a college who are capable of achieving notability? If a member of staff is sufficiently notable to be mentioned by name in a report for the college upon their appointment, and also sufficiently notable to have been mentioned by name in previous media reports, then surely this is relevant to an article on the college.
 * Ardenssedvirens has also stated that the employment tribunal relating to the operations manager seemed to have been included as a controversy, though I am not aware of any editor explicitly regarding it as such other than Ardenssedvirens. If evidence can be presented that any other editors felt this should be included in the previous Controversy section, then I would be happy to stand corrected. Until then, I am baffled as to why reference to media reporting of an individual being engaged in an employment tribunal should have been considered both worthy of being moved to a Controversy section and yet also not notable enough to be mentioned at all. That makes no sense at all to me. I am also still curious as to why the employment history of the operations manager should ever have been raised in the same context as reference to use of the college by the Orange Order. Ardenssedvirens clearly must have felt that there was a connection between the two, so what is the relevant connection if only Ardenssedvirens had included both items as similar matters of controversy?
 * Curious critters (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a few considerations I would like to highlight here in response to the second statement by Ardenssedvirens.
 * Firstly, regarding the hire of Alan McCormick, I see that Curious critters has raised a few questions about the rationale by Ardenssedvirens for apparently linking both this and the Orange Order in the previous Controversy section, for which suitable explanatory answers appear to remain outstanding. In the meantime, I just came across an article referring to someone with the same name who previously received an award from the Orange Order in recognition of his key role in refurbishing an Orange Hall in the village of Drumbo. Might this be the same person? If so, is this part of the connection?
 * Secondly, regarding the statement that it is a common practice among universities for the Orange Order to use their premises on occasion, is it therefore possible to provide a list of examples of any universities where the Orange Order has similarly met on campus to hold their own services instead of using a local Orange Hall?
 * Thirdly, regarding the use of premises at Union Theological College by other external organisations, where is this information publicly available? Is it therefore possible to refer to a comprehensive list (or even a representative sample) of external organisations that have used the premises at Union Theological College over the past decade? If not, how about the last five years or so?
 * Lastly, regarding the implied motivations of someone who dislikes the Orange Order, is it not the case that Ardenssedvirens clearly stated a personal dislike of the Orange Order on the talk page for the article on Union Theological College at 09:30 UTC on 19 March 2022? How then might the expressed desire to remove any reference to the Orange Order be accordingly considered as impartial?
 * Notabigot (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Half-Life (series)
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 adding information about a film that I was involved in making. There are many other films on this page that have little or no sources. I have followed all of the guidelines as best as I can and the WHOLE section of information keeps getting removed for vague reasons. Now after being removed several times for it not having valid sources (even though it has many and I have added many more) It's being stated that there is a conflict of interest. I have disclosed my conflict of interest. All I am doing is adding information that the series exists. This is not some political topic that has differing views. It is a film that exists in the canon and has been viewed by millions of people. It's not being unduly promoted more than any other films in the list. Which were also likely added by the people involved in making those. I am being penalized because I am being up front about who I am. AND i am not pushing anything promotional. The film has been out for years. I am not promoting it. Just adding it to a list with other half-lif films. Please note the specifically promotional things you think are happening and remove them or I can remove them. Please stop removing the whole entry!

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ijduncan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Masem

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Stop removing the entire existence of the project and tell me specifically what is not working or specifically edit it rather than deleting the whole entry.

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

Summary of dispute by Ferret
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. COI editor refuses to use the article's talk page or cease from making COI edits. If I weren't already semi-involved, I'd block for edit warring (and maybe even promo-only). The editor is the director of the film they are attempting to insert into the article. They have been trying to work it in for two years despite more than 5 editors reverting on poor sourcing grounds and promotional issues. A talk page discussion has been opened by the protecting admin, and more replies are there. Recommend closing this, talk page avenue has not been exhausted (or even tried. User talks aren't the same.) -- ferret (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Half-Life (series) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * is invited to join the content-based discussion at Talk:Half-Life_(series), which they should have started themselves as the onus to do so before reinstating disputed content is on them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Slava Ukraini#Newspaper image
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

Can somebody please have a look at this discussion. There is an old Nazi newspaper in "Slava Ukraini" which only purpose is to link "Slava Ukraini" to Nazism. Another editor opposes its deletion with arguments like

"From an IP editor’s edit summary a few days ago: "this is the very first known instance of the slogan written on official or semi-official paper, so it is important." I was confused too at first, but I believe the IP is correct here." , then

"Do you have an example of an older instance? If so, I would have no objection to replacing the current image with that." , then

"It’s certainly the earliest image on the page, at the very least."

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

Talk:Slava Ukraini

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please have a look at the validity of arguments.

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

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

Summary of dispute by 79.107.196.164
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Talk:Slava Ukraini#Newspaper image 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 on their talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Didnt knew its required. Notification done. Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Note 2 - Also- is the filing editor asking for an opinion of mediation? Just to clairify. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I dont know. The issue is plain and simple. An opinion? Manyareasexpert (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to chime in: The main dispute is basically over anyway, since someone found an older article yesterday. I don't really have any objection to removing the Nove Zhittya article now. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Nikol Pashinyan
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The article in its present state reads like a biased WP:ADVOCACY piece in favor of Pashinyan. It seems to have been extensively written back in 2018 by one person with the primary goal of promoting Pashinyan's image. For example, a source crediting Pashinyan with "Armenia's economy [growing] significantly" does not even mention Pashinyan. It also treats Pashinyan's claims of rigged elections as fact even though international observers deemed them fair. The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, which Pashinyan has been heavily criticized for and blamed for even by his former ally Levon Ter-Petrosyan, is summarized briefly only by a single sentence. Since the war, Pashinyan has increased censorship and made many politically motivated arrests, for which he has been criticized for by international organizations, yet there is no mention of any of this. I tried to improve the article by expanding it and fixing a lot of the issues, yet have been reverted by two other users. I've explained the changes in detail on the talk page and asked them to address any specific issues with my changes, which they have been unable to do.

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

Talk:Nikol Pashinyan

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like for a volunteer(s) to review the diff with my changes and find if there are any issues with it. If there are any specific issues that can be pointed out, I will do my best to rectify them, whether by rephrasing, finding more/better sources, or even removing those parts if need be. I do not believe the majority of the changes have issues, but the talk page has given no feedback of substance, so I hope to be able to find that here instead.

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

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

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

Marjorie Taylor_Greene
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I have made edits referring to MTG's alleged infidelity that have been reverted by other editors. My opinion is that this material is verifiable, notable, and necessary for NPOV. Other editors appear to believe the material is simply trivial, and have acted in what I consider a dismissive manner. I would rather request mediation rather than conduct an edit war.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marjorie_Taylor_Greene#Extramarital_affairs

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please provide guidance on continuing this discussion and help resolving the dispute. I am not a particularly experienced editor and feel that I am being pushed around. I am asking for assistance at an early stage because I understand that MTG is a contentious figure and do not want to wade into some kind of nasty back and forth.

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

Summary of dispute by Curbon7
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

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

Mitch Hedberg
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I have edited the page twice and AlsoWukai has reverted them each time without any explanation.

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mitch_Hedberg#Stage_Fright_2

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I contacted AlsoWukai on 4/3/2022 but have not received a response and they haven't commented in the the Talk page either. I'm not sure what else to do.

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

Mitch Hedberg discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Initial comment--seeing how the other party has not really entered the fray, and there has been no prolonged discussion, I might humbly suggest seeking guidance/assistance at WP:BLPN as a first step. Volunteers, forgive me if I am being impertinent.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Comment to User:Dumuzid - He's dead, Jim. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Perth
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I'm having a disagreement with another user about which version of the article should remain while we discuss some changes. User IronBattalion created a new article section "Etymology", moving some text from elsewhere in the article and adding other text. I disagreed with the edit and reverted. IronBattalion restored the edit again. I raised the matter on the talk page, listing reasons for my reversion, including that it was related to an existing unresolved discussion ("Aboriginal name") on the same talk page, and asked IronBattalion to restore the original text while the matter was discussed. Two other editors agreed with me about my reversion. IronBattalion replied briefly indicating he was busy. Five days later, after no further comments, I reverted again (citing agreement by 2 others editors). Another editor, Simulaun, restored the disputed section again.

I again asked IronBattalion to restore the text to the state before the creation of the Etymology section, citing WP:STATUSQUO, but now we disagree on the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO.

Note: the dispute here is not whether the article content itself is valid, but whether it should be restored to the original state (before the creation of the Etymology section) while discussion proceeds about the article content.

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

Talk:Perth

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like an opinion as to whether the new section should be removed (text moved back to other sections where appropriate) while the discussions proceed. For the purposes of WP:STATUSQUO is the "status quo ante bellum" before or after the initial creation of the Etymology section?

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

G'day, and this was totally unnecessary in my opinion. Firstly, a form of Etymology is used on fairly similar pages (London, Brisbane), and while I agree my edit was not perfect and stands to be improved, all I did was reorganise some existing content into a different section.

Personally, I'm frustrated with this, and the reason is that I've got commitments; and one of them involves a thousand word assignment due in about 3-4 days. So I can't put my best into whatever this thing turns into. I was planning to continue the conversation on the talk page with a paragraph that was being written on the side (which I can release in its unfinished form if you want).

Honestly, this was not required, because at the same time as this was being discussed, the section above this one in the talk page has been through more vigorous disagreement than this one but I don't believe it utilised this noticeboard. However, I admit, if the discussion went no further than policies quoted, no content discussed, it would most likely then have required a dispute resolution in my opinion.

Finally: sorry... I'm a ranty editor at the best of times. You'll probably won't see me again due to the aforementioned commitments, so good luck, have a good day, and for further context, Talk:Perth. IronBattalion (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

In this situation, the matter is obvious. For years, there have been standards and guelines to prevent this type of situation. It does not matter that someone may have a different opinion in some issues. User:Mitch Ames presents the issue of WP: STATUSQUO. Well, there are two other rules and guelines to this: CYCLE (if new change by one user, causes revert by other user(s) = there must be consensus before introducing a new change). And also: Stable version: old (stable) version takes precedence over a new controversial and disputed change. User:Mitch Ames started solving the problem from the wrong side from "Dispute resolution noticeboard".

If we were to create here a new thread for every troll or vandal on Wikipedia, this would be hell. Someone will say in a moment that User:Simulaun is not a vandal or a troll, because you have to assume good will. It's not true. If user pushed new disputed changes, breaked Wikipedia standards like the CYCLE, Stable version or/and created edit-war - this user are acting like a vandal or a troll. Big dot. In this situation, we should revert the controversial change, enter a Template:test3 (or similar) on user talk page... if that does not help, report the account of this user for block. Reasons for block: breaking Wikipedia standards like the CYCLE, Stable version and also Edit warring, this is sufficient to block the account.

And I answer the User:Mitch Ames question: yes, revert to the previous version of the article (without the new disputed section of "Etymology", then wait until consensus is reached before introducing new changes is the only correct solution. Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 11:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Atlantic Slave Trade
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 edited the page on the Atlantic Slave Trade and added information about the role of the Catholic Church and Christianity. Another editor by the username of Rsk6400 reverted me, claiming the sources are not academic. I discussed it in the talk page and included more sources(which includes an academic journal and quotes by academic professors) but he still reverts it.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Atlantic_slave_trade#Catholic_Church

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like to get some input whether my edits should be included in the article on the Atlantic Slave Trade based on the sources that I provided.

Atlantic Slave Trade discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - While there has been some discussion on the article talk page, it has been in progress for less than two days and does not appear to have reached an impasse. I am neither closing this thread nor opening it for moderated discussion, but am asking the editors to continue discussion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I have not been notified of this discussion, I just saw it by chance when looking through Moses Blomstein's contributions after they reverted me at an unrelated article. Also, the discussion on the article's talk page has just been joined by two more editors and has not yet come to a standstill. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Makhanda, South Africa
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 disagreement over whether articles of renamed places should use the phrasing "formerly known as (blank)" or "also known as (blank)". BilledMammal believes "The issue with "formerly" is that it implies it is not used, which is incorrect" and that the article effectively conveys the place was renamed.

I personally believe that "formerly" does not mean the old name is never used and is instead an effective way to convey that the place was renamed. In addition, I see the use of "also known as" to be misleading as it implies a short form or nickname rather than former official name ie. "America" or "Britain". There are very few scenarios in my mind where an old name will cease use entirely.

This issue has been discussed ad infinitum and I do not see a scenario in which we do not keep arguing in circles. This discussion also involves the Qonce article. I considered getting a third opinion because it is primarily between myself and BilledMammal but Toddy1 and 41.114.166.55 is also involved and I imagine other editors have opinions as well.

BilledMammal is also editing the pages and reverting my edits while we are actively discussing the issue and I am expressing clear disagreement but I do not know if that is something I can mention here, apologies if I cannot.

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

Talk:Makhanda,_South_Africa Talk:Qonce

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

BilledMammal and I have a tendency to argue in circles and I do not believe this dispute can be resolved without outside input from uninvolved editors. Some sort of guidance based on existing guidelines would be helpful. This is my first time posting to this noticeboard so I apologize if I have made any mistakes filing this request.

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

Summary of dispute by Toddy1
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The dispute posting is malformed.
 * The reason Desertambition claims that I am involved is because the dispute location is Qonce.
 * Neither BilledMammal nor Desertambition have made edits to the article on South Africa see revision history or its talk page.
 * Neither BilledMammal nor Desertambition have made edits to the article on Makhanda see revision history or its talk page.

It was wrong to bring the dispute about Qonce here at this time. BilledMammal and Desertambition only started discussing it on the article talk page at 03:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC), which is two hours before this malformed request was posted. The article talk place is the right place to discuss this. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the above comments were made, another user had fixed the malformation problems; I did not even know that there was an article Makhanda, South Africa. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Makhanda, South Africa discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Just a brief comment. It seems like the dispute could be handled via an RFC. The two positions, "formerly known as" and "also known as" are simple enough be used as options in some kind of RFC. Also, RFCs were designed to get outside input from other editors. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:808A:F44B:E925:9190 (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * That's a good suggestion. I will go ahead and create an rfc unless anybody has an objection. Desertambition (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Ethnicities in Iran
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Two users (HistoryofIran, Slatersteven) deny the credibility of high quality (scientific) and ministry sources without bringing arguments. Slatersteven just don't give a comment after I have shown him wrong, and HistoryofIran is just storming with non-related WP shortcuts that don't add anything to the matter. In contrast, it turned into a "not-read-not-heard-game".

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

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I just want to know why two established members of Wikipedia deny the credibility of an official ministry with census data, a university (Tehran, best in Iran) and the largest fundamental science agency in Europe (CNRS)?

Summary of dispute by HistoryofIran
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Not gonna bother. See. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I was 10 min before you. Just wanted to let you know in case you didn’t recognize it yet.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Far-right politics in Ukraine
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

On Far-right politics in Ukraine and Russian separatist forces in Donbas, two editors (Segaton and ArvindPalaskar) have been repeatedly deleting all content about far-right groups on the pro-Russian side. All the content is backed by sources that are reliable, most of them academic. The wording follows the sources closely.

I started a discussion at WP:WikiProject Ukraine. These two editors argued that:
 * the content didn't belong because "Donbas isn't part of Ukraine"
 * the groups "don't actually exist" or "don't have Wikipedia articles" so aren't notable — the sources say they do exist and they do have Wiki articles
 * the sources don't use the term "far-right" — they do use the term, and/or equivalents like "ultranationalist"
 * the sources are "outdated" — some are recent, most are from the early years of the conflict, but my wording makes clear what time period is being referred to
 * the sources "rely on the Ukrainian security service" which is "unreliable" — none of the sources are the Ukrainian security service
 * the sources were deemed unreliable in some old discussions at WP:RSN — this was shown to be untrue

Since it became clear consensus is against them, they've stopped mass-deleting (for now), but are instead misrepresenting the sources:
 * changing "members of far-right groups" to "former members", because the groups are banned — the sources say they were members at the time, and I noted that banned doesn't mean non-existent
 * changing "[X group] is one of the few not to hide their extreme-right orientation" to "[X group] is among the few who have adopted extreme-right approach" — my original is a direct quote from the source, but they claim I'm misrepresenting it and that their rewording is more accurate.

They keep repeating the same claims over and over, and ignoring (or failing to understand) other editor's rebuttals.

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


 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ukraine
 * Talk:Far-right_politics_in_Ukraine

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like other uninvolved editors to verify that my wording matches the sources and doesn't misrepresent them; that the sources are appropriate; and that the content is relevant to the articles.

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

This particular dispute does not involve Volunteer Marek and KastusK.

If OP is talking about a week old edit war then he should have notified as well.

Overall, this is a trivial dispute and this is forum shopping. The OP should be reminded of WP:IDHT and WP:CIVIL due to his inability to understand WP:ACCURACY and rampant allegations of "censorship" on talk page. Segaton (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * In that case I'll also notify, and . ~Asarlaí 10:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Summary of dispute by KastusK
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. summarized the problem quite well. Two users try to remove every notice on far-right groups fighting on the pro-Russian side.--KastusK (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Far-right politics in Ukraine discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * I believe that since this edit someone have tried to overturn all the content of the article, rather than adding new sources and new points of view, by portraying Ukraine as a democratic paradise in which the far right is practically brought to its knees. And some of the users mentioned here are supporting this operation, focusing the article on pro-Russian separatist forces (which currently govern in 2 out of 24 oblasts across Ukraine). The article currently describes the far right in Ukraine as irrelevant, going against multiple reliable strong sources (such as Time) which describes a worrying situation of right-wing extremism and its connections with the US and world far right. In addition there is the Anti-Defamation League that puts Ukraine in second place in Europe for anti-Semitism. And there are articles from strong sources like RFERL, which talk about how LGBT movements are repressed more after the 2014 revolution. I am not against dealing with these issues about the pro-Russian side, but I do not see why they should be connected with the article "Far-right politics in Ukraine", I think it is also undue. At this point a new article could be created which deals with the Lugansk and Donetsk People's Republics. All this seems to me to be a work of propaganda.--Mhorg (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There seem to have been six active editors in the period of this dispute, two who have sought to remove and then minimise the existence of pro-Russian far right and four who have sought to include this. While not a perfect consensus, it seems like the majority version should be sustained. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC) I see Mhorg above dates the dispute to an earlier edit by, which was built on by . If we look at this longer period, then I see six editors who have worked towards an article that is nuanced rather than sensationalist about the Ukrainian nationalist far right and includes content on the pro-Russian far right, versus two editors who have pressed for the maximum on the former and minimum on the latter. 6-2 looks more like a strong consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Volunteer comment consensus is not a vote. I'll open up the case for moderated discussion in a few hours. Any editor wishing to add themselves as a party to the dispute is open to do so, although it will not be strictly necessary to be a party in order to participate in the resolution. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 10:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I had a look at the talk page after seeing the notification on one of the party's talk page. I must say that I am surprised that why nobody talked about exclusion of the whole non-notable "Varyag" thing? This entire insurgency involved 100s of groups and thousands of volunteers. What major role Varyag have played in the insurgency? I couldn't find any despite more than 7 years have gone. Such WP:UNDUE coverage should be avoided. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well you only searched Google Books and only for the exact English term "Varyag battalion". You could try searching elsewhere for "Varyag"/"Varyagi" or "Viking"/"Vikings" + battalion, brigade, unit, group, etc. ~Asarlaí 14:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

First statement by moderator, Far-right politics in Ukraine
I am opening this thread for moderated discussion. Your discussions should be addressed to the community, and to me as the representative of the community, not to each other unless I say that you may engage in back-and-forth. First, please read the rules carefully. These are not exactly the same as the rules that other moderators normally use, but they are similar to the usual rules and the ones I prefer using. If you have any questions about the rules, ask, rather than guessing.Each editor is asked for a one-paragraph statement on what they see the dispute as being about. The previous discussion did little to clarify the exact scope of this mediation. The paragraph should be kept as concise as possible and should not be split into bulleted sentences. Comment on content, not contributors. I have stricter standards for civility than most editors and will not hesitate to collapse uncivil comments. One additional paragraph may be used for any other discussion or questions about this dispute. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 10:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note, editors who are not listed as participants may take part in discussion in the same way as listed participants and may also request to be listed in the case. Unlisted editors must still follow the rules I have linked above. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 10:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I asked for a one-paragraph statement on what the dispute is about, not for you to continue a thread that's started elsewhere. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 14:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

First statement by editors, Far-right politics in Ukraine
Please use level 4 headers for your section.

Comment by slatersteven
Actually I can see some validity to the argument "they are not really part of Ukraine, it might be best to not muddy that page's waters (given Russian propaganda about the far right in Ukraine). Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Tychonic system
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 added a simple reference (a few sentences) to a new model derived from the Tychonic system, which inarguably does *exist*, and its existence is ALL I claimed, as those who are learning about said Tychonic system are likely to at least want to know that such a recently derived model exists. My minor addition keeps getting reverted ostensibly because "Not Notable", but my reading of that policy does not seem to apply here.

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

I have discussed this in good faith (located on my Talk page, I believe), and the arguments User:William M. Connolley made in the removal of my minor addition keep changing, the objections seem more to be based on someone's opinion than anything objective.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Another opinion at least, ask this guy to stop undoing my edit? Or if I'm really in the wrong here, then explain to me why in a way that makes any sense at all.

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

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

Scott Morrison
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 want to add a statement about the Australian economy's performance to the lede of the article. The current proposal that i have is:

"The Australian economy also rebounded from the COVID-19 recession much faster than other advanced economies, with unemployment falling below its pre-pandemic level and GDP rising above its pre-pandemic level in June 2021. However, the government was criticised for failing to address stagnant wages growth and cost of living increases."

I have plenty of high quality citations for both sentences. This is an accurate statement.

I also want to remove an inaccurate and uncited statement that Morrison "resisted international pressure to implement policies to address climate change" and replace it with the sentence "Morrison committed Australia to a net zero by 2050 climate change target, however this plan was criticised for lacking detail.". I have citations for this as well.

These changes are currently being blocked by editors who i believe are partisan. They have not contributed any constructive advice on how these proposals could be improved, but have instead sought to block having them included in the article.

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

I have extensively discussed this with them on the talk page for the Scott Morrison article. They are unwilling to budge. .

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By acting as a third party, i am hoping that you can help break the gridlock and act constructively to improve on the suggested edits. If you believe that i am in the wrong, i would appreciate advice as to why that's the case.

Summary of dispute by AndyTheGrump
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Given Hidwah's refusal to take note of relevant Wikipedia policies, despite repeated attempts to explain them (see Talk:Scott_Morrison) and repeated misrepresentations by Hidwah of things I have actually said (same thread), I will not be participating in this discussion. This isn't a content dispute, it is a behavioural issue - a partisan editor who simply refuses to acknowledge that content needs to be properly sourced, to be directly relevant to the article in question, and to be neutrally-written in compliance with coverage in relevant reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by HiLo48
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I am here because another editor invited me, NOT because Hidwah invited me, because he didn't. This highlights the core of the dispute. Hidwah, is new, inexperienced, and rushing. There is really no dispute, just an editor wanting to achieve far too much far too quickly, who is editing incompetently at times due to his inexperience, and who ignores advice to slow down and learn. HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I will just add to this that it's obvious that several other involved editors have also not been invited here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

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

National Recording Registry
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

Me and another user (Doc Strange) are both aligned on an issue regarding some aspects of the National Recording Registry article as added and maintained by Espngeek, a frequent editor of the article. This current issue is in regards to information on the National Film Registry that we believe may come in conflict with WP:CRUFT (as outlined in the talk page), but Espngeek is holding firm. In all honesty, I've had issues for a while now with Espngeek's additions to the page, like adding images for every single annual class of inductees (this was resolved by exiling them to their own Commons page) and the "Artists with/who appear on multiple entries" section, which I've never been a fan of (compare it to the National Film Registry page, which doesn't have the need to mention every single time a director has 2 films in the Registry). I once deleted it out of frustration (and admittedly sour move that I regret), which Espngeek then promptly added back; my compromise was alphabetizing it all by myself that putting it in a collapsable title. I'm of the mind that sometimes Espngeek likes to add extraneous information and frills for the sake of having it on the page, even though it actively detracts from the main point of the article - the list of inductees in the National Film Registry. And I feel restricted editing the page because he's been on it for years. I feel this way, but I don't want to incite a heated argument or an editing war and am open to dispute resolution. I had the idea of, say, maybe putting the main National Recording Registry inductees into its own separate article, e.g. the List of National Inventors Hall of Fame inductees, with "List of artists with multiple entries on the National Recording Registry" as a potential side article. I would be open to offering this as a compromise, if we can't agree on removing/downscaling info on the main page.

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



How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Ask what we want out of the page, what we think the page should focus on/outline, offer the solutions I suggested and ask Espngeek/Doc Strange for their thoughts/opinions.

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

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

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

Patrisse Cullors
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 past week new documents concerning allegations of misused nonprofit funds have been published and reported by NY Mag, Snopes, Jezebel, The Independent, and other RS. Many other non-RS have picked up on this. The culprit, from the documents unearthed, is Mrs. Patrisse Cullors and she is being directly accused as the beneficiary of over $6 million dollar homes with misused BLM funds. After a request for protection on this page was granted, Slatersteven and FDW777, two editors who collaborate together frequently as seen by visiting FDW777's talk page, have refused to add any of these RS sources. FDW777 going so far as accusing all these RS of orchestrating a smear campaign and only referring to year-old articles from these same sources to argue for non-inclusion. After requesting an outsider to take a look at this, Slatersteven directed me to the Admin's noticeboard and told me not to post anything there in what could be (mis)understood as a menacing tone. I would humbly request to community to read this Talk Page recent issues and chime in.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Patrisse_Cullors#Modern_(April_'22)_sources_regarding_housing_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Patrisse_Cullors#RfC_on_recent_sources_on_recent_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Patrisse_Cullors#Snopes

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By involving a neutral moderator facilitating structured discussion over the inclusion of the latest RS on this bio article.

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

Summary of dispute by FDW777
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

List of largest empires
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The issue is due to the Second Portuguese Empire size. As of now, it is evaluated as 5.5 million km2, being even surpassed by its former colony, Empire of Brazil, at 8.3. The reason for this is that supposedly only half of Brazil was effectively controlled by the Portugueses. A lot of contentions have happened in the past because of such apparent contradictory value. The source being used to back this value comes from a peer-reviewed research paper by Taagepera. TompaDompa thus claims that this is the best source we could possibly get, but the problem is that we are not doing a ceteris paribus on the quality of the source, and one must look at the amount of sources that contradict the former paper, all other reliable sources that evaluate the size of empires claim a much higher number, in addition, there is also an overwhelming amount of sources, though not directly stating any value, that assert that there was a presence and control of the interior of Brazil by the Portugueses, thus going against the basis of Taagepera's argument for the 5.5 number. TompaDompa will claim that all these sources are inferior to Taagepera's, but one cannot ignore all other reliable academic papers because of one mere article. I would also like to raise that the definition used in the article for empire, is based on the effective control of territories, but the notion of effective control only came around in the XIX century with the expansion of centralized administrative systems that permit a political control of the territory, thus being very favorable to a small percentage of the empires listed (British and French). One cannot expect a Mongol in every part of the Mongol Empire or an Tibetan in every part of the Himalayas, but it seems that is expectable that there is a Portuguese in every part of the dense forests of the Amazon.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_largest_empires#Regarding_Second_Portuguese_Empire_size...

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

This has been a much discussed problematic in the past and it seems that TompaDompa's number always prevails, plus I'm taking a Wikibreak because I'm spending way to much time on this website, so I would like to have this contention resolved before my break. A neutral mediator assessing the arguments of both sides will help me and TompaDompa come to a consensus more quickly.

Summary of dispute by TompaDompa
The main reason this has been discussed so much in the past is that there has been very extensive WP:SOCKPUPPETRY (see Sockpuppet investigations/Roqui15/Archive, Sockpuppet investigations/Mark Boron/Archive, and Sockpuppet investigations/Hugo Refachinho/Archive for the main players). The argument has generally been that the source for the 5.5 million km2 estimate should not be used because the editors in question disagree with the way that figure was arrived at. This instance is really no different. The 5.5 million km2 estimate comes from a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities, which is just about the WP:BESTSOURCE we can get for an article like this. Taagepera's research is indeed widely cited and very mainstream (it's about as central to the topic of historical areas as McEvedy & Jones' 1978 Atlas of World Population History is to the topic of historical populations). I'm not averse to citing other sources in addition to Taagepera, but those sources would need to be of comparable quality to not create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. There are some such sources (e.g. this which is also a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities), but none providing different estimates for the peak area of the Portuguese Empire that I have seen so far. I don't think the assertion that all other reliable sources that evaluate the size of empires claim a much higher number is accurate—what WP:Reliable sources? Most sources that include figures on the topic of the territorial extents of historical polities are not reliable for that information, for WP:RSCONTEXT reasons or others. I also think the assertion that there is some kind of double standard at play here is rather unfounded.A more detailed version of my arguments can be found here (I wrote it back in 2020 in response to one of the aforementioned sockpuppets, but the arguments haven't really changed since). I don't see that there is much to be done here without first locating additional high-quality sources. TompaDompa (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

List of largest empires. discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - This might be a question that can be resolved by a Third Opinion. That can be requested at the Third Opinion noticeboard, or one of the volunteers here may provide a Third Opinion if that, rather than mediation, is requested here.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - Are the editors interested either in requesting a Third Opinion at the Third Opinion noticeboard, or in requesting a third opinion from one of the volunteers at this noticeboard? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note Agreeing with the above statements. My best suggestion would be to ask for a third opinion. I would opt to give one myself, but I am quite busy. Just here to give my two cents on this issue. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a third opinion might be more indicated, but I don't have the time right now. Can we just put this dispute resolution on hold? Many thanks. SpaceEconomist192  ✐  16:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Khairatabad Ganesh
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 manual of style states that outside the United States and United Kingdom: the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI. The other editors thinks this does not apply to this article.

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

Talk:Khairatabad_Ganesh

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Does the Manual of Style apply or does it not apply? Otherwise why have a manual of style?

Summary of dispute by DaxServer
The issue brought up was "which units are the primary units in terms of height" for the article. The filer argued that SI units (aka meters) should be used. However, all 100% of the reliable sources WP:RS use feet, conveying that feet to be the primary unit. The notability, and thence the DYK, is that the idol was increased by 1 foot every year. It is meaningless here to say that the height is increased by "0.3m (1 feet)" using the Convert template. It should be the opposite. The filer argues that we should bureaucratically follow whatever the MOS says. The filer was also asked to produce any reliable source for argument that SI is primary, but has only ever failed. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ab207
The height of the idol is always mentioned in terms of feet in reliable sources. The unit of height measurement is also intrinsic to the subject's notability which is primarily known for its height. Since the subject is a non-scientific/non-technical article, little value is added by switching to SI units. MOS:UNITS is a general guideline, that "is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" which I believe is warranted in this case. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Khairatabad Ganesh discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - Are the editors interested in a fourth opinion? If a volunteer provides a fourth opinion, they will not then be available to mediate the dispute (although another volunteer might or might not be available then).  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is fine with me. Avi8tor (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, please — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Greetings, I am a student of South Asian studies. Idk specific procedure of sharing fourth opinion in DRN but I shall attempt as follows. I hope my opinion shall help future mediators.
 * a) When the article represents on WP Main page for DYK hook or as Feature article candidate then it's advisable to use internationally easy to understand MoS in DYK hook or Para included in main page
 * b) Also in other cases where international audience is likely to read then also sticking to international standard makes the point.
 * c) Other than occasional DYK this particular article is less likely to be of interest beyond India and Indic diaspora
 * d) My personal observation is in South Asia (not sure of Sri Lanka) traditionally South Asians seem to refer lengths and heights in Feet and inches or meters depending on reference points.
 * They seem to cut the cloth in meters, drive in Kilometers but talk of heights and length in case of humans and buildings in terms of Feet and inches. May be a civil engineer will take measurements in meters and centimeters, but while talking with the common people usually he talks in terms of Feet and inches. Feet is also used when it is rough estimate or approximation and not accurate in centimeters then too Feet seems to be used. Same case is for human and idol heights and South Asian archeologist or investigator will give height in meters and centimeters but otherwise in common parlance the same persons most likely use Feet and inches.
 * For a South Asian commoner quick imagining an amount in millions seems to be difficult (Some other parts of the world finds easier) but will be comfortable to imagine in lacks and crores similarly quick imagining a human or an idol will be difficult for common South Asian reader in terms of meters.
 * When core audience of the article is likely to remain Indian and Indian diaspora; WP has scope for being flexible to use Feet and inches and give meters and centimeters in bracket.
 * More over I doubt non engineer idol artists would be providing centimeter accuracy and when accuracy is not likely to be in centimeters I am not sure it will be helpful to convert from an underlying  vague unit into unit of standard that will amount to misinform the audience about accuracy when accuracy does not subsists
 * Well above I have not referred Wikipedia rulings other people are there for helping out in that
 * Actually I came here to say take decision either way and not invest too much time discussing such insignificant aspects like significant ones. Even to say that I invested my time which could have been used more productively. So be it.
 * Cheers and happy editing
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to be hedging your bets with your reply. Both units are displayed regardless in English articles to allow for readers worldwide, 95% of the world population live in metric countries. There is a Wikipedia Manual of style for a Reason and that is to standardize the units, spelling and format for a Worldwide audience. Other scientific articles source non SI units but display them per the MOS. This article should do the same. Avi8tor (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much!


 * Volunteer Question - There has been a fourth opinion. Do the editors want to close the case as resolved, or do they want a Request for Comments?  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the 4th opinion gave conflicting answers and avoided making a judgement call. So I would appreciate a request for comments. Avi8tor (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

People's Mojahedin Organization 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

I wanted to add to the article that

“During the Islamic Revolution, Massoud Rajavi prevented the MEK from using violence against Khomeini’s new government, which raised his status within the MEK”

Ghazzzalch reverted saying "Rajavi’s position toward terrorist attacks is also covered in the section "Assassinations". So the article is already too long and no need to repeat its contents all over the article". But this is not repeated in the article.

Then Iskandar323 said this quote should be in another article, but the quote is about People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran.

So both their reasons for not wanting this in the article don’t seem very reasonable. I asked an admin, and they suggested I should try a dispute resolution.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People%27s_Mojahedin_Organization_of_Iran#%22Removal_of_designation%22_text_tightening

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By checking the reasons that Iskandar323 and Ghazzalch have given for not wanting this information in the article

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

There has been some kind of consensus in the previous discussions that this article is too long, and should be shortened. Under this pretext, Fad Ariff was removing some important anti-MEK details (such as) from the article, and in the same time was adding some pro-MeK details (such as) to it. Per Tendentious editing I reverted them all. Because I saw them as a whole. But Fad Ariff preferred not to narrate the whole story here. He picked up a single edit and brought it here, arguing that why we should not be able to add a well-sourced material to the article. To show that he is not even sticking to this partial logic, I recently added a well sourced anti-MeK material to the article. He reverted it immediately, arguing that Ghazaalch says the article is too long while adding more cult content to the article. I asked him here that If you agree with me that the article is too long and you revert what I add, then why you insist on restoring what I reverted? And why you took this case to the Dispute resolution noticeboard? What is the dispute here? We both are doing the same thing. No answer yet. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by User:Iskandar323
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by User:Fad Ariff
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Replying to Ghazaalch, the content in this dispute is not "pro" anything, it’s just content by a good publisher and author. About Ghazaalch’s response that I reverted one of his edits, the short answer to that is that I reverted it because cult stuff is already covered in four different sections and in the lead of the article (while the information in this dispute is not in the article). It’s fine if Ghazaalch wants to open a separate dispute about that edit, but they still have not provided a reasonable answer for removing the content in this dispute (neither here nor on the talk page). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Users have not been notified on their talk page. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  17:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * they have now been notified. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Libs of Tiktok
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 lieu of recent media attention, this page is receiving a lot of interest and additions. There is a section clearly dedicated to summarizing the type of content posted by the subject Twitter account, however other users are repeatedly removing references to content they find unappealing.

Specifically, the the Libs of Tikok Twitter account has gained notoriety for criticizing videos that contained sexual references about young children, including a post in which a professor expressed apologetic views towards pedophilia and a woman who claimed to host "sexual liberation and masturbation" workshops for children. I have added this information in and cited it using multiple sources, including a direct link to the Twitter posts in question, however other users are removing this without answering why.

Given that the article goes into detail about a variety of Tweets from Libs of Tiktok, it seems rather arbitrary and completely biased to omit some Tweets that certain editors find unappealing.

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

Talk:Libs_of_TikTok

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide neutral commentary, suggestions, or resolutions from an uninvolved editor on whether it is appropriate to remove certain material referencing a Twitter post which is currently live on Twitter itself.

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

Summary of dispute by Valjean
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. My only involvement is to oppose edit warring by Domiy. They even used a bogus edit summary to undo a revert of their rejected edit, calling it "vandalism". This whole section is an illegitimate attempt to bring a content dispute here without a really good attempt to resolve the matter at the article's talk page. With only four comments on the talk page, Domiy is escalating the conflict to this board far too prematurely. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ElijahPepe
Libs of TikTok is a Twitter account that primarily posts TikTok videos from a conservative perspective in a derogatory manner. The videos often show people at a low point (i.e. a teacher crying after being misgendered or finding out about Ron DeSantis' 'Don't Say Gay' bill). The account occasionally posts images of news reports of teachers who are actual pedophiles (in contrast to the account's captions to the videos, which often involve calling the videos "grooming") or videos of events such as the Family Sex Show (which, according to Independent, is a show aimed at children and was supposed to be a show talking about gender, sexuality, consent, with depictions of nudity). These videos are not as frequent as Domiy presents them (I will admit, I am not an avid viewer of the account, but in order to gain a better perspective I browsed some tweets prior to the drama taking place).

On April 21, 2022, at 8:33 P.M. PST, Domiy made an edit to the Libs of TikTok article's lead. The edit changed "curated content" to "mocks" and removes the "[TikTok] users as a form of mockery and to support more conservative views" section from the first sentence. The edit makes the claim that the account is popular among conservatives (the original sentence) because the account mentions pedophiles. The claim is attributed to The Spectator; according to WP:RSPSS, The Spectator has opinion pieces and would not be suitable for any place in the article, especially for the lead, without attribution of the claim (which then should be moved to another section). The same organization is also used to cite the claim a paragraph down that Chaya Raichik (the creator of Libs of TikTok) was "doxxed" by Washington Post journalist Taylor Lorenz. 18 minutes later, the reliability of The Spectator was used as reasoning for undoing the edit by Pokelova.

I should note here that whether or not Lorenz doxxed Raichik is not what we're discussing here. The reason why the edit were undone is because it used two sources that should not appear in a lead in the lead. Editing these articles is tricky but, and apologies for breaking the neutral point of view of this summary, it seems like Domiy is attempting to find citations to back up a claim, not find a claim to back up with citations.

23 minutes after Pokelova undid Domiy's edit, Domiy returned to the article with a similar edit (I'm not sure whether this counts as a revert, but enough seems to be changed to where it doesn't). The edit keeps the lead edits in tact (with the exception of changing "criticizing videos that promoted pedophilia or contained sexual references about young children" to "criticizing videos that contained sexual references about young children". The Content section seems to be where most of the action occurs, where Domiy's edit sandwiches "It also reposted and mocked videos in which a professor encouraged the use of the term 'minor-attracted persons' to avoid stigma of being called a 'pedophile', and a woman speaking about teaching young children how to masturbate 'as soon as they could talk'" in between "The account has targeted schools and teachers, referring to schools as "government run indoctrination camps" for the LGBT community and encouraged followers to contact schools that allowed transgender students to use the bathroom of their identified gender" and a huge section about the level of which the account mocks the LGBTQ+ community. Again, I have a couple of problems with this:


 * 1) The sources are still coming from The Spectator, which was the original problem to begin with which is not being made better here.
 * 2) Inserting that comment in between the those two claims is very clunky and hamfisted.

Domiy then expands upon the claim he added and cites news.com.au instead for that section which would be fine (given he remove the section from the lead and shift the statement around to not be positioned in such an awkward way), but news.com.au (being owned by News Corp) actually licensed their article from the New York Post, which is a no-go tabloid newspaper.

At 4:37 A.M. PST the following day, Domiy then stampedes a large number of edits to rewrite the lead and Content section to his edit, with the reasoning "Please stop deleting factual information to push bias. Repeated deletion will be reported as vandalism." This, of course, is undone 10 minutes later by Pokelova. 5 minutes after Domiy makes the edit, a new section is added to the talk page with the title "Please stop deleting factual information to push bias":

"This article is not going to be used as another driving range to push left-wing bias. If you're going to mention detailed accounts of the controversial things posted by Libs Of Tiktok, then there is also room for the fact that the account criticized educators who were openly promoting peadophilia and masturbation among young children. Whether you feel this is moral or not is irrelevant - the public deserves to know as it is these very posts that has made Libs Of Tiktok so popular among conservatives. These are relevant details.

If you do not agree with the particular wording, there is always room to discuss ways of rephrasing, but deleting information that you don't like in order to keep the article focused solely on negative posts is a clear violation of neutrality. Please stop deleting factual, referenced information."

As a frequent contributor of the Libs of TikTok article, I chime in a few hours later, refuting Domiy's claims, and likewise Zaathras does the same 41 minutes later with a much harsher message. X-Editor, a large contributor to the article, also joins in.

About 16 hours after Domiy posted the initial message on the talk page, they then reply to my message, misconstruing my point: "If there is a reputable source that can claim that LoTT brings up direct pedophilia and masturbation among young children (not LGBTQ+ content; that is a huge NPOV problem), then add it yourself.

The Spectator article links to an actual Tweet made by LoTT. As far as I know, Wikipedia also allows using Tweets as a source for what someone said. Here is a direct link to the Tweet in question. The Tweet and the pedophilia reference (as well as the fact that the poster was fired for it) was also reported by News.com.au,, a very reliable Australian news source which also links to the tweet made by LoTT.

Your attempt to pretend that the videos of LGBT activists promoting pedophilia or child sexualisation never happened are blatant delusion and a breach of neutrality. You cannot, and will not, use this article to focus solely on left-wing criticism of the account. There are numerous reliable sources which confirm that the account gained notoriety for calling out LGBT members who expressed outright inappropriate, sexually explicit views of children. This will be re-added."

There are two parts to this:


 * 1) Any claims, even those backed up with tweets, must be cited with a reliable news source. A tweet can be a one time thing, which is why claims that can be sourced are necessary. The reason why news.com.au is not a good source in this case is because the source for news.com.au is actually from the New York Post, which is not allowed. This is a common practice in the news business and yes, it must be watched for.
 * 2) I never acted like "the videos of LGBT activists promoting pedophilia or child sexualisation never happened". I want to add a mention of it somewhere, because I do feel the article could benefit from such an expansion (lest we start adding lies to make the article larger), but with that comes being tactful. You have to cite your reliable sources, there's no negotiation to be had here. If your source comes from the New York Post, and the New York Post is disallowed on Wikipedia, tough luck. This is not the place to discuss that kind of policy change. These sources are disallowed for a reason, and they benefit from bureaucracy.

I summed all of that up into a reply to Domiy nearly an hour later. While I'm crafting my reply, Domiy readds his section, gets undone by X-Editor, then undoes X-Editor's edit under the guise of "reverting vandalism", to which Valjean tells Domiy to knock it off. In response, Domiy then adds to Valjean's page (despite the fact Valjean was not edit warring), and three minutes later Domiy continues to erroneously twist my argument:

"I am more than happy to use a direct link to the Tweet in question if you have doubts on whether the alleged Tweet criticizing pedophilia or masturbation really did occur.?

I am also not using the New York Post as a source, I'm using a collaborated source from news.com.au, one of Australia's largest and most trusted news sites."

This is not about whether or not the tweets are real, they obviously are, but the sources used are against Wikipedia's reliability policy for sources and are being reverted on those grounds. We (Valjean, X-Editor, Pokelova, myself) are not undoing your edits because of some hidden agenda, we're undoing them because there is a very stringent policy on what you can and can't cite on Wikipedia and it must be followed. This applies to Media Matters (considered by many to be a left-wing source) too, and it applies to news.com.au because they're getting their article content from the New York Post.

Four minutes later, this DRR is created.

I am one to avoid confrontation and conflict, which is exactly why this is a bit troubling. We (Valjean, X-Editor, Pokelova, myself) are looking to make the article better, and that requires some consideration and bureaucracy, not brute force. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Libs of Tiktok discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - One of the editors has not been notified of this filing on their talk page and has not responded. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - A post that was more than 1600 words long has been collapsed. It may or may not be read later.  A shorter post (e.g., 300 words) will be read.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

List of political parties in Italy
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

After long discussions, it was in no way possible to find an agreement on the criteria of inclusion and on the set up of the page. In my view, the criteria should be remarkably simplified, and the tables listing the parties should look better and contain more useful information.

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

Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 1, Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 2, Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 3, Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 3, Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 3, Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 3

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

In the latest RFCs many users have expressed themselves for the simplification of the criteria, and I agree with them. I think we need for impartial mediation in order to achieve a consensual set of rules and a better set up of the page. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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

First statement by moderator, Italian political parties
I am opening this thread for moderated discussion. Your discussions should be addressed to the community, and to me as the representative of the community, not to each other unless I say that you may engage in back-and-forth. First, please read the rules. These are not exactly the same as the rules that I or other moderators normally use, but they are similar to the usual rules, with certain differences. Second, please read the rules again. If you have any questions about the rules, ask, rather than guessing.

I see at least four basically different possible ways that we can specify what parties are listed.
 * A. No rules.  Any editor can list any political party.
 * B. A party may be listed if it is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.  A party may have an article if it satisfies general notability.
 * C. A party may be listed if it has a Wikipedia article.  A set of rules can be adopted for when articles on Italian political parties are in order.  These rules may be maintained somewhere else, such as at WikiProject Italy, and will need to be established by consensus, which can be established by RFC.
 * D. This article can have a set of rules as to what parties are listed.  If so, the list should be established by consensus.  Any statement that there is an existing consensus will need to be established, and can be modified anyway, or an RFC can be used to establish the consensus.

For now, I will ask each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to whether they favor A, B, C, or D, and explain briefly why. Each editor may also ask any questions about the rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

First statement by Firefangledfeathers, Italian political parties
I am grateful to Robert McClenon for moderating. I favor Option D. As editors at the talk page have noted, Italy has a plethora of parties and party-like political organizations. I think our readers will be best serve if we take advantage of the option provided by WP:NLIST in which "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" as long as the grouping the list is about is itself notable. Including only parties with articles, or with a demonstrable chance of meeting a notability guideline, would exclude content readers will value. For the record, I initially joined this dispute as a WP:Third opinion volunteer. Firefangledfeathers 05:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

First statement by Scia Della Cometa, Italian political parties
I would exclude option A, any user could include objectively irrelevant parties in the list, without their own article. In the past there has been a significant production of articles about irrelevant or unknown parties (or similar subjects), so I would also exclude option B. I don't have a particular preference between options C and D, perhaps option D is preferable. Obviously the rules will have to be rewritten point by point, and will have to be established through consensual procedure. The rules should be simple, not full of quibbles. By simple rules I mean immediately demonstrable. The rules could be displayed on Talk:List of political parties in Italy, or on the page itself, as long as they do not have too much impact on the appearance of the page. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

First statement by Autospark, Italian political parties
My preference is for Option D. The subject at hand, the scale of diversity and number of political parties in Italy, requires that approach. I think the rules should be compiled by consensus, with the end aim of being as concise and understandable as possible, while also detailed enough to be useful.--Autospark (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

First statement by Yakme
Italian parties are a lot, this is true. However there is no reason why we should exclude WP:NOTABLE parties from this list. In fact, the issue that Italian parties are a lot is an important characteristic of Italian politics (almost "a feature, not a bug"), and of the way it works. I do not think it is a good idea to "hide" this from the interested reader by presenting only a selection of parties in the article called "List of political parties in Italy": a reader would expect this list to be as complete as possible. Furthermore, any criterion to exclude parties is going to be arbitrary, and possibly the source of more disputes in the future whenever some major or minor political rules change (like electoral laws, that in the last decades have changed very often). So I would go for option B, noting that this does not mean to include only the parties that have WP articles, but actually all the ones that would be notable enough to qualify for one. --Yakme (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

First statement by Checco
Option D! Italy's party system, regional party systems and politics in general are very complex. List of political parties in Italy is one of the most clearly organised and complete articles of that kind, but also one of the longest in terms of number of parties. With no rules, it would be infinite and never settled. If having no rules is not an option for me, including all the parties with articles would not be fine: there might be relevant parties lacking an article, worth being included and ultimately having an article of their own. Rules should be simple, but also comprehensive (tracking Italian politics is not easy) and should be written and presented in a way preventing frequent interpretation disputes. --Checco (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

First statement by North8000
I'm not involved in a dispute but agreed to participate. First to note, the inclusion/exclusion criteria (rightly so) being addressed separately from the classification question. I would recommend an unlisted option "E" which is a criteria that it has a Wikipedia article. I think that "B" and "C" sort of strive for meeting this in spirit, but IMHO they both have significant technical and implementation issues. I'll not detail those unless asked, but a general note that trying to say that they meet the criteria for having an article sets this up for eternal debates on whether or not one meets the criteria, whereas saying that it has to have an article decisively settles it. The next question is whether or not "has an article" is too high or low of a bar. Looking at the article, even with the criteria, you certainly have a huge list. And it would only exclude a few percent of those currently listed. o IMO that shows that it isn't too. Also, if a party has an article, they certainly merit one line on this list so IMO that shows that it isn't too low. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator on Italian political parties
It appears that most of the editors favor Option D, but there is some support for Option B. Option D is to have a set of rules on the listing of political parties.

So the way forward probably is to develop the proposed set of rules that has agreement by people who think that there should be a set of rules. Then the proposed set of rules can be submitted to the community via RFC. If there is disagreement, among proponents of a ruleset, as to what the rules should be, we can decide to develop two alternate rulesets, but not more than two, and not now.

So the next step is for those editors who favor a ruleset to state what categories of political parties or sections it should be organized into. If we have agreement on the categories of parties or sections, then we can start populating each category with rules. Otherwise we may identify issues about what the categories or sections are.

The responses by editors may each be several paragraphs if they are clearly structured. At this point, clarity is even more important than conciseness. So each editor should provide a clear breakdown of what they think the categories of political parties should be. Editors who don't want a ruleset can just state briefly that they don't think that we need a ruleset. We are developing a proposed ruleset at this point, not a final ruleset (and we might not have a ruleset). If you favor Option D, a set of rules, define how the rules should be organized. If you favor Option B, restate that view. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by Checco
I favour the current organisation of the list, featuring sections for political parties (active and defunct), coalitions and parliamentary groups, as they are currently defined. One could argue that coalitions and parliamentary groups should have separate lists, but a joint one has clear advandages. A better presentation of the current rules is available at Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 4. Political parties are so many that both active and defunct ones should be classified in sub-sections: main/major parties (so that readers, who might not be interested in an in-depth study of Italy's party system, can easily identify them), minor parties, regional parties and parties of Italians abroad. By "regional" I mean political parties active only in one region or autonomous province, not multi-regional parties and/or parties supporting regionalism. There should be general conditions of admission and rules of classification. The fact that I like the current structure of the list and that I like a specific presentation does not mean that I am endorsing the current rules. --Checco (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by Scia Della Cometa
I begin to expose my point of view, the page should be divided first into Active parties and Defunct parties. Coalitions and parliamentary groups, which are not political parties, should not be included in the list (which is indeed called "List of political parties"), their presence on the page is redundant and not necessary. Both sections should be divided into: National parties, Regional parties (or "Parties active in a single region") and Overseas parties (or "Parties of Italians abroad"). I think the current distinction between Major and Minor parties is the result of original research, based on arbitrary criteria. I think instead that there is a need to make another type of distinction (only for active national parties): a distinction between the parties currently represented by a parliamentary group (at the moment there are seven parties with a parliamentary group) and the other parties that meet at least one inclusion criteria (Extra-parliamentary and minor parliamentary parties).

A brief consideration regarding the rules: I don't really like the idea of having inclusion criteria, but I realize that an excessive number of pages concerning Italian parties have been created on en.wikipedia, some with very little relevance. In my view, the new rules should meet the following characteristics:
 * being very simple and immediately verifiable (no quibbles);
 * being as inclusive as possible
 * being the same for all types of parties (national parties, regional parties, overseas parties), no exceptions should be made for any type of party.

Furthermore, only parties with their own article, or with a high expectation of creating it, should be included in the list. The parties of which we have no information, and which therefore cannot have their own page, must be excluded from the list, because they do not meet the principle of WP:Notability.

When we decide on the new rules, we will have to consider the following factors: electoral threshold, the election of a representative in an assembly with its own symbol (which assemblies), the minimum number of representatives in an assembly for those parties born from splits (or that have elected their representatives within other lists or parties). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

First Statement by Nightenbelle
I'm sorry I was not able to participate before now..... personal life. However- I would also favor option B or the unstated E- that they have to have a WP article to be on the list. I fail to see how adding anything to the list which is not notable enough to have a WP page meets WP guidelines, AND why re-invent the wheel when there is already a carefully developed policy that decides what is and is not notable. Any other list of what makes a party notable is going to be, by definition, original research- because Italy does not have such standards, nor do most developed countries. In addition, creating that list creates needless drama- Example A- this entire dispute! Nightenbelle (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by Yakme
I re-state my view supporting option B, or really any solution that avoids arbitrary selection criteria. Notability is enough and all it is needed to create a complete list of Italian parties. In the "parties" I also include political coalitions and parliamentary groups – really, any political organization which is notable and has (or had) a continuous activity in Italy. Inclusion criteria involving thresholds on the electoral results, or on the number of MPs, are going to be questionable by definition, and rightly so. Also because – like it is with the current criteria – the actual thresholds are probably going to be "doctored" by the Italian politics experts here to be inclusive of those parties they personally think should be in the list, and exclude the rest. See the amount of discussion on Talk:List of political parties in Italy about fine-tuning a threshold to be 1% or 0.5% (why not 0.6785%, I would say?), or rather 2 MPs or 3 regional councillors. Regarding the classification criteria: I guess in that case, once all notable parties are on the list, then approving criteria to simply order or separate them in a certain way is going to be a secondary discussion.

An additional note about the feasibility of option B: as far as my experience goes, the issue that an Italian party might be notable and not have a page on WP is virtually non-existent. Italian politics editors usually immediately produce articles for any smallest political group or regional party as soon as it comes to life. However for completeness and logical reasons, I would still use option B rather than E as the final choice: the difference is only going to be a handful of red links which – again, from my experience – would very likely become blue in a short amount of time. --Yakme (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by Firefangledfeathers (IPP)
I have been persuaded by some of the above statements into dropping my previously stated reasoning. I had been worried that notability as a list criterion would exclude useful content. I now worry that notability as the sole criterion would be overbroad. SDC alluded to this, and a glance at Category:Political parties in Italy and its subcats supports the existence of an issue here. I am torn between B and [D but with notability as one of the criteria]. B would create a long list and burden article editors with adding richness of content to elevate the list over a simple category. D would create a shorter list, but would likely perpetuate dispute over the additional criteria. Firefangledfeathers 17:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Third Statement on Italian Political Parties by Moderator
I was not clear in stating what option B was, and I intended it to mean that the party had to already have an article, so that the party would be listed in blue. However, I will now revise the list of options to be consistent with how they have been discussed:
 * A. No rules.  Any editor can list any political party.
 * B. A party may be listed if it is thought to be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.  The party should be listed in blue link or red link.
 * C. A party may be listed if it has a Wikipedia article.  A set of rules can be adopted for when articles on Italian political parties are in order.  These rules may be maintained somewhere else, such as at WikiProject Italy, and will need to be established by consensus, which can be established by RFC.
 * D. This article can have a set of rules as to what parties are listed.  If so, the list should be established by consensus.  Any statement that there is an existing consensus will need to be established, and can be modified anyway, or an RFC can be used to establish the consensus.
 * E. A party may be listed only if it already has a Wikipedia article, so that it can be listed in blue.  A party has an article if it satisfies general notability.

The next question, regardless of what option applies to listing the parties, is how to order the list of parties. Are we in agreement that the list will be arranged as: ? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Active parties
 * 1a. Active national parties
 * 1b. Active regional parties
 * 1c. Active overseas parties
 * 2. Former parties
 * 2a. Former national parties
 * 2b. Former regional parties
 * 2c. Former overseas parties

Each editor may restate their viewpoint on which option to use, and is then asked to comment on the listing of groups of parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Third statement by Checco
Regarding the options, I confirm my preference for option D. The other four options look very similar to me and I oppose them. I think that, similarly to most lists on political parties in countries, there should be a distinction between major/main and minor parties. Thus, I confirm that I would organise the list in the following way: 1. Active parties → 1a. Active main parties; 1b. Active minor parties; 1c. Active regional parties; 1d. Active overseas parties; 2. Former parties → 2a. Former main parties; 2b. Former minor parties; 2c. Former regional parties; 1d. Former overseas parties. As a side-note, I prefer "former" to "defunct". Finally, I continue to think that, for readers' sake, it is better to include in the list also coalitions and parliamentary groups (meaning groups formed by multiple parties and/or non-party independents). --Checco (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by Autospark
My preference is for "former" or "disestablished" as terms for non-extant political parties, although "defunct" is on balance not controversial. I support the idea of attempting to distinguish major and minor political parties, although I realise this could be problematic in practical terms – there would have to be clear guidelines, agreed upon consensual lines of what exactly constitutes either category. These categories would have to be time-relative (taking into account the variation in seat counts in the Italian parliament and regional assemblies over history) and region sensitive (the regional assemblies in Italy can vary significantly in terms of seat count).--Autospark (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Third statement by Scia Della Cometa
I have reread the various options better and I rectify my previous opinion: in my opinion, the best option is C. This option is certainly the one that would best allow us to have an overall view of the situation for a possible determination of new criteria. Theoretically, my preferred option would be E, but I think currently many blue-linked pages don't meet the WP:Notability criterion. The page might get too crowded.

About the classification, I agree with the Moderator proposal (I don't know if the more correct term is "Former" or "Defunct", I am not a native-English speaker, but this is a minor issue). A further distinction between "Main parliamentary parties", "Minor parliamentary parties" and "Extra-parliamentary parties" can be made only for active parties. The only objective criterion for distinguishing a major parliamentary party from a minor parliamentary party is the current representation in Parliament with its own parliamentary group.

Instead, the distinction between former major parties and former minor parties is much more complicated, parties born from splits and represented both in the Chamber and in the Senate with their own parliamentary group have eventually turned out to be micro-parties in the test of the elections (an example, Future and Freedom got less than 0.5% of the votes in the 2013 general election). These parties should not be classified as "Former major parties". Establishing distinction criteria for former parties is very complicated and should not take into account parliamentary splits. In my opinion, the distinction between "Former major parties" and "Former minor parties" is not necessary. Any criterion of distinction, in this case, could turn out to be arbitrary.

Surely the page should not list coalitions and especially parliamentary groups: their presence is a contradiction with the title of the page itself (List of political parties), their presence is decidedly misleading. On a page entitled "List of Political Parties", I expect to find political parties, not different subjects. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Third statement by Yakme
I confirm option B, and I refer to what I wrote in my first and second statements. Option C could also be a good idea in my opinion: as far as I understand, this would mean that we will have a general written set of guidelines, approved by consensus, by which we can determine whether a new party (or movement, or group/association) meets the Wikipedia notability criteria; I think this could be very helpful to avoid future issues. Regarding the classification in the list, I agree with the one proposed by the moderator, and I would add two things: (1) a sub-categorization – or a sub-ordering – within the national parties, in order to be able to distinguish the main parties who usually are in Parliament from the rest of the smaller, but still active and notable, parties; (2) separate categories for party coalitions, e.g. The Union and the House of Freedoms (which are objectively a main piece of Italy's political history), and for parliamentary groups, e.g. the infamous Mixed Group or other relevant multi-party groups like For the Autonomies. --Yakme (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Third Statement by Nightenbelle
I confirm option B as well- why reinvent the wheel? I also would be okay with E- but I prefer B. As for how they are listed- The way Robert suggested makes sense imo- I wouldn't mind them being separated by major and minor, except that I think that will lead to yet more pointless, unending arguments. I oppose any option that requires this page to have a set of rules different than other lists of political parties for other countries. That's just silly and unnecessary. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by North8000
I suggest option E.  Besides being a good and workable idea, this would make this simple and settled (vs. being an opening for more eternal debates), and not require major shifts in who is/isn't listed. "A" if taken literally has and issue which would need to get clarified if selected. Besides saying "no rules" has a second statement which can be taken as any one editor can force inclusion.

Regarding the sequencing, I see nothing wrong with that but will leave it to others more knowledgeable than me on this specific situation to decide. North8000 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Third Statement by Firefangledfeathers (IPP)
I support B and D. More specifically, I support B if there's agreement that this wouldn't create an excessively long list, and I support D provided that notability or likely notability is one of the criteria. I support the moderator's proposed organization in general. I support the addition of subsections for major/minor parties, at least in the active parties section. I would like to hear counterarguments to SDC's point about the split being untenable when it comes to former parties. I support the inclusion of coalitions/parliamentary groups and think it's justified by WP:NCLL, which states, "The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject." I do think it's wise to distinguish the collective groups from solitary parties, and I am agnostic for now on whether that should be done with subsections, columns, footnotes, etc. Firefangledfeathers 05:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Fourth Statement on Italian Political Parties by Moderator
I will focus for now on the organization of the list. The inclusion options still need to be addressed, but we can work on the organization of the list first, because we seem to be almost in agreement on that. We will refer to former parties rather than defunct parties for reasons of connotation in English. (I have probably spoken more English than anyone else in this discussion.)

It appears that some editors think that we should distinguish between major and minor parties, as follows:
 * 1. Active parties
 * 1a1. Active major national parties
 * 1a2. Active minor national parties
 * 1b. Active regional parties
 * 1c. Active overseas parties
 * 2. Former parties
 * 2a1. Former major national parties
 * 2a2. Former minor national parties
 * 2b. Former regional parties
 * 2c. Former overseas parties

Do parties ever change between major and minor status due to losing or gaining voters? If so, should active national parties be listed based on their present status? Should former national parties be listed as on their maximum status?

Do parties ever change between being national and being regional?

We know that parties can change from being active parties to being former parties, but that is not the question.

I would like each editor to state briefly why parties should be listed separately as major and minor, or why they should not.

There has been mention of groupings of parties, and coalitions. As an American, I think that I would want to see groupings of parties and coalitions listed, and that I would want to see them listed separately. I think that a Briton also would want that. If there is a reason why we should completely omit groups and coalitions, or alternatively why we should jumble them with the parties, I would like to see it stated briefly.

As I said above, I was initially not clear as to what option B was, and there is now confusion as to what options B and E are. Option A is no rules. Option E is that a party may be listed if it has its own article. Is there any other middle-ground option, or did Option B go away?

Option C is to have the set of rules defined somewhere else, such as by a WikiProject. Option D is to have this article define the set of rules.

I think that the remaining issues about the organization of the list are whether to distinguish major and minor, and how to list coalitions and groupings.

I think that the remaining issues about the inclusion criteria are whether to:
 * Have someone else have a set of rules (C).
 * Define our own set of rules (D).
 * List all parties that have Wikipedia articles (E).

Please follow up briefly, as explained above. If this isn't clear, then I will start over on the next round. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Fourth statement by Yakme
I did not quite get why option B has been dismissed now, given that three editors out of seven supported it in the third round. Option C – on the other hand – was supported by one editor, and by myself as a second option (even though I misunderstood the meaning of option C, so I was going to backtrack on that now). Before I write my full reply to your fourth statement, I would like to ask you to revise the "remaining issues about the inclusion criteria" by including also B which is one of the most popular options. --Yakme (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Fourth statement by Scia Della Cometa
I apologize in advance that my statement will not be very short but rather detailed. I premise that I am not opposed to options B and E. If it were not possible to find a broad agreement on rules that allow the inclusion of the highest number of parties, I still firmly think that the page should not have any specific rules (but that only meet the general rules of Wikipedia). However, these options could potentially lead to future disputes (for example, in my view, not all articles on Italian parties meet general notability guidelines).

About the organization of the list: I am not in principle against the distinction between major and minor parties, but how do we determine objective criteria to make a neutral distinction? When is a party "major"? When, on the other hand, is a party "minor"? There is no doubt about some parties: in the past, DC, PCI, PSI, DS, AN, PDL, etc. were definitely major parties. But exactly what characteristics must a party meet in order to be considered "major"? It is not easy to determine objective criteria. Above all, it is not easy to determine equal criteria for active parties and former parties. Let me explain: in Italy, since the 1990s / 2000s, the phenomenon of parliamentary splits has become very frequent. In the Italian parliament, parties are frequently formed from splits with a considerable number of MPs. Anyway, when these parties participate in elections, their electoral results are almost always unsatisfactory. These parties are not historically remembered as large parties, because they had temporary relevance (SD, FLI, AP etc.). Even the parties currently represented in Parliament that were born from splits, IV and CI, have already achieved disappointing electoral results and are quoted in the election polls with very low results.

In my opinion, it is decidedly complicated to establish objective criteria for distinguishing between major parties and minor parties that are the same for both active and former parties. For active parties the most important feature is the current relevance (ie: parliamentary relevance), the former parties instead should be considered from a historical perspective. IMHO, it would be easier to make a distinction between current parliamentary parties and current extra-parliamentary parties, as in other lists of parties (this distinction would instead be complicated to apply for the parties of the past, as there have often been individual adhesions difficult to ascertain).

Answering shortly the questions: "Do parties ever change between major and minor status due to losing or gaining voters? If so, should active national parties be listed based on their present status? Should former national parties be listed as on their maximum status?" It depends on the threshold of voters considered. Surely the active parties can be categorized according to their current status and the former parties according to their maximum status, but it depends on what we mean by status: number of MPs or number of voters? As I said above, the number of MPs can be a valid criterion of distinction for the current parties, while the number of voters would be a valid criterion of distinction for the former parties (even if it would risk being arbitrary). "Do parties ever change between being national and being regional?" It's possible. For example, the MPA, initially active throughout southern Italy, subsequently remained active only in Sicily. But this is not a problem, it is enough to consider the current or historical status.

About parliamentary groups or political coalitions (or electoral lists): they are certainly interesting articles, however I think that the List of political parties in Italy is not the right place to list them; for example the List of political parties in France or the List of political parties in UK don't list parliamentary groups. A solution could be to list them on separate pages, a page like Parliamentary group (Spain) could be created, indicating it in the "See also" section at the bottom of the page. The same solution could be adopted for political alliances in Italy.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Fourth statement by Checco
I agree with the organisation of the list that the Moderator presented at the beginning of his fourth statement. Terminologically speaking, I have always preferred "former" over "defunct", I would avoid "national" (there have been parties neither regional-only nor national—see Lega Nord, Movement for the Autonomies, etc.) and, finally, I prefer "main" over "major". And now to the issues! 1) Political parties should change between "main" and "minor" status due to losing votes and/or MPs. That is why the current rules are so balanced and, unfortunately, complicate. Parties should be listed on their present status, former parties on their maximum status. 2) Very rarely, "national" or "multi-regional" parties are reduced to being "regional" or the other way around, but, for historical purposes, I would consider them "minor". 3) Parties should be listed separately as "main" and "minor" so that regular readers, who might not be interested in an in-depth study of Italy's party system, can easily identify them. Basically, each and every "List of political parties in Xxxxx" does that. In our case, being represented in Parliament is not enough because dozens of parties are, so that not even all parliamentary parties are included in the list (the bar was raised recently and I was not the proponent). A certain share of vote and a certain number of MPs should be the thresholds. The distinction between "main" and "minor" parties matters also for former parties as there are so many. 4) There could be separate lists for parliamentary groups (meaning parliamentary groups not directly connected to a political party and/or formed by MPs belonging to different parties and/or non-party independents) and coalitions, but having those items in the same list would quite benefit readers. Also, in this case, we should have limits as coalitions and electoral lists are also quite common and numerous. As I said, the only option I can agree with is D, due to the near-infinite number of parties in Italy. Having no rules is really not an option, in my view. I am an inclusionist and I will never propose an article on a party for deletion, but this does not mean that we should have a near-infinite list (option E). Also, there might be relevant parties lacking an article and they should be listed, possibly in red so that some editors might think about editing them. Having notability rules both for having an article and being included in the list (option C) would be quite problematic. We really risk moving controversy and debates to dozens of talk pages and requests for deletion: an opening to more endless debates, indeed. --Checco (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Fourth Statement by Nightenbelle
I also don't understand why option B was removed when 3 of us were in favor of it. But I am also fine with E. I'm not sure why Checco thinks either of those options will create an endless list- both have rules- they require a party to meet general notability requirements for WP. And if they meet those requirements- and are, by definition- a political party in Italy, why then would we then exclude them from this list? That makes absolutely no sense. I like going a step further and saying that they have to actually have a WP page- saying that some editor has put the work in to make a page, and it has been accepted as notable so yes - that party deserves to be on this page.

As for listing them as major or minor- I think that is opening the page up to yet more arguments as we set regulations for what each of those mean (see the multi-paragraph responses in this section alone as evidence)- So I would rather just see current, and former as the only two definitions used. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Fifth Statement on Italian Political Parties by Moderator
I either have confused everybody, or am confused. We will primarily go back to the inclusion criteria for now. We will work on the organization of the list again when we have the inclusion options defined.

I dropped Options A and B for the inclusion criteria, and have caused confusion by dropping Option B. I thought that I had worded it poorly, and I meant that each party should have its own Wikipedia article, so that it was the same as Option E.  I had written that the remaining issues about the inclusion criteria are whether to:
 * Have someone else have a set of rules (C).
 * Define our own set of rules (D).
 * List all parties that have Wikipedia articles (E).

So if there was an Option B that differed from Option E, what was it? How do the editors think that Option B differs both from Option E, which requires an existing article, and Option A, which is no rules? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of the organization of the list of parties can continue. If editors think that I should not have dropped an Option B, will they please tell me what they think Option B is, and how it is different from either A (which we agree should be dropped) or E? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Fifth statement by Yakme
[I move here part of my reply above, since I posted just a few seconds after the moderator started the fifth round of statements] Yakme (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

My reply to the fifth statement by the Moderator – regarding inclusion:

Yes definitely there is some confusion. By option B, I mean that parties should be on the list even if they do not have an article yet, but are notable by WP standards. Their notability should be proven by providing appropriate reliable sources (or by using an inter-language link if available). See also the Spanish, British or German counterpart, where parties which do not have articles (yet) are also listed in black (red). Alternatively, I could also support option E – but just because I know that the risk of having a notable Italian party without a WP article is virtually zero (likely the opposite is true: over-proliferation of non-notable Italian "parties" articles). Yakme (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

My replies to the Moderator's questions in their fourth statement – regarding classification:

The risk of having a very large number of parties listed in this article is real. But if this becomes a problem, the solution cannot be to cut off notable articles based on an arbitrary selection. If we notice that we are getting to a very long page, the list can surely be split (for example by creating a List of former political parties in Italy, as a special case of WP:NCSPLITLIST). Yakme (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do parties ever change between major and minor status due to losing or gaining voters? Sure, a party might start as minor and become major, or viceversa. If so, should active national parties be listed based on their present status? Yes, and Should former national parties be listed as on their maximum status? yes. The historical relevance of a former party can definitely be measured on their peak popularity, and I do not see any inconsistency in having similar criteria for major/minor current and former parties.
 * Do parties ever change between being national and being regional? Other editors might know examples of this which I do not, but certainly this change cannot be excluded. In these events, I would – again – use the maximum extension of the party as the reference status for classification of former parties.
 * I would like each editor to state briefly why parties should be listed separately as major and minor, or why they should not. A separation is necessary given the amount of notable political parties in Italy: with a simple alphabetical or chronological list of parties, the reader would get lost and not understand which parties actually hold power and popular support. For example, having a separation based on whether a party has MPs or does not have MPs could be a criterion (I would generally take as reference the very-neatly-organized List of political parties in Spain, where there are also many parties, and a reasonable grouping has been achieved).
 * Regarding coalitions of parties and "parliamentary groups", I also do not see a reason why not to include them here, in a separate section.

Fifth statement by Firefangledfeathers (IPP)
Originally, Option B was A party may be listed if it is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. A party may have an article if it satisfies general notability. I took that to mean blue or red link. Your followup tweak didn't change my understanding of Option B. I believe most people who have supported Option B have a shared understanding of that meaning. Option E appears to be bluelinks only. Firefangledfeathers 22:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Fifth statement by Scia Della Cometa
I interpreted the difference between options A, B and E like this:
 * A: inclusion of blue links and red links, regardless of notability;
 * B: inclusion of blue links and red links, provided that parties meet the principle of WP:Notability (I did not understand only one thing: only the parties with the red link must meet the principle of notability or also those with the blue link?);
 * E: only blue links.

It seems to me that we all agree to exclude option A, which would allow anyone to include any objectively irrelevant party on the list. The practical difference between options B and E is minimal: as has already been stated, it is easier that an irrelevant / unknown Italian party to have its own article than a known party not to have its own article yet.

I think it is absolutely necessary to go beyond the current criteria, and it finally seems to me that most users think like me, not only these criteria are arbitrary, but they create incredible paradoxes: they exclude from the list potentially known parties and allow the inclusion of completely unknown "parties". Until last summer the situation was even worse.

When I refer to inclusion criteria, I refer to criteria that tend to include, not exclude parties, like the current criteria. Indeed, if we can't agree on inclusive (and consensual) criteria, I think the best options are B or F. More precisely option B, if the WP:Notability principle were applied to both blue and red links. But when does a party meet the principle of notability? I think I have interpreted this principle correctly, but some other users might think differently from me. And there would again be disagreements about what meets this principle and what does not meet it.

About "major" and "minor" parties: it is not enough to agree on applying this distinction, but it is necessary to determine when a party is major and when a party is minor. The distinction between parliamentary and extra-parliamentary parties is different from the distinction between major and minor parties. It is necessary to make concrete proposals, and to take into consideration all the possible consequences.

About coalitions and groups: there are many reasons for excluding them from this page. 1. First of all they are not political parties, while this is a list that explicitly concerns parties. 2. No list of political parties also includes lists of coalitions and parliamentary groups. 3. A reader may be confused about the inclusion of entities other than parties on a list that should only include parties. 4. If we include coalitions and parliamentary groups, why not include further political entities other than parties? Electoral lists, youth wings, factions, movements (not parties, but movements in the literal sense of the term). If we list anything related (directly or indirectly) to a party, the list would become really huge and the situation would become anarchic, since in a list of political parties we could include in it a series of entities that are in no way political parties. IMHO, the best solution would be to list them on other pages, to be indicated at the bottom of the list of parties.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Fifth Statement by Nightenbelle
I still prefer B- any party that qualifies for a WP page based on notability can be included. I am totally fine with E though- any group with a blue link can be included- I don't think there are many parties that don't have a page that would qualify- and if someone wants to add them- well they can go make a full WP page and then add them. I still maintain anything more is contrary to our WP:NOTABILITY policy. I 100% do not want more rules. I think separating them into major/minor/defunct is just going to create more drama and is unnecessary. I like the idea of if the list becomes too long creating a separate list for defunct (or whatever word people want to use) parties. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Fifth statement by Checco
I appreciated the fact that some options had been dropped because too many options looked similar to me. I was thus a little bit confused to read the following statement. If B is restored as an option, others might go. By the way, I am going to answer below. --Checco (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Sixth Statement on Italian Political Parties by Moderator
I will restore Option B now that I understand it. The possible inclusion criteria are: Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * List only parties that are thought to be notable, so that they must have either a red link or a blue link (B).
 * Have someone else have a set of rules (C).
 * Define our own set of rules (D).
 * List all parties that have Wikipedia articles, so that they will have a blue link. (E).

Option C can go away if there is no other candidate for who will have the set of rules, in which case the choices are between B (red and blue links), D (our own list of rules), and E (blue links only).

We will try to set up an RFC to decide between those criteria, but not quite yet.

In the meantime, we will discuss organization of the list of parties. I think that we should try to keep the organization of the list relatively simple, because it won't be simple anyway. The most detailed list of parties seems to be:


 * 1. Active parties
 * 1a1. Active major national parties
 * 1a2. Active minor national parties
 * 1b. Active regional parties
 * 1c. Active overseas parties
 * 2. Former parties
 * 2a1. Former major national parties
 * 2a2. Former minor national parties
 * 2b. Former regional parties
 * 2c. Former overseas parties

So what groups can be combined? Some editors have said that it is not necessary to distinguish major and minor parties, and some have said that is necessary. What else can we possibly combine? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Editors may reply to any previously asked questions, but do not reply with a wall of text to any question. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Sixth statement by Yakme
I re-state (for the sixth time) my preference for option B for all the reasons that were explained in the previous rounds by myself and others. Regarding the classification of parties, I tend to agree to the one proposed by the moderator. However, if not major/minor (which are terms that sound too "generic" and open to interpretation), then at least a separation between national parties with current Parliamentary representation and national parties without current Parliamentary representation must be done IMHO. A similar separation could be done for former parties: former parties that were in Parliament at least once, and former parties that were never. Yakme (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Sixth statement by Nightenbelle
Yup, I'm still pro-B

As far as separating parties. I still think former and current are enough. However, I would be open to dividing them by who had candidates in parliament and who did not. I don't like the idea of terms "major" and "minor" because those are subjective and unless we have a Reliable source calling them that- WP:OR. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Sixth statement by Checco
Option E is probably the worst because it would overlad the list with mostly unrelevant parties and still exclude some relevant parties lacking an article (there are about 20 red links in the current list and they are all relevant parties—I hope to be able to start those articles soon). Option B and option C look very similar to me and are not acceptable because, through very generic rules, they would also create an endless list. Per option D, I continue to think that we should have conditions of admission and a reasonably long list that can be an effective guide for readers. Being an effective guide also makes necessary the distinction between "main" and "minor" parties, as it happens in most lists of political parties. Quick readers should be able to identify the main parties, while other readers would still be able to have a broader picture. Being in Parliament should not be the bar, as there are usually several dozens of parties in Parliament, they come and go, MPs frequently switch parties (more than 200 did so in the current parliamentary term), some parties are short-lived, sometimes parties are formed by only one MP and have not an electoral base (that is why User:SDC successfully proposed to raise some thresholds during 2021) and so on. On the organisation of the list, I have to repeat myself, as the question was asked again. I broadly agree with what the Moderator presented in his sixth statement, but I need to clarify three points: 1) I am happy that "former" replaced "defunct; 2) I prefer "main" over "major", as the former is more accurate; 3) again for the sake of accuracy, I would refer simply to "main parties" and "minor parties", by avoiding "national" (there have been parties neither regional-only nor national—see Lega Nord, Movement for the Autonomies, etc.). --Checco (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Question for Checco
I am genuinely curious- if both B and E require that a party meet WP:NOTABILITY, other than "there are too many," how can you justify not including all notable parties? I'm genuinely confused by this- not trying to pick a fight- just a question. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My answer is quite simple, sorry about that. There have been hundreds, possibly thousands, of parties in Italy meeting notability (meaning that they had an organisation and/or MPs and/or MEPs and/or regional councillors and/or a notable share of the vote and so on). My argument is that all of them are worth of an article (and I will never propose any party for deletion), but not all of them are worth being included in the list, that would become near-infinite and unreadable. --Checco (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Sixth statement by Scia Della Cometa
It is not easy to distinguish between major and minor parties in Italy. And it is even more difficult to put the current perspective and a historical perspective on the same level. Objectively, the parties currently relevant in the Italian Parliament are seven, not five as currently shown on the page: in addition to Lega, M5S, PD, FI and FdI there are also Italia Viva and Coraggio Italia. That is, those parties that are currently represented by a parliamentary group. But I am not sure that IV and CI, when they are dissolved, will be remembered as major parties. For this reason I struggle to find uniform criteria of distinction for both the current parties and the former parties.

The distinction between parliamentary and extra-parliamentary parties might be reasonable for the current parties, but extremely difficult to implement for the former parties. The political and party situation in Italy is unstable. On this point Checco is right: too many MPs change party, in some cases joining small extra-parliamentary parties (until then). The current situation can be monitored, but making a clear distinction between former parliamentary and extra-parliamentary parties would be complicated.

I understand that making big parties stand out over small ones is useful, therefore I have a proposal: we could distinguish the current parties into "parliamentary" and "extra-parliamentary" parties. Parliamentary parties would be listed from most to least represented, in this way the major parties would automatically stand out on the others.

I would make a single list for the former parties. To make the larger parties stand out (such as DC, PCI, PSI, PPI, PDS, DS, AN etc.) we could insert in the table (not yet existing) their maximum result: for example their best electoral result for the Chamber, Senate and the European Parliament; or the maximum number (if available) of Deputies, Senators and MEPs. In this way the readers would immediately understand which were the most relevant parties, without making arbitrary distinctions on the list.

One last brief comment on a statement by Checco: some parties remained with the red link because there are no sources that describe them. I myself tried to create a page for some of those parties, but I gave up due to lack of sources. If a page is to be a three-line stub based on a single source, it better not exist. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

In this last statement I did not comment on the topic of the rules: at this point I believe that option B is the best choice. No arbitrary rules, let's just include all parties that have an article (except blatantly irrelevant stubs or subjects that are not parties, such as regional council groups) and let's include only red-links of parties that may potentially have a page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post scriptum

Third statement by Autospark
My preference is still for option D, with option "B" a distance second-choice (albeit with the proviso that the red-linked articles would be soon created). If the sub-categories or "major/main" and "minor" former parties have to be combined into a single "former parties" list, User:SDC's solution has its merits for a means to distinguish the more significant parties; however, I raise the issue that seat counts for the Italian and European parliaments have varied over time, so that may lead to "apples and orange" comparisons.

For notability reasons, I think there should be a mechanism in the rules for inclusion of former parties, however small, which participated in national-level government cabinets at some point, even if said parties never participated in later elections independently.--Autospark (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator on Italian political parties
The status quo would appear to be D, a set of rules, which are listed in the article. I will comment that, if we keep a set of rules for when parties are to be listed, then it will serve as the special notability guideline for Italian political parties (even if it has a clause saying that it is not a notability guideline). There is less difference between a special notability guideline and an outcomes essay than may be intended by those who categorize the essays and guidelines.

The status quo breakdown of categories of rules is as I previously listed them:
 * 1. Active parties
 * 1a1. Active major national parties
 * 1a2. Active minor national parties
 * 1b. Active regional parties
 * 1c. Active overseas parties
 * 2. Former parties
 * 2a1. Former major national parties
 * 2a2. Former minor national parties
 * 2b. Former regional parties
 * 2c. Former overseas parties

A tabulation of the number of parties in each category in the current article, List of Italian political parties, is:
 * 1a1 - Active major parties - 5
 * 1a2 - Active minor parties - 37
 * 1b - Active regional parties - 82
 * 1c - Active overseas parties - 2
 * 2a1 - Former major parties - 27
 * 2a2 - Former minor parties - 84
 * 2b - Former regional parties - 106
 * 2c - Former overseas parties - 2


 * 3a - Active coalitions - 2
 * 3b - Former coalitions - 14
 * 4a - Active parliamentary groups - 1
 * 4b - Former parliamentary groups - 18

I will comment that this is a list article, and that lists often include a few hundred items, as this list, which is organized into sublists, does. The number of parties does not seem to be a reason why either inclusion criteria are needed or why inclusion criteria are not needed.

Are we in agreement that the choice of inclusion criteria is between the status quo, which is D, a set of rules, or B, red or blue links, or E, blue links only? If so, a question is whether any parties are being excluded by the current rules. If so, should we include them by going to B or E, or leave them excluded?

We currently have 12 sublists. I would suggest that those who wish to reduce the number of lists, that is, combine lists, should explain why the lists should be combined.

We already have lists of coalitions and parliamentary groups. Editors who want to exclude those lists should explain why they should be excluded. In a list article, additional information is often good.

The next step should be for editors to explain why they want to change the status quo, which has a set of inclusion rules, and 12 sublists. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Seventh statement by Scia Della Cometa
I still think that option B is the best: we should include all blue links (except blatantly irrelevant stubs) and we should exclude parties whose pages will surely never be created. Anyone who wants to include a red link must at least prove that there are enough sources to create a page. For this reason I prefer option B to option E: the red links of potentially relevant parties are very few in the case of the Italian parties, but some pages can still be created. The inclusion of the red link in the list may be an invitation to create the page, but to include this party, it will be necessary to demonstrate that there are already enough sources and therefore the party meets the principle of WP:Notability. If instead we decide to create a set of rules, these should be flexible, inclusive and free of quibbles.

I think 12 sublists are too many. I also think that other parties should be included in the list, and that they should be organized into informative tables. I do not think it is consistent to complain about the length of the list if one wants to include subjects different from parties in it (meanwhile excluding parties that could instead be listed). I have not proposed to delete this information, I have proposed to move them in different pages, such as "Parliamentary group (Italy)" and "List of political alliances in Italy", whose links could be indicated at the bottom of the page. It seems to me the most coherent and efficient way of organizing information; if we want to make a complete list of parties, it would be long enough, it doesn't seem like a good idea at all to want to include different subjects on the same page, when they might just be listed on different pages. If we begin to include subjects other than parties in this list, we risk never ending: movements (such as Sardines and Pitchforks), youth wings, factions, etc. It seems useless to steal space from information that is certainly more inherent.

For those who want a distinction between major and minor parties, I invite other users to make specific proposals. For example, it seems to me that there are currently 7 Major parties in Italy, not 5 (I would also include Italia Viva and Coraggio Italia).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Seventh Statement by Nightenbelle
I want to go with option B because the current set of rules is arbitrary and contrary to WP:Notability. I see no problem having a long list- with a couple hundred parties. That is the nature of Italian politics and should be accurately represented by this list. I don't care if we go with blue links only or red and blue links- as long as there is enough sources to prove the party is notable enough for a page.

I'm not a fan of 12 sublists. I would rather see it split thus:

1. Active parties
 * 1a1. Active major national parties
 * 1a2. Active minor national parties
 * 1b. Active regional & Overseas parties

2. Former parties
 * 2a1. Former major national parties<
 * 2a2. Former minor national parties
 * 2b. Former regional & Overseas parties

Just for simplicity sake. But I'm less passionate about how they are split up than I am about inclusion rules. If others want more or less or a different arrangement- I'm okay with that. As long as all notable parties are included and ones that are not notable are left off. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Seventh statement by Checco
I have little to say on the latest issues raised by the Moderator, as I am basically in favour of the status quo over: 1) Option D — I would change the current rules, however they are already so lax and inclusive that all notable active and former political parties, by any definition, are already included. 2) 12 sublists — I would adopt different names ("main" not "major", no to "national") and I would surely change some of the classification rules, e.g. those between "main" and "major" (if I am not blatantly wrong, they became stricter after a proposal by User:SDC that I endorsed for the sake of collaboration, but I would be more than happy to lower the thresholds). Finally, I could accept separate lists for coalitions of parties and non-party parliamentary groups, but I believe that it is beneficiary for readers and editors alike to have them in a joint list. I am more than willing to change how the rules are presented. There should be general conditions of admission (notability, if you will) and then a reasonable classification of the parties in sublists. That is exactly what I have long been arguing for. The point is: which admission/notability rules? --Checco (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Eighth statement by moderator on Italian political parties
I have created a subpage for this dispute resolution, at Dispute resolution noticeboard/List of political parties in Italy, and has a shortcut of WP:DRNLPPI. I have done this so that our discussion does not overshadow any other DRN threads. There aren't currently any other DRN threads, but there may be, and this discussion appears to be still unfolding rather than wrapping up.

There are three separate related questions that we need to address. The first is whether this list article needs special rules for listing of parties, or whether general notability is a sufficient guideline. The second is how to divide the listing. I would like to try to resolve the first question, which is the choice between options B, D, and E:
 * B. Parties should be listed if they satisfy general notability, and are listed either as blue links or as red links.
 * D. A set of rules should be used.  The list currently includes rules for listing, and these rules will be the status quo, and we can then discuss where to go from there.
 * E. Parties should be listed if they satisfy general notability and already have articles.

Since Wikipedia already relies on the general notability guideline, GNG, going with either B or E simplifies the housekeeping of this article, and avoids the need to argue over percentages, and numbers of seats, et cetera. I will start by saying that option B is the easiest to maintain, and so will suggest that editors who disagree should explain why they disagree. At least one editor has said that option B or E would result in a near-infinite number of parties being listed. Isn't 300 already quite a large number? I have a homework exercise, that is optional. How many political parties have articles but are not currently listed? How much expansion would B or E really result in? Can someone identify how many articles Wikipedia already has on Italian political parties that are not listed in the list? If there are only a few parties that have articles that are not currently listed, then we do not need inclusion criteria other than GNG. So my assignment to any editor who says that we need to keep or modify our inclusion criteria is to identify how much longer the list would be with no criteria other than GNG.

The second is whether to retain the lists of coalitions and parliamentary groups. Since we already have them listed in this article, that is the status quo. So my question for any editor who wants to delete those sublists is to say what harm is done by keeping them.

The third question is how to group the lists of political parties. Each editor may briefly restate their position on whether to combine or modify the sublists.

Fourth statement by Autospark
As for retaining parliamentary groups and coalitions on the list page, we should consider that 1.) some notable historical parties may have been (by modern standards) parliamentary groups, and 2.) some deputies and senators will have been elected via coalition electoral lists rather than as members of organised parties. This should be taken into account before we may a clear choice as to whether to move from the status quo.

If we stick to the status quo and include coalitions and parliamentary groups, by proposal would be:

1. Active parties 1a1. Active major parties 1a2. Active minor parties 1a3. Active parliamentary groups 1b. Active regional parties 1c. Active overseas parties 1d. Active coalitions 2. Former parties 2a1. Former major parties 2a2. Former minor parties 1a3. Former parliamentary groups 2b. Former regional parties 2c. Former overseas parties 2d. Former coalitions

Without:

1. Active parties 1a1. Active major parties 1a2. Active minor parties 1b. Active regional parties 1c. Active overseas parties 2. Former parties 2a1. Former major parties 2a2. Former minor parties 2b. Former regional parties 2c. Former overseas parties

--Autospark (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion is (still) continuing at WP:DRNLPPI. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)