Knowledge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Canadian dollar (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Peter K Burian (talk · contribs)
• NorthernFactoid (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The Canadian Dollar article was frozen in time, at a point before mid 2014, when the value of this currency was still high. Since that time, it has dropped in value significantly vs. the US dollar. In mid 2013 it was at par, but now it is at 70 cents U.S. However, the Knowledge article failed to even mention devaluation since mid 2014. Instead, it contained only discussions of the strength of this currency.

As I had said on the Talk page, I find it incredible that such a major change - occurring over 18 months to date - and so significant to the topic, has been ignored by an encyclopedia article. (Because of NortherFactoid's content)

I had added the relevant information: a sentence in the lede, fully citated (major news organization) and a new section with 2015-2016 content, again fully cited (major news media). NorthernFactoid has Reverted all of the content that I have added on several occasions. since early January 2016, as the History will confirm (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Canadian_dollar&action=history). Most recently today, he has deleted fully cited content that I had added, on two occasions as of 4:20pm, Eastern Standard Time.

I have discussed this with NorthernFactoid in detail on the Talk page under three headings:

"This article desperately needs a MAJOR update" "The value of the loonie has been crashing ... how can the lede ignore that???" "Edit War has been started by another user"

He has responded to my comments, so he has been reading them, but has continued to Revert (delete fully cited content that I have added.) To be honest, I have eventually begun to UNDO his reverts starting today. (Yesterday, I had simply added new content, with citations, worded in a manner that might be more acceptable to him; but since he has chosen the Revert that content, I have decided to Undo such changes.)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have advised NorthernFactoid that the content I am adding is essential to the topic. The change in the value is not a sudden, one time, factor but has been ongoing for 18 months, though ignored by the content in ]. I have advised him on several occasions in the Talk sections that I will file for Dispute Resolution.

I have served the relevant notice on his Talk page today: == Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Knowledge:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!.

How do you think we can help?

Remove NorthernFactoid's right to Revert (delete) content added by other editors. Insist that the content of Canadian Dollar rightly includes a discussion of an essential aspect of the topic: the devaluation of this currency over the past 18 months, and still continuing.

P.S. by Peter K Burian; instead of continuing the discussion on the Talk page at Canadian Dollar, NorthernFactoid seems to be continuing it on my talk page. User talk:Peter K Burian Topic: 32 Your disruptive trolling behavior Peter K Burian (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate recent discussion on the talk page. However, what the filing editor is asking for is not within the scope of this noticeboard: "Remove NorthernFactoid's right to Revert (delete) content added by other editors." Only sanctions at WP:ANI can do that. This noticeboard is for moderated discussion. If the filing editor is willing to engage in discussion with the other editor, and the other editor is willing to discuss, a case can be accepted. Participation here is voluntary, but encouraged, and is a way to alleviate or avoid conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Volunteer Robert McClenon. I am willing to discuss it with the other editor if he commits to not deleting the content that I had added while the discussion is underway. As of this moment, as of 21:22, 13 January 2016‎, the content that I had added (at the end of the lede and the new Declining Value section under Value) is all there since I had undone his Reverts. Part of the problem is that not a single other editor who has worked on Canadian Dollar has been willing to become involved in the discussion about the need to add content about the devaluation that has been occurring over 18 months and still continuing. (In other Knowledge articles, support for one side or the other in a dispute as to content seems to get solved by the group favoring one position over the other. But that has not happened at Canadian Dollar.)

So, we have a situation where NorthernFactoid is convinced that there should be no mention of the devaluation at all vs. my conviction that it is an essential part of this topic in an encyclopedic coverage of the Canadian Dollar. Hence, I am not sure how the two of us could resolve that dispute with no other voices supporting either side of the dispute.

I believe that I have seen Sanctions against editors who continually Reverted content added by another editor in other Knowledge sections. I would be satisfied with whatever Dispute Resolution can do to have NorthernFactoid stop deleting content that discusses the devaluation of the dollar. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You need to achieve consensus before making bold edits, and you've not done that! I'm not opposed to mentioning the dollar's decline somewhere in the article (even though the current exchange rates subsection already relays that), but you've done it in a way that violates numerous sourcing, editing, and stylistic guidelines. You've also offered your opinion as verifiable fact and treated theoretical currency forecasts of others—more opinion—as fact. This is what I take issue with. NorthernFactoid (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe we need to have Adminstrators inbolved to solve this Canadian Dollar dispute as to content. NortherFactoid filee a complaint about me (after he found out that I had requested Dispute Resolution) re: edit warring, after he had Reverted (deleted) every bit of content I had ever added and I began to Revert his deletions of my content starting today. No problem. Let the chips fly as they will.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion ... Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Knowledge's policy on edit warring. Thank you. NorthernFactoid (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Peter K Burian (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Update by Peter K Burian ... once again NorthernFactoid deleted ALL of the content I had added. Needless to say, I did an UNDO to get my content back into the article. He refuses to acknowledge in the article that the value of the Canadian Dollar has plummeted in the past 18 months. Why? Good question.

• 01:19, 14 January 2016‎ Peter K Burian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41,286 bytes) (+2,706)‎ . . (refusing to accept deletion of content I had added Undid revision 699715900 by NorthernFactoid

• 01:19, 14 January 2016‎ Peter K Burian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,580 bytes) (+588)‎ . . (Refusing to accept deletion of content I had added Undid revision 699715303 by NorthernFactoid

• 00:43, 14 January 2016‎ NorthernFactoid (talk | contribs)‎ . . (37,992 bytes) (-2,706)‎ . . (→‎Value: See talk page BEFORE making bold edits to article. Consensus required WP:BRD)

• 00:38, 14 January 2016‎ NorthernFactoid (talk | contribs)‎ . . (40,698 bytes) (-588)‎ . . (See talk page BEFORE making bold edits to article. Consensus required WP:BRD)

Peter K Burian (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

•  To DRN volunteers: This case is now being discussed at WP:AN3. /wiae ★ /tlk 01:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Closing per case being discussed at another DR venue. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Gog and Magog (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Koka and Vikoka (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• PiCo (talk · contribs)
• Xinheart (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This dispute covers to two articles, Gog and Magog and Koka and Vikoka. The issue is essentially one: User:Xinheart wishes to include material to the effect that there are "similarities" between the names Gog and Magog and Koka and Vikoka, and that scholars have made "comparisons" between two legendary walls, one in Christian/Muslim legend, the other in Hindu cosmology.

My position is that these two ideas are NOT held by current scholarship in the relevant areas of biblical studies, Islamic studies, Sanskrit studies, or mythological/folkloric studies. They are, in short, non-notable.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive Talk-page discussion; previous RfC (on Gog and Magog talk page).

How do you think we can help?

Is this idea - that there is a connection between the names Gog/Magog and Koka/Vikoka, and also between the "wall of Dhul Qarnayn" and the Hindu world-wall - one that should be in the article?

Hi,

This is the second dispute resolution raised by PiCo (talk · contribs) on the same subject. The last one goes back to July 2015 and involved other respectable and learned wp contributors @Snow_Rise (talk · contribs), @Ian.thomson (talk · contribs), @TwoHorned (talk · contribs) and may be an anonymous IP. It can be consulted here, in the TP (the title of the section was set up by PiCo (talk · contribs) in a ironical manner on purpose, that was noted by the others participants). The conclusion written in August 2015 was that no formal consensus reached, but "involved editors seem to have reached consensus on alternative wording". Basically, it was admitted that the introduction I proposed, written differently, is acceptable and involves notable authors in the field of metaphysics and symbolic studies. Despite this, PiCo (talk · contribs) never admitted the arguments of other contributors, and reverted one more time, and here again in December 2015. The basic argument has been said by Ian.thomson (talk · contribs) here where it is found that the introduction of René Guénon's text is justified and that author notable. Other related sources are mentioned in that section of the TP. I have nothing to add to what has been said before. PiCo (talk · contribs) should accept once the arguments given by the other non-partisan contributors and the conclusion reached previously. Xinheart (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the two article talk pages, and the other editor has been notified. While most discussions at this noticeboard are of a single article, I don't see anything in the rules for this page that prevents a discussion of the extent to which two articles are related. I am neither accepting nor declining this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC); moved per note on User talkpage; cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: While the two original editors have responded, there does seem to have been a bit of a growth of involved and interested editors. These editors may include (from talkpage discussions):

Ian.thomson - joined discussion of RfC and later discussion of Guenon source

Snow Rise - bot-summoned to RfC and provided extensive advice and comment both during and after the RfC

I've pinged them in case they would like to join but I have not placed a notification on their respective talk pages. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC); I would also like to state that I am neither accepting nor declining the case, 04:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi folks. Very pressed for time at present, and much of what I have found for the project is divided still further by some involved projects and discussions, so I will try to comment here once at length to provide my opinion of the dispute and the parties, but I will probably not comment further unless anyone has any really pressing questions. Apologies at the outset for the probable length here.

I'll begin this noting that I don't think the content question is too complex, and those who want to understand it are best served by reviewing the thread. I came to the thread via RfC notice just after the article had been protected by KrakatoaKatie, following a brief edit war between PiCo and Xinheart. Aside from the two of them, about half dozen other editors took part in the RfC discussion (which PiCo opened), most of them summoned by bot like myself, having had no prior exposure to the dispute, but also a pair of IPs (one of which may have been Xinheart, who registered during the discussion). None of those of us who arrived felt that either disputant was particularly in the right concerning how they regarded the sources and the disputed piece of content. Nevertheless, over the course of a couple of days, we were able to hammer out a reasonable compromise solution, the gist of which was that the sources in question were WP:RS, but that the statements they were being used to support needed to be better written, attributed, and contextualized.

Snow 09:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I am opening this case for moderated discussion. I will remind the editors to be civil and concise, and comment on content, not contributors. Civility is mandatory in Knowledge and especially in dispute resolution. Overly lengthy statements do not clarify the issues. Comments on contributors rather than on content may be hatted. I expect every participant to check this page at least every 48 hours, and to answer all questions within 48 hours after they are asked. I will visit this page at least every 24 hours. Do not edit the article pages while this moderated discussion is in progress. All discussion should be held here rather than on other talk pages, just so that it is centralized. Will each editor please state concisely what the issues are? In particular, it appears that there was an RFC a few months ago about whether to state that these two myths are versions of the same myth, and the conclusion was that this should not be stated. Is there a reason why the RFC either does not apply or should be ignored? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

statement by PiCo (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The dispute is over the following paragraph, which appears in both articles:

Few early 20th century scholars noted similarities between Gog and Magog and the Hindu figures Koka and Vikoka and French metaphysician René Guénon went further, comparing the concept of the "great wall" (which in the Abrahamic tradition protects humanity against Gog and Magog) with the Hindu notion of a "circular wall" (Lokâloka) which separates the "world" (loka) from "outer darkness" (aloka).

(I think this is meant to read "A few early ...." rather than "Few early...")

The statement is not factually untrue, but it gives the misleading impression that these two ideas have currency in contemporary scholarship. That they don't is apparent from the sources being used - source 9 is a book review in French from 1929, source 10 is a translation of a French book published in 1945. Not that there's anything wrong with being French, but if these ideas had currency they'd be available in English, and from contemporary sources.

There's also a problem with the subject area. Gog and Magog are biblical figures and the appropriate area of scholarship is biblical studies. I've carried out extensive searches of the literature and there's absolutely no mention at all of the idea that they are somehow related to the Hindu myth. Gog and Magog are also figures in the Quran and in medieval European and Middle Eastern folklore, but again there's no mention of this idea in the scholarly literature.

If we run the search the other way, looking through sources on Hindu myth, we do find mentions - but from New Age-style sources, not from scholarly ones. My impression, in fact, is that this idea of a link between the Hindu myth and the Gog/Magog group of stories is pretty much confined to circles that believe in Atlantis and suchlike ideas.

I withdrew from the RfC to avoid a personality conflict with one user, whom I find arrogant and overbearing. I would have been prepared to accept the outcome despite this, but I do believe that the overarching aim of Knowledge is to produce articles with reliable information, and this paragraph is not based on contemporary reliable sources.

statement by Xinheart (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• PiCo writes: "... but if these ideas had currency they'd be available in English, and from contemporary sources". Here is a scholarly one that goes back to 2014: Neba, D. C. Academic Research International5.6 (Nov 2014): 260-272.:"Gog and Magog become the four corners of the world that harbour evil doers. These " Galagoes, prostitutes and business men of Gog" ("The mouth of the liars will be shut, 9 ") can be compared to the demon brothers, "Koka and Vikoka", in Hindu mythology".
• PiCo writes: "Gog and Magog are biblical figures and the appropriate area of scholarship is biblical studies". Last ref is from academic studies, but anyway the sentence is not true. The subject "Gog and Magog" does not belong only to Biblical studies, but is also used in studies on symbolism and metaphysics. This is where René Guénon's entry is legitimate. Other entries are, on top of those already cited in the TP:
• PiCo writes: "this idea of a link between the Hindu myth and the Gog/Magog group of stories is pretty much confined to circles that believe in Atlantis and suchlike ideas". This is not true, but even if it were, it should mentioned in Wp as such.
• Robert McClenon writes: "In particular, it appears that there was an RFC a few months ago about whether to state that these two myths are versions of the same myth, and the conclusion was that this should not be stated". Last RfC here found that the introduction of René Guénon's text is justified and that author notable. The question is not to write if these are two versions of the same myth (that kind of question is complex and I don't intent to go in that direction), but to note the existence of similarities betweens what these two symbols represent.
• It's important to notice also that, according to studies in symbolism and metaphysics, Gog and Magog, when related to Koka and Vikoka, do not represent real people living actually on Earth. This is a necessary counterpart of an interpretation that identifies these demons with people like Turks or other groups, that latter interpretation being favored by people who focus only on certain "newborn evangelist" biblical interpretation.
• My only point here to to be able to introduce in the "Gog and Magog" article a sentence taken from a book of metaphysicoan rené Guénon that indicates a link between the two symbols. Guénon's reference is this one, and that book is very notable. During the discussion in the TPs, I changed the wording according to other contributors which found the proposed wording acceptable.

Lastly, I would like to add that the discussion in the TP must be referred to, as many arguments in favor of this citation have been provided by contributors.

First, are we in agreement that no late-twentieth-century or twenty-first-century mainstream scholar sees a connection between the two myths? If not, is the real question whether the older identifications of connections may be mentioned? Were there earlier mentions by mainstream scholars of a connection? I would also like to ask for comments about René Guénon, who was not a mainstream scholar but who was a very influential and notable early-twentieth-century author (and who always saw connections between all things). Is there a reason why he should or should not be mentioned? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that I see two ways forward. The first, that I would prefer, would be for the two editors (and possibly other editors) to agree to some minimal mention that some authors have identified a connection, without giving undue weight. The second would be an RFC, but the exact wording would have to be agreed on and neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by PiCo (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Focusing on your questions:

First, are we in agreement that no late-twentieth-century or twenty-first-century mainstream scholar sees a connection between the two myths?

My own searches in the literature lead me to believe that Gog/Magog and Koka/Vikoka are never mentioned together by modern scholars. Xinheart mentions a D.C. Naba writing in "Academic Research International" in 2014, but D.C Naba is from the University of Burundi and Academic Research International seems to be a new online start-up without much behind it - not very mainstream. The point isn't so much that nobody sees a connection as that nobody even looks for one.

If not, is the real question whether the older identifications of connections may be mentioned? Were there earlier mentions by mainstream scholars of a connection?

I think, without being certain, that this may have been a topic in the late 19th/early 20th century under the rubric of what was called "pan-Babylonianism". This was the idea that all myths came from a single original, which could be traced to ancient Babylonia - hence Gog-Magog/Koka-Vikoka had a common origin. This idea has no acceptance in modern academia. But as I said, I'm not certain that this is the background to Guenon's ideas.

I would also like to ask for comments about René Guénon, who was not a mainstream scholar but who was a very influential and notable early-twentieth-century author (and who always saw connections between all things).

I don't think he was ever influential at all, and he certainly isn't now. "While Guénon’s influence remains minimal in the Western academic community at large..." That quote, from a website called World Wisdom, goes on: "...he is the seminal influence in the development of traditionalism." Traditionalism is the idea that all religions have a common origin - which needless to say is not mainstream. So he's important in Traditionalism, but Traditionalism itself is not important. Or so I read that passage.

I think that I see two ways forward. The first, that I would prefer, would be for the two editors (and possibly other editors) to agree to some minimal mention that some authors have identified a connection, without giving undue weight. The second would be an RFC, but the exact wording would have to be agreed on and neutral.

My own view is that Guenon is a figure in an insignificant movement which today lies well outside the mainstream. The ideas he champions have no following in mainstream academic discussion, and any mention at all would be undue weight. Which is not, of course, to say that he should not have his own article and be mentioned in the article on Traditionalism.PiCo (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Xinheart (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon writes: "are we in agreement that no late-twentieth-century or twenty-first-century mainstream scholar sees a connection between the two myths?" The question is larger and becomes this one: Gog/Magog and Koka/Vikoka, being mythological figures (and they are necessarily such, because they refer either to ancient or sacred texts), what are the known interpretations of these symbols ? Being mythological figures, their interpretations are manyfold: from Biblical studies, studies in symbolism and metaphysics, and even down to the most stupid "evangelist" interpretations like the one mentioned in article ("modern apocalyptism" section of the present article, which BTW contains interpretations far away from Biblical Studies and which are not mainstream at all). From that perspective, the excerpt from René Guénon's book is one of the most known. But the connection is also supported by academic references, and the 2014 reference given by me above is perfectly academic (the journal was set up in 2011, and it is a regular on-line publication with reported impact factor of 0.6), on top of the older ones going back to beginning XXth century. I don't accept the refutation by PiCo because the author is from University of Burundi, this is looking like defamation. PiCo who seems to be keen on asking for academic references, does not hesitate here to mention an obscure blog called "www.worldwisdom.com" to sideline Guénon's influence, but I can easily cite real academics and references who are working on Guénon:

• Modène University in Italy
• Guénon is an author who has his own dictionnary
• Ecole Pratique des hautes Etudes in France (very prestigious, see École_pratique_des_hautes_études)
• Known historians from EPHE like Xavier Accart
• Xavier Accart PhD thesis on Guénon: link.

Needless to say that we are far away from PiCo's depiction, whose mention of "pan-Babylonianism" is pure invention. BTW, I would be happy that PiCo provides me academic references that the Gog/Magog-Koka/Vikoka connection belong to something called pan-Babylonianism, as he writes it. I would be happy to see such references, it's the first time I read such an assertion. Guénon did not "always connections between all things" but his studies in symbolism are very authoritative.

Lastly I would also favor that we keep the actual wording, which has been written out of discussions in the TP, which is minimal and without any UNDUE.

I am not, at this time, collapsing or deleting any of the above, but some of the comments are more on contributors than on content. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems that there isn't any possibility of compromise, since one editor will not agree to having a one-sentence mention of the comments of René Guénon, and the other editor does want a brief mention of the comments of Guénon. In that case, I will ask again whether the parties are agreeable to having the dispute resolved by a Request for Comments? If so, the remaining question is how to word the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm happy to go to an RfC. PiCo (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• There's already been an RfC, set up by PiCo which has led to the present formulation. I don't think the spirit of RfC is to launch these procedures until one gets satisfaction, it's a time consuming process. I would prefer a reformulation of the actual wording if you will, although that wording has already been worked out by previous contributors. Xinheart (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• Is there any further activity on this page? If no RfC, maybe some other forum or mechanism?PiCo (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

When the RFC was closed in August 2015, the closer stated that the editors had agreed on a wording. Would they please explain why the current wording needs to be changed? Is the current wording consistent with what was agreed in August? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Since one editor doesn't want another RFC, there is no further forum or mechanism that I would advise. You could try formal mediation, but it isn't clear what that would gain over informal mediation here. The alternative is to go back to the talk page. I don't see evidence of a conduct dispute, and it is good that there is no conduct dispute. (Edit-warring or editing against consensus are conduct issues. Please avoid them, as you have so far.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I am confused. There was an RFC in August. What is the issue anyway? It appears that the RFC concluded that a mention of Guenon, or of other early-twentieth-century authors who thought that the two mythologies were the same, was permitted in a short form. Is that correct? If so, what is the issue? That wording doesn't appear to be in the current text. This discussion appears to be going around and around. Is there a specific question, or should I fail this thread and send it back to the talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: to answer your last question, yes, the mention of Guénon was permitted in short form and the present wording in the article is the one that resulted from contributors of the last RfC. The wording was not to say that the two mythologies are the same (they are not, since they come from different traditions), but that they display analogies in their meaning. So basically we can keep on like this. Also, I don't think that the question I raised in the fourth statement by editors section, and which you collapsed, is a comment on a contributor. It was a genuine question about a point raised by PiCo and which is unrelated to the debate, I think. The answer given by PiCo about "pan Babylionalism" is not related to our subject, and the wikipedia article he mentions does in no way mention Gog/Magog, Koka/Vikoka. I am legimate in asking that question, and he has clearly not answered it, instead of me who always answered his asking for references. So I am asking to end this debate and to keep the formulation as it is in both articles. Xinheart (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I am still confused. Will User:PiCo please explain what they want? What is the question? There was an RFC in August, and it resulted in the current language. What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• User talk:RyanTQuinn (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• The Data Junkie (talk · contribs)
• RyanTQuinn (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

RyanTQuinn has entered into an Edit War with me. I have made a small but important edit regarding Adele. I have entered her mother's full name and year of birth. There has only been one birth in England and Wales 1915-2005 for a Penny Adkins, and that is Penny Susan Adkins, born 1968. A search of electoral registers at http://www.searchelectoralroll.co.uk/Default.asp shows Adele and Penny S. Adkins as having lived together at the same address. RyanTQuinn is continually reverting my edit stating that the information I have entered can't be correct because it doesn't tally with quotes that Adele's father has made. The father (I suspect) has told a story which is not entirely true to show himself in a better light, rather than as a run-away father. RyanTQuinn is not willing to accept facts which would alter what has already been entered and which is erroneous based on falsification.

I have posted to RyanTQuinn's Talk page but refuses to enter into discussion with me and has been referring to me as a vandal. I have posted links which confirms that Penny Susan Adkins is in fact the mother of Adele.

I have been a genealogist and researcher for 42 years. I edit Knowledge infrequently but do so when I am correct.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have posted information to RyanTQuinn's Talk page showing how I have reasoned my edit. He has not responded.

How do you think we can help?

RyanTQuinn should concede that the information I have entered is fact and that he should cease reverting my edit.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany#up to now (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Gerry1214 (talk · contribs)
• Jeppiz (talk · contribs)
• PanchoS (talk · contribs)
• det&cor (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The disagreement is about a claim repeatedly introduced by Gerry1214 in the lead, after a related claim was repeatedly introduced by Jeppiz in the infobox. Both have been repeatedly removed by myself, with explanatory edit summaries and further debate in the given section of the Talk page.

The two other editors state that the introduced wording is given in sources, while I repeatedly pointed out it constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS and therefore violates WP:OR, misrepresenting these two otherwise reliable sources.

Contentwise, and in its last version, this is about the following sentence:

It was later revealed by police that 18 of the 31 suspects checked by the Federal Police on New Year's Eve were asylum seekers, which were suspected of grievous bodily harm, robbery and theft, while sexual assaults have not been linked to them, but offenses classified as "insulting on a sexual base".

My problem with the wording is that it combines what is being held against the assailants in general (per the WELT article, this includes: grievous bodily harm, robbery, sexual delicts) with statements that a majority of the suspects were asylum seekers, as said by the ZEIT article. This constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS, even disregarding that neither of the sources connects asylum seekers explicitly says so, and that the ZEIT article explicitly rules out asylum seekers from being charged with any of the sexual delicts.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Filed an WP:3O report which however wasn't accepted as there were more than two parties involved.

How do you think we can help?

Take a close look at the two sources (German-language, but just a few sentences to read), and at the disputed wording, telling us whether the latter seems fully backed by the sources or not.

There are two sources: 1. (Die Welt) states: 29 suspects, 18 of them asylum seekers. Some offences sexual. 2. (Die Zeit) clarifies: the sexual offences hav'nt been done by any of the 18 asylum seekers. The last half-sentence should be deleted.

Volunteer's note: I'm neither "taking" nor opening this case for discussion at this time. There appears to be adequate talk page discussion. I'd remind the filing editor, PanchoS, that it is the obligation of the filing editor to notify the other editors involved in the discussion by putting a notice on their user talk pages and {{subst:drn-notice|New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany}} — ~~~~ can be used for that purpose. I would also note that there are at least three other editors, Det&cor, Whamper, and JeremyThomasParker, who have been involved in the discussion. Either the filing editor or the DRN volunteer who takes this case should consider whether or not their presence here is needed for a successful outcome (or they may, of course, add themselves here). Anyone who is substantially involved in the dispute and who might, if not involved here at DRN, interfere with any resolution worked out here should be listed, notified, and an "initial comments" section created for them by the person who lists them here. On the other hand, listing them here is a two-edged sword: If they are listed and choose not to participate then this case may be closed for lack of sufficient participation. If that happens, the filing editor may wish to consider a request for comments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

True, though I expicitly pinged the two involved parties, and from "Check that a notice was delivered to each person you add to the filing," I inferred a notice was usually posted by a bot. My fault, I'm adding the required {{drn-notice}} now, though the case might just be turned mute by recent developments. --PanchoS (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

24-hour closing notice: Unless we get participation from the three other editors by this time tomorrow, this case will be closed as futile by a volunteer. If some, but not all, choose to participate, a decision will then be made about the ongoing viability of this request. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC) (DRN coordinator))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Laksa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Zhanzhao (talk · contribs)
• 161.139.222.17 (talk · contribs)
• Magbantay (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dish Laksa has a a number of contested countries of origin. Different sources provide proof of the different claims, but these are being removed til only the sources supporting the "Malaysian" claim remains.

Repeated attempts to engage the editors in discussion failed. To appease the "pro-Malaysia-only" camp, I even added new content to reflect the existing claims by other countries, but these were repeatedly removed. The editors only took part in the discussion after I successfully request page protection. Even with 2 non-involved editors chiming in (one apparently from an RFC I made, another who edited there before but is not involved in the current dispute), the editors are not listening. Hope to get some more eyes on the article to provide a fresh take on the issue.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted to start discussion on talk page, and repeatedly asked 161.139.222.17 and Magbantay to participate]]]]]]], but was ignored. I added new references and created a new section on the article ], listing the various claims of origin with sources provided, but this was labelled "vandalism" and removed. RFCed and requested page protection], new voices chimed in]] but IP and Magbantay are basically ignoring these as well.

How do you think we can help?

Would like more uninvolved editors to look at the discussion and provide their views on the matter. And counsel whoever is in the wrong. (If it turns out to be me, I'm fine with it). Alternatively, advise where I could approach to get more experienced eyes on this.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Summary of dispute by Jess

Summary of dispute by Grayfell

Summary of dispute by Oiudfgogsdf

Talk:Daniel Holtzclaw#Recent_changes_.282.29 discussion

First statement by volunteer moderator

First statements by editors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Swami Maheshwarananda#Sexual Harassment Allegations (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Demiurge1000 (talk · contribs)
• Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs)
• Lakata (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

It appears as if there is an ongoing battle over the validity of the sources reporting on alleged sexual assault. I saw an interview with an alleged victim and went to the wikipedia page and was surprised to not find any additional information on the allegations.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The users involved have spoken about their interpretations at length. I beieve they didn't know how to invoke dispute resolution.

How do you think we can help?

Help interpret Knowledge's guidelines for inclusion of allegations for them so that they can assess what is appropriate inclusion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:List of state leaders in 2015#Dispute over the designation of Queen's Representative (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Neve-selbert (talk · contribs)
• Zoltan Bukovszky (talk · contribs)
• Happysquirrel (talk · contribs)
• Miesianiacal (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

We are currently in a dispute involving the Cook Islands and their Queen's Representative. There is currently an inconsistent gender-biased designation of Queen's Representative – manifesting versus the more gender-nuanced Viceroy –—of which is more commonly used to refer to a wife of a vice-regal representative. This debate has become pretty heated and personal as of late—it has been going on for more than two weeks. My determination is for the least change to be made. The user I am in dispute with claims that if this change occurs then it will thus result in inconsistency and whatnot. I have successfully debunked these claims, and he has since resorted to callous personal attacks.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There have been some alternatives, all of which have been unsuitable and un-agreed upon thus far. The first leads to inconsistency involving designations of an office versus explanations; the second would result in disruptive, misleading changes of which will seriously impede an inevitable future discussion.

How do you think we can help?

The fact that "viceroy" is a gender-neutral term, as per the article must be confirmed. Also: the tone must be brought down, in part due to the bloodthirsty reactions I have received from the second user.

The debate is about finding a suitable replacement for the description (but not the title) of ”Queen’s representative” in the ’’List of state leaders in XXXX” articles because it is not generic, in particular, not gender-neutral enough. After a number of suggestions and changes of opinion on the part of Neve-selbert, he has started advocating ”viceroy” which, after examining the arguments, all three of us came to reject.

Miesianiacal, Happy Squirrel and myself are of the opinion that “viceroy” is still gender-biased. Since there is a proper word, "vicereine", to mean either the wife of a viceroy, or a female viceroy, this inevitably renders “viceroy” somewhat loaded in gender terms, even if some would use it in a gender-neutral way. The other argument against “viceroy” is that it used to be an official title (e.g. the leader of British India was titled viceroy, see Louis Mountbatten or Archibald Wavell), therefore it could give rise to misunderstandings if used as a generic description.

Instead we have come to think that ”Monarch’s representative” would be an apt solution as it is completely gender-neutral, and is in line with the nomenclature used across the article (the generic description used for the head of state of the Cook Islands, as for all other sovereigns, is ”monarch”).

A third disputed point in the debate (backed by Miesianiacal, Happy Squirrel and myself) is that if we make a change to the article, than we should improve its internal consistency by applying this new description (”Monarch’s representative”) to all other positions where a person is the official representative of a sovereign, rather then arbitrarily applying it only to the Cook Islands.

It was also mentioned in the debate that for the time being both ”viceroy” and ”Queen’s representative” are factually correct descriptions, since the current representative in the Cook Islands is male, and current sovereign is female. Yet if our very aim is finding a gender-neutral alternative, neither of these descriptions will do.

Neve-selbert misrepresented my position in the ”Summary of dispute” section below. I have not advocated "to change the designations of all representatives of heads of state", merely those of monarchs (in the interest of improving consistency). And the UN Special Representative he argued about below has not been mentioned in the debate a single time. The editor keeps clogging the debate with irrelevant distractions (e.g. the leader or Wallis and Futuna, the King of the Netherlands or the civilian administrator of occupied Iraq), dismissing others’ opinions without a reasoned explanation, has declared his unwillingness to compromise on his suggestion, defended his own suggestion with a gender-bias and failed to offer a reasoned explanation of why he opposes ”Monarch’s representative”. ZBukov (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I came upon this debate from the Teahouse. After some discussion, I understood that the debate was not about the formal title, but about the descriptor applied in the list. I agree with ZBukov's assessment on the talk page that there are 3 issues at play.

1. Whether the descriptor of "Queen's Representative" lacks gender neutrality. I think we have all been convinced of this by this point.
2. What should it be changed to? Right now, the descriptors being considered seem to be "Viceroy" (supported by Neve as the accurate term and gender neutral in current usage), "Monarch's representative" (supported by ZBukov and myself and possibly Miesianical as descriptive, clear and in line with the descriptors used for monarchs) and a "Represented by ..." phrasing which seems to be losing support. I haven't heard the other options seriously mentionned in a while.
3. Should any changes be extended to anyone representing a monarch? I believe ZBukov, Miesianical and myself support this for reasons of consistency and clarity. Neve objects to this. He also points out that a concensus of 4 people is not sufficient to make sweeping changes to multiple articles. I agree with this assesment and suggested we contact the WikiProjects or conduct an RfC.

I believe an underlying issue here is differences in regional use of language. Viceroy seems to be used in different amounts and in different ways in different parts of the world. Another one is that we have three desirable things in opposition 1) consistency 2) clarity 3) use of precise terminology on an individual entry level.

Finally, I am glad this discussion will be getting some active moderation. I hope we can come to an agreement. I remain open to having an RfC or contacting WikiProjects. Happy Squirrel (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Given the comments by others, I would like to add that I am more than willing to elaborate on any point upon request. I tried to stay brief as per the suggestion in the template, but this does not mean this is all I am ready to say. Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

This dispute seems to have begun with finding a gender-neutral descriptor for the Queen's Representative in the Cook Islands, it has branched out to take in governors-general, governors, lieutenant-governors, and representatives of co-princes.

'Viceroy' has been floated as an option, but it seems the majority has deemed it to be not a gender-neutral term, since it properly applies only to male representatives of monarchs; 'vicereine' is the descriptor for a female representative. Additionally, its appropriateness for the representatives of the Co-Princes of Andorra and for representatives of a head of state in colonies and associated states is uncertain. 'Represented by' was another suggestion, though seemingly rejected because it describes what the individual does, rather than what he or she is. 'Monarch's representative' appears to have the most support as it is a) gender-neutral; b) a descriptor of what an individual is, rather than what they do; c) applicable to all representatives of monarchs, regardless of status or rank; and d) easily adaptable to any representative: 'president's representative', 'administrator's representative', 'government'r representative', whatever.

Given that this is a decision that would affect many articles, I do agree that it should be settled by more than four editors. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Zoltan Bukovszky made a counterpoint charging that if any changes were made, we would have to change the designations of all representatives of heads of state—this would be disruptive and would involve strenuous, controversial proofreading numerous List of state leaders in XXXX articles rendering them all inconsistent. Would we replace UN Special Representative – with UN Secretary General's Representative? That would be wrong. The UN S-G has never been and never will be mentioned on any of the lists, and would seriously mislead editors and readers alike into thinking that he was there. It would also be similar to considering this option:

Since a prime minister, president and monarch is either Head of State or Head of Government, does that mean we have to change all those designations as Head of State and Head of Government to match the President of the Territorial Assembly of Wallis and Futuna, etc?

• This would be pointless. Surely, we must differentiate the different types of heads of state and government. This is the only sensible thing to do.
  • As nobody ever refers to the Queen's Representative as Governor-General we have no choice but to look to a conceivable alternative versus the gender-biased Queen's Representative. We could also point to another fact: most people are not in-fact aware that the actual, de jure title of the monarch of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is constitutionally King, and not Queen; should this be an issue? Of course not, and, thanks to common sense this will never become one. We desperately need common sense in this dispute. Viceroy – seems to be the non-contentious, adequate fit—viceregal representative is usually not used singularly, having further researched. Monarchy in the Cook Islands alludes to a "viceroy of the Cook Islands". The actual subject article states this:

The term vicereine is sometimes used to indicate a female viceroy suo jure, although viceroy can serve as a gender-neutral term. Vicereine is more commonly used to indicate a viceroy's wife.

• Queen's Representative – is as biased a term as having the King of Lesotho designated as King – instead of the more apt description as Monarch –. It is also inconsistent, as Elizabeth II is always designated as Monarch – and never as Queen –. Why should the QR be any different?

I am only in favour of changing the description per the Cook Islands. The only reason why the Cook Islands cannot have a G-G is due to the fact that they are not entirely separate and sovereign from New Zealand. This remains a special exception.

• I do believe we should also note that Governors-General (as of 2016) represent the Queen only within sovereign states—a difference which would need to be discerned versus, e.g. the Governor of Anguilla, notably not Governor-General of Anguilla. Her status in the Cook Islands is unique compared to her other realms; unlike Niue, its neighbour, CI uses a seperate representative from NZ on behalf of the British monarch. There is nothing wrong with designating the QRs as a viceroy. Hardly anyone refers to the G-Gs as viceroys, in a similar way David Cameron is usually referred to as Prime Minister instead of Head of Government. We refer to the French territorial presidents under prefects as Head of Government, as this is an unambiguous designation—presidents are never head of government without being head of state as well. It remains quite possible for the position of "Queen's Representative" to be renamed as "Governor-General" at any one time, after all, it is only a title. What exactly would we resort to then?
• I am against changing the designations of all the viceregal representatives as either Viceroy – or Monarch's Representative –. It is unnecessary, there are plenty of governors-general and we need to group them all together. I rule this out as a compromise.
• Represented by is crudely unsuitable. We must remember that we are in-fact referring to just a designation here, not a common description of the duties of state leaders. This would inevitably result in disastrous inconsistency. For example, instead of Head of State – and Head of Government – we would have State headed by – and Government headed by –. Nope, this is not an option—and I completely rule this out as a compromise. It would be too disruptive and involve unnecessary drastic, time-consuming change.

1. Monarch's Representative – conveys the exact same meaning as Viceroy –.
   
2. The Represented by – option is crudely unsuitable; we are clearly required to allude to their official title and not explain their duties.

• Initially, I had suggested Monarchical Representative – as the alternative.

Perhaps this may have been somewhat silly, in retrospect; it just happened to be the first thing that initally came into my mind. So, given opposition and my understanding of it, I then dropped this description as an alternative.

• So, I then moved on to "Viceregal Representative" (due to the title used on this article).

I happened to forego the fact that Viceroy was the more generally-used singular form.

• So, then (upon knowing this) I switched my stance towards Viceroy –, and felt very satisfied with this option.

This was opposed by the second mentioned user to my total dismay.

• So, I considered bringing back "Queen's Representative" into the fray—for slight consideration.

I backtracked shortly afterwards in part due to my uncertainty and growing sceptism of his idea about changing the titles of all her viceregal representatives to a single, "consistent" title.

• So, reluctantly, I thought about clarifying my previous alternative (Viceroy) as Associated Viceroy.

Again, opposition (unsurprising).

• So—having again thought about it, retrospectively—I came to my final belief that Viceroy – is simply just fine to use instead and is non-controversial to a considerable extent.

My position as it stands, now.

Neve-selbert 22:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• In my opinion, we are entirely wrong to oppose "Viceroy" as the designation on the grounds of inconsistency. Similar to bacteria, inconsistency is everywhere and is impossible to avoid. As long as the inconsistency is not desperately awful, we can live with it. For example, the title of the Hungarian prime minister is in-fact directly translated as Minister-President. Considering the fact that the translation in English from Hungarian is significantly closer to Prime Minister than the translation of President of the Government is from Spanish, we understand and rectify this. This point must be considered.
• Presidents are heads of state, prime ministers are heads of government. Just because we may designate the head of state of the Central African Republic (as of this writing) as Head of State – instead of President –, this does not in any way, shape or form mean that all of the other presidents thus on the list is in fact not a head of state.
• If the designations of all state representatives were changing, there would also be the stringing dilemma pertaining to someone such Administrator Paul Bremer. Was he the "President's Representative" when in charge of Iraq after the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Not exactly. But yet, we must not elevate de jure representatives above de facto representatives as this would breach impartiality—as they are both given a pretty equal footing at the moment—e.g. both Taiwan and China are treated equally as sovereign nations. Changing the designations of vice-regal representatives without changing the representatives of other heads of state in addition would overlook consistency which in turn would be controversial and breach WP:POV. For these reasons, Monarch's Representative – purely cannot be a solution.
  • Also, on the subject of Viceroy being an official title: simply put, not entirely accurate. They were both officially known as Viceroy and Governor-General, not just Viceroy on its own.
• My option, Viceroy –, is fine and straight-to-the-point. If anybody stumbles on its meaning, they can easily find out what the word means by looking at what it is referring too: the "Queen's Representative". Confusion is not an issue here, and neither is notability. Radio New Zealand has described the QR as a Viceroy. This source is credible and should be placed into serious consideration.
  • On whether or not Viceroy is gender-biased is really simply a fallacy. The word has two meanings, and I also refer to the quote from the Knowledge article itself above. Nobody refers to female governors-general as a governess-general, and I believe that we can be reasonably certain that any female QR would not be referred to in the media as a vicereine. It is an archaic term to user for a female viceroy in the same sense governess is versus governor.

There is in-fact already a precedent for this scenario. We already use the Head of State – designation for the Samoan O le Ao o le Malo (as his title is unintelligible)—yet this does not mean in any way, shape, or form that someone such as Vladimir Putin is not a head of state. There is no credible argument preventing the replacement of Queen's Representative – with Viceroy –. All I ask, is for Viceroy – as the designation replacing the transient designation of Queen's Representative –. This will remain my view. I must reiterate again, that thus far my option of using Viceroy instead has not been successfully and concretely proven wrong. It is absolutely gender-neutral in this day and age, and it is a quick and easy answer to quite a complicated situation of which we are in dispute. Good day. Neve-selbert 22:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been extensive discussion at the talk page. The filing party has not notified the other parties of the filing. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editors. This request will neither be declined nor accepted until proper notice is provided. All parties are reminded to be civil. Keep discussion here to a minimum until this case is accepted by a volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon: How exactly can I message them? Which template should I use? I had presumed they were already notified as they were linked on this page. Neve-selbert 21:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: All parties have been successfully informed. Neve-selbert 22:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I will be accepting this case for moderated discussion. I will state a few ground rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not on contributors. Uncivil discussion or comments on contributors may be collapsed. Civility is mandatory in Knowledge and especially in dispute resolution, and overly long statements are not explanatory. I expect every editor to check on this page at least every 48 hours and to respond in that timeframe to any questions. I will check this page at least every 24 hours. The issue appears to be about gender-neutral language. Is the dispute limited to the Cook Islands? Is the dispute limited to the list of state leaders in 2015? If so, what was the style used in earlier lists of state leaders? Will the editors please each make civil and concise opening statements? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, do not engage in threaded discussion. Address all comments to the moderator, not to other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add comments to the above this. Comment in the following section.

Please do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Although the use of the article talk page is usually encouraged, please do not discuss there while discussion is in progress here. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop editing the above sections, and discuss in the section below. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Yes, this issue is limited to the Cook Islands.
2. No, it is not limited to just the article in question.
3. The position of Queen's Representative has only existed since 1982, there is no precedent.
4. Will remember to do so, in future.

Neve-selbert 22:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Is the dispute limited to the Cook Islands?

No. It started at the Cook Islands, but if the change is implemented consistently, then it affects all Commonwealth realms, British crown dependencies, and any other monarchy where the sovereign is represented by another person (currently that is Andorra and Liechtenstein).

Is the dispute limited to the list of state leaders in 2015?

No it is not. It affects every List of state leaders in (xxxx year) articles.

If so, what was the style used in earlier lists of state leaders?

The monarch's representatives' various titles are currently used for description (i.e. "Queen's representative" in the Cook Islands, "Governor-General" in the Commonwealth realms, "Co-Prince's Representative" in Andorra, "Regent" in Liechtenstein, "Lieutenant-Governor" in the crown dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man). All these various descriptions could be replaced by "Monarch's representative". ZBukov (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Is the dispute limited to the Cook Islands?

No. I agree it started with the Cook Islands. However, it rapidly became clear to me that one of the main purposes of the descriptors was consistency (another one is clarity). Thus, while the issue brought up was the Cook Islands, it was a wake up call for us that there was a massive inconsistency issue. Thus descriptors for all people representing monarchs (Governor General, Andorran Co-Prince's Representative) are all part of the debate.

Is the dispute limited to the list of state leaders in 2015?

No, since consistency is an important goal, any changes should be applied to all List of state leaders in year, at least for the last century.

If so, what was the style used in earlier lists of state leaders?

The practice in previous articles was to use a shortened version of the official title as a descriptor for people representing monarchs. So we have a large number of governor-generals, two Co-Prince's representatives in Andorra, the odd regent, a governor in the Netherland Antilles in 1962 etc. Some of us on the talk page say these should be uniformised, probably to Monarch's representative. However, if we instead decide to follow pre-existing practice, the Queen's Representative of the Cook Islands should, by my understanding, be described by the abbreviated title of Queen's Representative. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that there may be two distinct issues. The first is whether to use standard titles or official titles, knowing that standard titles won't always fit. The second has to do with gender-neutral language in titles. The first applies to a large number of countries. For instance, is the Prime Minister of Ireland called the Prime Minister or the Taoiseach? The most common standard titles of heads of state are President or Monarch. The most common standard title of heads of government in non-presidential countries is Prime Minister. The issue involving the Cook Islands has to do with Queen's Representative or Viceroy. However, viceroys in other Commonwealth nations are referred to as Governor-General, the official title, not as viceroy. The second seems to be more limited in scope, but has to do with whether Queen's Representative should be changed to Monarch's Representative (not the official title, which depends on the gender of monarch) or to Viceroy. I will comment that, in my opinion, Viceroy is gender-neutral. Do the editors agree? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

If there are any other issues, please identify them, but if so, this may be getting beyond what we can do at DRN and it may be time for formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think matters here are becoming very confused.

The dispute does not involve titles; it is focused on descriptors. Entries in the list are generally presented thusly:

•  Canada

• Monarch: Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada (1953-present)

"Monarch" is the descriptor; "Elizabeth II" is the name; and "Queen of Canada" is the title.

For the Cook Islands, where this dispute began (in the list, anyway), the entry is presently this:

•  Cook Islands (associated state of New Zealand)

• Queen's Representative – Tom Marsters, Queen's Representative of the Cook Islands (2013–present)

So, the descriptor used--"Queen's representative" (first mention)--is what's in dispute because of its gender bias. Additionally, there's the issues of consistency--using the same descriptor for all representatives--and redundancy--descriptors being repetitions of titles (as in the Cook Islands example; also seen in entries for governors-general).

The idea is to replace all the different descriptors for representatives of monarchs with one term. 'Viceroy' is most certainly not gender neutral; again, it is specifically for a male representative of a monarch; 'vicereine' is for a female representative (or the wife of a viceroy). 'Monarch's representative', on the other hand, has no gender bias. Using it, entries in the list would look like this:

•  Canada

• Monarch: Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada (1953-present)

• Monarch's representative: David Johnston, Governor General of Canada (2010-present)

•  Cook Islands (associated state of New Zealand)

• Monarch's representative – Tom Marsters, Queen's Representative (2013–present)

•  Andorra

• Monarchs –

• François Hollande, French Co-prince of Andorra (2012–present)

• Monarch's representative –

1. Sylvie Hubac (2012–2015)
2. Thierry Lataste (2015–present)

• Archbishop Joan Enric Vives Sicília, Episcopal Co-prince of Andorra (2003–present)

• Monarch's representative – Josep Maria Mauri (2012–present)

Though it isn't my favoured resolution, I am okay with it. However, I now wonder whether 'monarch's' is even necessary; if the representative's entry is indented in below the individual they represent, it should be clear enough who the representative is representing.

•  Canada

• Monarch: Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada (1953-present)

• Representative: David Johnston, Governor General of Canada (2010-present)

•  Cook Islands (associated state of New Zealand)

• Monarch: Elizabeth II, Queen of New Zealand

• Representative – Tom Marsters, Queen's Representative (2013–present)

•  Andorra

• Monarchs –

• François Hollande, French Co-prince of Andorra (2012–present)

• Representative –

1. Sylvie Hubac (2012–2015)
2. Thierry Lataste (2015–present)

• Archbishop Joan Enric Vives Sicília, Episcopal Co-prince of Andorra (2003–present)

• Representative – Josep Maria Mauri (2012–present)

The above allows the added bonus of clarifying that Elizabeth II reigns in the Cook Islands as Queen of New Zealand (as in Niue). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

On the topic of whether to use common descriptors or official titles, the common practice seems to be to use common descriptors (prime minister, monarch, president). The formal title is given after the name and linked. I think this is a good practice which should be extended since it makes things clearer.

On the topic of gender neutrality, I do not think Viceroy is a good option for two reasons. First of all, I feel there is no major problem as such with the gender identification in Queen's Representative. The queen of England is a single identifiable person who is known to be female. Furthermore, many official matters in England do change with the gender of the monarch (ex: God Save the Queen/King, Her/His Majesty's Ship, On Her/His Majesty's Service etc.) This is not gender neutral but it seems to run deep in the system and is tied to old feudal origins where oaths are personal (ie you don't swear allegiance to the idea of a King, or to whoever happens to be King, but rather to the person who is King). Anyhow, I don't think it is Knowledge's role to right great wrongs and try to make the British Monarchy and associated systems more gender neutral.

Now look at Viceroy. I have been convinced that it can be used in a gender neutral way. I have also been convinced that it is often used this way, and this use is becoming more prevalent with time. However, there is a feminine form, Vicereine. Yes it is mostly used for wives of Viceroys, but it can also be used for female viceroys. Basically, from what I gather, Viceroy is fundamentally a masculine form, which can also be applied to women. Perhaps the situation will be different in a few decades, but right now there is a feminine form which is used also and so the term is not perfectly gender neutral. I find this more serious than the Queen/King issue because the descriptor is being applied to a role rather than a person. Thus, to me, Viceroy, as a descriptor of the role, gives the impression of being a role for a man representing a monarch of any gender while Queen's Representative carries the implication of being a role for someone of either gender where they represent the Queen. If the Queen dies and we get a King (or even if the Queen dies and we get another Queen, even though that is highly unlikely), the job of the representative changes in a subtle way because they are not representing the office of monarch, but rather the person of the monarch (at least traditionally). Thus I think that, while not gender neutral, Queen's Representative departs from gender neutrality in a way that describes the role better. Ideally though, for consistency, one should be vague about gender of both the monarch and the representative.

Given the number of governor-generals, I think a fair argument could be made that they have enough consistency to not need to be changed. However, I am concerned that if we start moving away from abreviations of formal titles as descriptors for people representing monarchs, people will start wondering what is the huge difference between governor-generals and others. Then we get to issues of the British Commonwealth getting special treatment. I guess we could say that's fair given that they had a pretty massive empire, but it makes me worry about bias.

Another issue is that if Queen's Representative is judged not gender neutral, Co-prince's Representative (in Andorra) is also not gender neutral. It doesn't matter that there are no female monarchs in the forseeable future, Co-prince is a seriously male title. Happy Squirrel (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Using moderator's discretion to make threaded comment. There could be a female co-monarch of Andorra in 2017, because women have run for the office of President of France. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I hope it is proper for me to answer here. I agree with your assessment. However, I have tried to present this argument in the past and it has been dismissed by Neve based on his assessment that the current female candidates are unlikely to be accepted by Andorra if elected. I do not consider this line of reasoning relevant, but wanted to make it very clear that my argument did not depend on a female co-monarch being elected soon. Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It has been dismissed by Neve based on his assessment that the current female candidates are unlikely to be accepted by Andorra if elected.
This is simply untrue. I am simply stating that, if a woman (Le Pen) is elected as the French President, she would not be referred to as Co-Princess of Andorra in similar respects to how Queen Elizabeth II is referred to as Lord of Mann instead of Lady of Mann in the Isle of Man. Neve-selbert 22:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood your argument. That makes a lot more sense. Out of curiosity, is there a source for that? Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Happysquirrel: Absolutely. Here is a source. Neve-selbert 22:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This was originally written on the talk page of ZBukov.

Here is specificially why I believe Monarch's Representative – simply would make matters a lot worse: Do you feel that the phrase "Monarch's representative" is gender-biased to ANY extent?

No, but this is besides the point. Frankly, if we opted for Monarch's Representative – we would have opened a dreadful can of worms, and things would start getting overly messy and complicated. We would be stuck inside a painful dilemma, a spiralling loop. Easy question: what for the Governor of Sint Maarten? Easy answer: Yes, I would believe they would suggest changing this too. But yet, here we are, outside the safety net of The Queen and into the realm of another, different type of monarch. Sure, no problem, we can easily change this too. But then, this indicates a bias. Not only monarchs have representatives in their differing territories; why on Earth should we put monarchs on a pedastool? Surely, the W&T administrator is a President's Representative –? Absolutely, you will reply, we shall have to change this too. But then, we realise something icky:

• What exactly of the de facto representatives? Is it policy to place de jure ones on a pedastool?

Oh dear. This is where things get complicated.

• Perhaps we could draw some analogies to what happened to the Titanic and Iraq. It seems odd, but if you think about this in the long-term: how on earth could we have been this stupid?
  

Note #1: Although the two analogies are not entirely similar, they both prove a fundamental error in human logic.

1. You know—on face value—nothing really seems to be wrong with Monarch's Representative –. In fact, it just seems about perfect. I mean, why not—to match Elizabeth's designation—simply replace the word Queen with Monarch? Voilà. Job done.
2. So there we set off on our journey, and make the preparations for regime change. We will get in, and we will get out.
3. We seem to be pretty confident with this outcome—it makes sense, it is an easy answer solving a quick problem with hardly any serious qualms.

Note #2: This is precisely the short term. What of the long-term? Ah, sugar.

1. You see, this is where we heed my warnings of this iceberg. We cannot simply just change the designations of those under the British monarch, but also of the Dutch one too. Simple, job-done. We shall do this too.
2. Iceberg, right ahead. You see, now we are in the situation of changing the designations of the representatives of not only monarchs, but also presidents as well. This is a somewhat panicky move, as Monarch's Representative – simply would not do. Even they would not dispute this. So quickly, to avoid casualty, we change the designations of not only monarchs but of the other heads of state too, such as those under the French President with President's Representative –.
3. But, what of the UN Secretary General? Hard-a-starboard. This is beyond complicated. For consistency, if we are to connect another designation with another, merging them together, we will have to implement this everywhere. This includes representatives of the S-G. As of course, any reader or editor would be misled. They may be believe that this UN Special Representative represents his or herself on a freelance basis, without anyone to report too—unlike the representatives of the other heads of state. What are we to do? This is a dead-end.
4. And then, bam. Collision. The de facto representatives. This is the final blow. If we choose to regard Paul Bremer as the President's Representative –, then what of puppet leaders? If we are to go all the way back to World War II, was Philippe Pétain not a representative of Adolf Hitler? Was he or not? In favour of him being so, Hitler did actually personally select him—would it be a bit of a stretch to call and label him as Fuhrer's Representative? And, there. We have sunk.

Simply put, this is why I believe the "Monarch's Representative" solution simply would not work. We would have editors coming up and down from everywhere enquiring "Is this X person the representative of this X person?". "Representative" indented simply would not work either as it ruins the formatting of the article—resulting in inequality of the state leaders at the expense of one—and underestimates their de facto importance versus the de jure of those whom they are representing. And so on, and so on, and so forth. We would be unable to cope. This is a can of worms, there can be no doubt. Neve-selbert 22:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears that we are getting nowhere, with two editors insisting that on Monarch's Representative and one insisting that that is a slippery slope. The usual approach here to a stuck debate is a Request for Comments, but this issue appears to have too many aspects for an RFC. Can any of the editors propose one or two RFCs concisely? )The editors have followed the instructions to be civil but have not followed the instructions to be concise.) The alternative is to submit this issue to formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Posting DRN talkpage comment on possible RfC structure by Moderator's request - "f I may offer an unofficial two-cents option for the RfCs; RfC1 should focus on whether or not to change the current layout, RfC2 should focus on, if change is desired, what change is desired."

To clarify, the first RfC decides whether to keep the status quo ante (prior revision) or change into a new format, per the typical BRD cycle of general editing.

If the first RfC achieves consensus for changing the status quo ante, the second RfC comes into effect. Should the first RfC decide to keep the status quo ante, the second RfC will go unused and without effect. The second RfC decides on what format or wording to use for the new revision.

Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 02:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• I do apologise if my statements are too long-winded. I will try and get to the point clearly, here:

There are only two credible options:

1. We make no changes.
2. We only switch the Queen's Representative – to Viceroy – designation, and nothing else.

The latter option is more durable than the former for various reasons aforementioned. Simply put, here are the three main myths delaying my proposal:

1. Viceroy is not gender-neutral
   N Wrong. In fact, it is practically more gender-nuanced than words actor and comedian. Take List of actors who have played multiple roles in the same film and List of comedians for example. Does anyone suggest we change their titles respectively as List of actors and actresses who have played multiple roles in the same film and List of comedians and comediennes? Of course not—as although we describe the particular occupations of individuals personally gender-neutrally, once grouped altogether this becomes simply unnecessary.
2. Viceroy could lead to misunderstandings if used as a generic description as it was a former title
   N Wrong. You see, this point is really quite irrelevant. Both the examples the second user had given had the official title of Governor-General and Viceroy, not just Viceroy on its own. And, besides, this is also irrelevant as we have already designated (for quite some time) peculiar, foreign, non-English speaking heads of government as Prime Minister –, despite the fact that this is not their official title (e.g. President of the Government, etc.). Basically, the Queen's Representative serves all the duties you would expect a viceroy to undertake. I am not alone, in this regard.
3. "Monarch’s representative” would be an apt solution for every vice-regal representative as it is completely gender-neutral, etc.
   N Wrong. I refer to my non-contingency, disaster scenario given on 17 January (yesterday, above).

There simply really is no credible reason against my proposal. It has humbly proven to be the most undisruptive and safe alternative to the unsound situation as of today. It offers the slightest change, affects the least number of articles as per consistency versus the opposing proposal, and is non-contentious and likely least to cause confusion and ambiguity. This issue must be resolved as soon as possible. Thanks. Neve-selbert 10:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If we want to improve the current description ("Queen’s representative"), we should find a generic and neutral alternative. We are currently evaluating two options: ”viceroy” and ”monarch’s representative”.

The fact that the word ”viceroy” has a female equivalent (vicereine) indicates that it is not entirely gender-neutral, even if some use it that way (this is why it is already somewhat better than the current phrase, but not entirely neutral). On the other hand there is no ambiguity about ”monarch’s representative” as neither of its component words has a feminine version. Therefore ”monarch’s representative” serves our original purpose better.

According to Canadian editor Happy Squirrel the word “viceroy” is not commonly used in the Commonwealth realm she resides in, therefore its understanding and usage is a matter of the regional use of the English language. Consequently a neutral and simple description ("monarch's representative") would be more useful for the general public reading this encyclopedia.

Using ”monarch’s representative” consistently poses no threat of slippery slope, as the scope of its application can be defined clearly. Improving the articles’ internal consistency by standardising the descriptions of various monarch’s representatives does not necessitate that any change be made to the descriptions of leaders of colonies, protectorates or temporarily occupied countries (e.g. governors of British overseas territories are out of scope because they represent not only the monarch, but also the British government which is responsible for certain government functions pertaining to those territories). But applying the new description exclusively to the Cook Islands would maintain the unreasonable inconsistency of using a generic term for only one member of a group, and not to the others (since along with the Cook Islands officer, every current Governor-General too is a "Queen's representative", so that description could be applied to them as well). ZBukov (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Monarch's Representative – would result in a recipe for disaster and could quite possibly wreck the articles in question. I must stress that this cannot become a third option; it would be without a shadow of doubt the worst one. We are not strictly looking for a gender-neutral alternative: we simply need a term to use which can be used for females also. Therefore, Viceroy – fits the bill in a similar way the words actor and comedian may be used to refer to actress and comedienne in the same sense viceroy has with vicereine. All that I am requesting, is for one change and one change only. I agree that the word viceroy is not commonly used in Canada, Australia, etc. They are sovereign states in their own right and—in this day and age—only sovereign states are permitted to use a governor-general. The Cook Islands are different in this regard; we cannot simply group one vice-regal representative with another as if they all serve the same monarch (or rather, head of state) in the exact same way. This would be misleading and wrong. Notably, he has also dismissed my non-contingency argument. Neve-selbert 22:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Dr Crazy that we need to identify several components in our RfC. Here are my three proposed questions, roughly.

1. Should there be any changes to descriptors of people representing monarchs? If this does not gain consensus, the following parts do not take effect.
2. How broad should those changes be? Based on current discussion, major options to present would be Cook Islands only, Cook Islands and Andorra, everyone except governor generals, everyone. Of course, in the course of discussion, someone may propose a better subset. The RfC should not be closed to this. The results of question 3 should only apply to those descriptors we have consensus to change at all.
3. What should the descriptor be? Again, ideas to present would be Monarch's Representative, Viceroy, represented by. The RfC may produce a better alternative.

I think that as well as the RfC bot invitations, we should politely inform the WikiProjects whose banners are on the talk page. Yes, the RfC is quite broad, but I believe there is no present consensus to limit it. Lastly, I would like to mention that I believe an RfC should be the next step, rather than more formal mediation. I think more eyes and minds, as well as fresh arguments could really inform this debate. I will absolutely abide by the results of an RfC. Finally, I would like to point out that I am not aware of any edit warring or any other major conduct issues. Yes, the discussion has become unnecessarily heated (on all sides), but I think bringing more people in will help with this. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Even if we settled on "viceroy", or decided to keep "Queen's representative", it would still be applicable to every Governor-General, for example (though not to Andorra and Liechtenstein). Could someone please offer a calm, collected and rational argument for what sense it would make to use a generic description for one member of the group only, but not to the others? ZBukov (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that changes should be consistent, I can think of a few arguments: 1. Governor Generals form a large body with consistant descriptors, thus their descriptors should not be changed. 2. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Only change those with obvious issues. 3. Standard descriptors do not account for the diversity of these positions. Hence we should give up on consistency and just abreviate titles. I don't want to get into a huge debate here as I don't think it is allowed :) but I just wanted to point out why question #2 is worth discussing. These are in fact the arguments I thought of when writing the list of starting suggestions for #2. Happy Squirrel (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

----

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Jewish Defense League#Organizations designated as terrorist in North America (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Wiking (talk · contribs)
• Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs)
• TracyMcClark (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

JDL has never been designated as terrorist organization. It fails the inclusion criteria for Category:Organizations designated as terrorist in North America and it isn't a "right-wing terrorist group". As explained on the linked talk page, this quote is taken from a footnote under a chart on the FBI terror report, and clearly means that the JDL is not a "right-wing terrorist group", but rather has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group for the purposes of the chart, where related statistics was combined. Indeed, in the section of the same report dedicated to the JDL, it is described as "a violent extremist Jewish organization" and not as a "terrorist group".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Not me, but one of my opponents first improperly warned me, then still failed to use the article talk page, and proceeded to file an AE request against me here, which was subsequently closed with no action.

How do you think we can help?

A quick look at the RS in question should be sufficient for an unbiased person to arrive to the same conclusion as I did.

• Added subsequently to Nomoskedasticity's comment below: I did point him to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which he ignored in the original discussion and continues to ignore now, taking a footnote under a chart in the report out of context and extrapolating from it the opposite of the meaning of this statement in its original context. This manipulation is so blatant that it is impossible to assume good faith. --Wiking (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not unwilling to discuss things here, a bit anyway. But I think Wiking has misconstrued the purpose of DRN. "A quick look at the RS in question should be sufficient for an unbiased person to arrive to the same conclusion as I did" -- that sounds very much like Wiking is merely hoping to find allies among the DRN volunteers here. It also implies that I am biased, and of course I reject this. I think it's rather straightforward: "The JDL has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group" means that the JDL has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

As Wiking's latest post explicitly rejects AGF, I'm not sure this request has much of a future. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note -- the situation at the article has moved on (in part via participation by additional editors). I think this request/case is now moot. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other parties of this request. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other parties of this request. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, which will wait until notice is given and the other editors agree voluntarily to participate. Participation here is voluntary but encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I did not see in the instructions here that I needed to notify the other parties, and assumed that it was done by someone else. Notified now: 1, 2. Thanks. --Wiking (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: - I will accept this case for DRN moderation pending a response from TracyMcClark. If there is no response within 24 hours, I will open the case. I have sent a second notice to Tracy asking if they will be participating at this stage. For now, please continue to refrain from editing the article in regards to the FBI deeming the JDL as a right-wing terrorist group, broadly construed. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 01:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

While I am moderating I will expect several things of all editors involved in this dispute.

1. Civility is considered mandatory, including the assumption of good faith.
   • Uncivil and personal attacks - broadly construed - can and will be collapsed at either my own discretion or another DRN Volunteer's discretion per the Mediation policy's "Control of mediation" section. This will be the only warning before comments are collapsed. If editors cannot communicate in civil terms and keep their focus on the content, I will be forced to fail this case and recommend alternate venues of resolution which often take more time and effort - so consider this as a helping hand to avoid more work.
   • If at any time you are confused or unsure as to why one of your comments was collapsed, you may ask either myself (at my talkpage) or another DRN volunteer (at the DRN talkpage) for clarification and possible de-collapsing. The typical reason is to keep focus on the content, not on contributor's and/or to remove uncivil content. Reversions and comments may be attributed, but are to be kept in neutral and impartial tones; e.g. User:Example reverted my edit on the 9th - as opposed to - User:Example disregarded and reverted my edit in a POV manner and should be banned.
2. Discussion is to be directed to myself unless otherwise directed.
   • This means no threaded discussions between involved parties. This is keep the discussion both civil and concise, as well as aid in reaching a resolution and/or compromise.
   • Discussion will be considered "non-concise" if it exceeds approx. 3,000 characters without good reason, such as responding to many questions or detailed explanation. If the 3,000 limit is exceeded, using a "Short version" and "Long version" will be acceptable and I will read through the long version; this is more for when I need to look back at previous comments to keep a thread on the dispute. Resources/Citations will not count towards the limit per common sense. See this page for an approximate measure of 3,000 characters.
3. I will expect responses from editors within 72 hours from my posts, especially if asked for clarification. If you do not think you can reach this deadline at any time, please let me know beforehand or the case will potentially be closed as a lack of participation. If I cannot make the same deadline, I will inform you and attempt to have another volunteer continue the case.
   • I will notify users through either pinging them ( {{User}} ) or by talkpage messages; pinging will be the default, with talkpage messages reserved for late responses or the case closing for any reason.

• For now, I still await TracyMcClark's response before opening the case, unless editors do not wish to accept these expectations? I will note that many of these are considered standard DRN expectations.

Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC); updated at 10:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Immigration and crime#Neutrality and Censorship (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Billyh45 (talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

If I make just 1 mistake in a post, editor Marek will delete the entire contribution. He is aggressively undo'ing everything instead of adjusting the post.

You can see in the history that I'm willing to compromise, and I subsequently edited my contrib and even thanked Marek. I wrote, "oh i see now, thanks. I looked at WP:SYNTH and it says I can only show A statistics from same source, but not use B source to make C commentary. I'm new to this wiki" in the edit summary box on 05:16, 12 January 2016 in https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Immigration_and_crime&diff=699416838&oldid=699416186 I was able to reach a consensus with Marek.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Immigration_and_crime&diff=700055424&oldid=700040811 

Now I think editor Marek is going too far. He undo'ed my post about a statistic in Italy that had a reliable source, National Geographic. He also deleted my quote from a police chief. It's unfair for him to dictate what is permitted or not.

I understand that politics can be a sensitive issue. I'm still learning how to be a Wiki editor, and I'm willing to receive advice.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried to explain in the edit summary box, and he tried to explain there as well in the history tab. I also tried a Third Opinion in the talk section to try to clarify the definitions used in the article.

How do you think we can help?

I'm willing to compromise and change my contributions, but editor Marek just sent me a warning about the three revert rule. If you can please correct me and guide me, I'm willing to amend my posts until they conform with Knowledge guidelines.

• Volunteer Note - There has been extended discussion on the talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editor. I will caution both parties to be civil and concise. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, because the other editor has not been notified yet. I will recuse from accepting this case because I tried to address this at third opinion, but wasn't able to get a concise summary of what the question was. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:TvOS (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) and Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Tom29739 (talk · contribs)
• Jimthing (talk · contribs)
• Guy Harris (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The articles 'tvOS' and 'watchOS' are both part of a content dispute over whether they should be capiterlized 'tvOS' and 'watchOS' or 'TvOS' and 'WatchOS' or 'TVOS'. The Manual of Style does not seem to have an explanation of what to do in this situation and no consensus has been reached.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Opened discussion on 'Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters' about extending Manual of Style to multiple letter prefixes.

How do you think we can help?

Provide another opinion on what to do, and to find relevant parts of the Manual of Style to solve the dispute.

This has been discussed a number of times on many article pages, but even more specifically, repeatedly ad nauseum on Apple product pages, due to Apple's marketing department's typographical usage. The consensus has always been that the MOS:TM has a clear rule to follow: "Conventionally, Knowledge articles usually give the normal English spelling in the lead, followed by a note such as "(stylized as ...)" with the stylized version, then revert to using normal English for the remainder of the article." which continues to be used effectively across the site for TM's accordingly. Let's not repeat for the umpteenth time these discussions as it achieves nothing in understanding for the user reading such pages. Of course, a senior editor needs to fix the RD, so that "TVOS" and "TvOS" are reversed, with "TVOS" being the main page accordingly. (BTW this fairly new user has also tried the same point on another Apple page WatchOS, and seems to continue to ignore that these points have been previously discussed repeatedly by many longterm WP editors, in order to favour their own POV. Worth noting here, so they don't open yet other DRN's for other article pages as well, immediately after this has closed.) Many thanks, as usual. Jimthing (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editors. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but it is ready to be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I will be accepting this case for moderated discussion. I expect every editor to check this page at least every 48 hours and to respond as appropriate. I will check this page every 24 hours. Please be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Knowledge and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long posts do not help to identify the scope of the issue. Comment on content, not contributors. Please conduct all discussions here, not at talk pages, while this case is open, so that discussion can be centralized. Please do not edit any of the articles that are being discussed. Uncivil posts may be hatted. Edits to any of the articles while discussion is in progress may result in this case being closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears that the issue has to do with capitalization in a situation that the MOS is silent on. The MOS addresses trademark names where, in the trademark, the first letter is lower-cased. It does not address the question where more than one letter in front is lower-cased. Is that the only issue? Since this odd situation may happen again, should it be addressed by updating the MOS (which could be done by RFC)? Do the editors agree that an RFC to the MOS is an appropriate solution? If not, why not? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Blitzkrieg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Keith-264 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Personal attacks in the form of deeply insulting and unquestionably false accusations of vandalism by "Keith-264", who has reverted my edits for no reason and refuses to apologise for or withdraw his insults.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Described edits in edit summary and on talk page. Left messages requesting withdrawal of and apology for insulting false accusations

How do you think we can help?

Tell the user that their conduct was unacceptable. They appear to have no idea that it was.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Bangladesh#Latest removals (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs)
• Akbar the Great (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is the edit which is in dispute. I am mostly reverting the content which is not according to the sources cites right after that content. There is a math issue as well, the other editor is insistent that 92 should be 92th while my point of view is that it should be 92nd. We have discussed these issues for weeks now. I have addressed all the points of my edit in my last message at that discussion. Basically, the end result is that matter is not resolved and none of us is willing to concede our position.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have gone to "3rd Opinion", i believe that's what it was but was told to ask for help here.

How do you think we can help?

Please review the sources right after each disputed piece of content and decide whether it's according to the source or not.

Is this a joke? Or does the self styled Sheriff take DRN as a joke? The dispute involves over 600 words. The editor who has filed this request wants to remove sourced content because simply he doesn't like it.--Akbar the Great (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Struck out conduct allegations. DRN does not handle or allow conduct allegations. Akbar should make a new opening statement which does not refer to conduct, but only to content since we discuss edits not editors. He should also indicate whether or not he wishes to participate in this case. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Volunteer's note: I'm neither taking nor opening this discussion at this time, but am noting that there has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. Since the primary dispute is about whether the removed material is supported by reliable sources as defined by Knowledge if this case is accepted, the very first thing that will probably happen is to ask Akbar to respond to this edit since it responds to Akbar's question, "Hey what exactly are you contesting in the removing so much content?", in this edit. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Other editors besides the listed parties have been involved in the recent discussion. While the two listed are the primary disputants, the other editors should be invited to participate. If they decline to participate, discussion may continue without them. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: He initially removed a very large amount of content in edits like this. Then he cherry picked points. So he definitely did not answer my question.--Akbar the Great (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Akbar the Great: Nope, I did not cherry pick anything. This dispute has a come a long way, it spans weeks. I listed those points which were still outstanding. There was no point to list resolved matters. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

24-hour closing notice: Akbar the Great was asked, above, whether or not he is willing to participate here. Unless a positive response is received by this time tomorrow, this case will be closed as futile. The purpose of DRN is to try to help editors come to consensus and if one party chooses not to participate — and no one is required to participate — then there's not much we can do. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Marlindale (talk · contribs)
• Fountains-of-Paris (talk · contribs)
• Francis Schonken (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

• @Drcrazy102: The current RfC is open and the DRN process was improperly started as part of forum shopping and edit warring by User:Martindale and User:Francis as already reported on the granted Full Page Protection on the Bach article. May I ask that you abridge or delete your comments as having been answered here, and to close and delete the improperly started DRN on the DRN page. You are free to transpose any material to the RfC which you feel is pertient from other discussion pages to avoid the forum shopping issues caused by an improperly started RfC as done by User:Martidale. Drn discussions are not supposed to be initiated when there is an open RfC is progress which was known to the editor who tried to improperly open the Drn while an RfC was open. Both User:Martindale and User:Francis have been reported for edit warring and forum shopping when the Full Page Protection was requested and granted for the Bach article to protect the page against their edit warring. I am assuming you are a good faith editor who was not aware of their disruptive edit history regarding the RfC and you are welcome to join the discussion in the Bach RfC as described there. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

On the page Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach, there was an RfC proposed 6 December. I thought it ended by about Jan. 6 without consensus. The proposer of it, User:Fountains-of-Paris, says it is still open and based on that, has reverted many edits made by me and by User:Francis Schonken

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Much discussion on the Talk page.. Patience until now.

How do you think we can help?

If possible resolve the question, has the RfC ended by the rules, or not. In some closure notices, "Edit warring" has been mentioned. Can you discern who is doing that? Fountains-of-Paris has made a claim about it.

Fountains-of-Paris has edited and removed my talk page comments at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach (diff1, diff2). Based on this I think it best Fountains-of-Paris would leave the Johann Sebastian Bach article and its talk page alone for the time being. I'd prefer Fountains-of-Paris to do this voluntarily. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editors of the filing of this request on their talk pages. It is the responsibility of the filing editor to notify the other editors. This case will not be opened until the other editors are notified. There had been an RFC concerning this article. There was apparently uncertainty as to the status of the RFC, with some editors thinking that it was No Consensus, and some thinking that it was still open. Both views were correct. There was no consensus, but there had been no formal closure. I have formally closed the RFC as No Consensus. This means that discussion may begin here with proper notice and agreement by the editors, or another RFC may be submitted with better publicity, e.g., at WP:WikiProject Music. My recommendation is to attempt moderated dispute resolution, and to use an RFC if moderated dispute resolution is inconclusive. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• Note - I will not be opening this case, because I have become marginally involved by closing the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Earlier today you closed the Bach RfC and did you notice that there was an admin request that this RfC be closed by on adminstrator on the AN/RfC admin board? The items brought up on the DRN board were apparently made by one of the two editors who have been forum shopping and edit warring on the Bach page for several weeks. There is currently an admin Full Page Protect on the article from my request to protect the page from their edit warring here , and you can read the history. Another previous Full page protection by another admin the week before is also there which you can readily find on the Bach edit history page as well. The current summary is that there are 4-5 editors supporting the new edit with citations added, and two editors who Oppose it. The easier solution would seem to be to allow the admin request for an administrator close to stand since it is already over half way through the waiting list there, if you could to return the RfC status to its Open status pending the already requested admin close by an administrator. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - No. There wasn't a request for an administrator to close the RFC. There was a request for an experienced editor to close the RFC. The RFC has now been closed. Discussion at DRN is voluntary but can now proceed if the parties agree. If the other editors think that there are conduct issues instead of a content dispute, they may report the conduct issues at WP:ANEW or WP:ANI. I encourage the editors to discuss the content issue here, because that may ameliorate the conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• The request from admin for the close on the admin page was here: , and I do not know if the warning by the same admin on the Talk page for User:Frances was known to you, due to his edit warring as part of the history. To my knowledge, volunteers on the DRN page are not supposed to participate in or close RfCs in progress. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

That isn't a request for a close by an administrator. It is a request for a close by an experienced editor. The RFC is now closed. If an editor is dissatisfied with the close, they can request closure review at WP:AN on the grounds that the closer misjudged consensus, but closures are very seldom reopened on the grounds that the closer was not an admin. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

My statement was that it was a request from admin on the admin page. Volunteers at DRN are not supposed to participate in or close RfCs as you have done in this case. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

DRN Coordinator's note: Fountains-of-Paris, DRN volunteers — indeed all dispute resolution volunteers — are regular Knowledge editors who happen to also work in DR. The fact that they work at DRN does not restrict them from also doing anything any other editor can do except things which might cause their neutrality to come into question in a DR case, in which case they should not take or withdraw from the DR case. Robert McClenon has cured any question about that by recusing himself in this case. Frankly, under the circumstances here, I don't know that was really necessary, but since he has chosen to do it I respect his decision not to give the mere appearance of impropriety. And Robert is right: No one has the right to insist that only an administrator close a RFC. In any event, Robert has withdrawn from this case and no further discussion of his participationances here is needed or appropriate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC) (current DRN Coordinator)

@TransporterMan: Most all editors are aware of the usefullness of the DRN process when it is not targeted as part of forum shopping and edit warring. When an editor cares about the DRN process, therefore, an editor who has knowledge that RfC is open and that forum shopping are taking place, then this editor has some type of responsibility for reporting that there is an open RfC to the DRN board for proper notification. The edit warring and forum shopping by User:Martindale and User:Francis have been reported on the appropriate admin board and there have been two resulting Full Page Protection granted on the Bach article. If someone were to alter the DRN notifications to now state that "DRN volunteers are now granted permission to preview new DRN cases and close out RfCs which they want to as long as they re-assign them to other DRN volunteers later," then you would be justified in reverting such poor alterations to DRN policy. I continue to believe that DRN volunteers are generally editing in good faith, and that not knowing that there were two Full Page Protections granted against edit warring and forum shopping would have avoided an improperly started DRN here when it was already known to the initiating editor User:Martindale that an RfC was open at the time of his filing the DRN. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I have now notified both other participants on their Talk pages. Marlindale (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I noticed the above Summary of dispute by Francis Schonken and verified for myself that User:Fountains-of-Paris had deleted some paragraphs that Francis had entered on Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach. I join Francis in urging that Fountains-of-Paris voluntarily leave the Bach page alone. Marlindale (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Note to participants: Why is there another RfC about the reversions and edits discussed in the prior RfC that was just closed?! Such editing behaviours can come across as being in bad faith, especially after having a DRN case opened, an old RfC case closed, and now a recently revived RfC-topic opened. IF the editors still wish to have the case accepted and moderated at DRN, I will close the RfC as being "premature, and taken to DRN", otherwise I will leave the RfC to it's natural course and close the DRN case (i.e. this one). I will accept the case if the editors still wish to continue at DRN. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Marlindale, Fountains-of-Paris, and Francis Schonken: for responses. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Marllndale here: The new RfC was opened by User:Fountains-of-Paris. In the Talk page I objected to opening it, because I thought the RfC would block other things I'd like done (rescuing my and Francis Schonken's about 20 edits from their reversion by Fountains-of-Paris). You see we have a sharp division of us 3 editors into 1+2. Perhaps we (2) and you might agree that the new RfC was opened too soon after the old one was closed. More crucially it seems to me that Fountains-of-Paris has abused the RfC process and he should not be allowed to open any new one (on the Bach article, until some distant future?). Also, the Bach article can now only be edited by administrators until the 24th. I would like to have at the very least a week after that before any new RfC. About the possibilities for moderated discussion here, i'm doubtful but would prefer that to an RfC on the Bach Talk page. Marlindale (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support putting the recently initiated RfC on hold for the time being, in order to not interfere with the DRN.

Further that RfC, as posted at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach is a bit ill-conceived, was ill-prepared, and WP:SNOW-ish as for its expected result. Whether or not Fountains-of-Paris stays away from the JSB biography voluntarily, Fountains-of-Paris should learn how to prepare an RfC that shows something else than "I want to dominate the topic for at least another month". That's not how Knowledge editing works.

On the content matter of the RfC: CPE's death was not all that significant in the reception trajectory of his father. First the son was way more famous than the father at the time of death (so 1788 is a CPE-related date, not a date significant for the JSB reception). From The Art of Fugue in 1751–52 to 1900 1800 (when a steady stream of Bach-publications began) the only works of JSB that were published were his four-part chorales. These were published before CPE got involved with these publications, then he co-edited a few books, then they went on being published after CPE's death: CPE's death was not a significant date for this aspect of Bach-reception. As for CPE's estate: the music he had owned of his father stayed in private hands before as after his death, without anything of that estate being published before 1900 1800.

On the other hand, the start of the 19th century is an important date in the reception history of JSB:

• The year 1900 1800 was exactly 50 years after the composer's death, and as a result of that several publishers in several countries prepared and published JSB's music, and his first biography. His music was performed publicly (including large scale works such as BWV Anh. 167 which at the time of publication and first 19th-century public performances was believed to be JSB's).
• The whole development leading to the Bach Revival (Zelter, Itzig and Abraham Mendelssohn progeny, Sing-Akademie,...) went definitely in a new phase from around 1900 1800.
• Quote (from Jonathan Berkahn. WRESTLING WITH THE GERMAN DEVIL: FIVE CASE STUDIES IN FUGUE AFTER J. S. BACH. Victoria University of Wellington, 2006. p. 37):

  There are, in a sense, two Bachs. One was born in 1685 in Eisenach, died in 1750, and lived as an organist and Kantor, part of the milieu of court, town, and church in eighteenth-century Germany. (...) The other Bach was born, slowly and painfully, during the first half of the nineteenth century; and he shows no sign of dying any time soon...

(emphasis added) – illustrating that historians see the change of century as the significant time indication of the turning point in Bach-reception.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Marlindale: I noticed the filing was by Fountains-of-Paris, and while I also think it is #TooSoon for an RfC discussing the same area to be opened, it seems to be of a slightly different focus ... however, for the purposes of the DRN it should be closed since it is dealing with such a close area though I am also open to the possibility of it running while I mediate here. In regards to the "sharp division", welcome to why the DRN exists though if the division is too stubborn then the case may be deferred to Formal Mediation (a much slower and painstaking process, though it does its job well). However, if all parties are willing then this could be brought to a peaceful resolution. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC) - Post edit conflict; I have yet to do my full research but I'll get back to you about the years and such forth. I'll probably listen to what little Bach music I have.

Agree with Drcrazy102 that more polarization on editors ("2 vs. 1" and the like) is not what we need here. Recent talk page archives show that there are at least a dozen of regular contributors to the JSB talk page, with many more chiming in every once and awhile. The most recent development seems to have been that other editors to the talk page were more or less chased away, for instance by this premature archiving by Fountains-of-Paris. If someone removes every topic that is not the one they initiated and some answers and topics that are not to their liking, such polarization becomes inevitable. Fountains-of-Paris should cease and desist their methods, or stay away from the page altogether, in order to give normal dialogue and participation a chance. After all, such dialogue and participation may generate more support to their positions than chasing everyone away but the most comitted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello from Marlindale: At three points in the above Francis typed "1900" where he seems to have meant "1800"? I think Francis has extensive knowledge of Bach and his legacy and have no other quibbles. About procedure, I think it would be most unfortunate if this issue of where to set signpost years in Bach's legacy, being discussed here, were to prevent other work on the article. Marlindale (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, yes ammended: 1900 1800. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

'New question, on RfC rules: While an RfC is active on an article's Talk page, not yet having consensus, is it permitted to edit the article? Under some restrictions, and if so what restrictions? Presumably the edit should neither assume nor contradict the posed RfC issue. Marlindale (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There is obviously no prohibition to edit an article during an RfC. There are no restrictions either, provided that everyone is committed to find a solution that can have a broad consensus.

Taking it from the top down:

• 7 december Fountains-of-Paris initiates an RfC with "...The apparent desire of the recent editors is to present a prettified and Disneyland version of the biography of Bach which deletes the rough times of Bach's legacy immediately after his death and the irreparable losses of huge parts of his manuscripts and compositions...", and a proposed text containing "Many of Bach's unpublished manuscripts were distributed among the family members at the time of his death. Unfortunately, the poor financial condition of some of the family members led to the undocumented sale or destruction of parts of the unpublished compositions of Bach,..."
• Over a month later, after a discussion with mutliple participants, Marlindale adds some of that requested content to the article (not exactly with Fountains-of-Paris' wording, but pretty close to it), including "...Most scores went either to the oldest son Friedemann or to CPE Bach. "Most everything that went to" CPE was preserved, while "Friedemann's share ... has come down to us in incomplete and scattered form," because Friedemann, after becoming unemployed, "gradually sold off his inheritance" of his father's manuscripts by putting them up for auction...." (which was added with adequate referencing).
• Some edits by Francis Schnook and Marlindale later that reads: "..."Most everything that went to" Carl Philipp Emanuel was preserved, while Wilhelm "Friedemann's share ... has come down to us in incomplete and scattered form," because Friedemann, after becoming unemployed, "gradually sold off his inheritance" of his father's manuscripts by putting them up for auction..." (with refs &c.) – which basicly gives some details regarding the "...rough times of Bach's legacy immediately after his death and the irreparable losses of huge parts of his manuscripts and compositions...", as originally suggested by the initiator of the RfC.
• Instead of evaluating that updating on its content (pretty close to what they asked...) Fountains-of-Paris blandly reverts (including a lot of reverting of other updates unrelated to the RfC), and files for page protection, without any discussion of the content of the updates (i.e. only discussing the procedural aspect of "RfC going on")
• The same scenario repeats a week later, with another series of updates previously discussed on the talk page, and partially related to the topic of the original RfC (and reverted by Fountains-of-Paris without even looking at or commenting on the content of these updates).

Obviously, trying to update the article in a way that may find approval (as Marlindale and Francis Schonken did) is not the problem here; Fountains-of-Paris' reverting on shaky procedural arguments, without acknowledging the updates went for a large part in the direction of what they wanted to accomplish with the RfC, without even discussing the content of these updates, was obviously the problem here (together with a lot of Fountains-of-Paris' obviously sanctionable actions such as deleting and modifying other editors' comments on the talk page). For that reason it would be best Fountains-of-Paris leaves the article alone, voluntarily, for the time being. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

{ping|Drcrazy102} Hello from Marlindale. I'm still waiting for an authoritative answer to my recent "new question" on editing an article during an RfC, although I'm glad Francis Schonken says it's OK. I note that someone, I suppose User:Fountains-of-Paris, deleted the signature from a short paragraph I wrote above, leaving it unidentified. On the issue of "edit warring" I recommend looking at the recent edit history of the article Johann Sebastian Bach to see many reversions by Fountains-of-Paris as described above by Francis Schonken. Also on "forum shopping," I only submitted the case to DRN, although here at DRN, other possible forums have been suggested to us. Marlindale (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Communism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Σ (talk · contribs)
• Viriditas (talk · contribs)
• Rajulbat (talk · contribs)
• Jack Upland (talk · contribs)
• Emijrp (talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A quick chronology: Viriditas added a short paragraph to the lead section which several other users considered to be non-neutral. It has since been removed by a few editors, and restored by a few editors. A brief discussion occurred at the talk page, resulting in very little happening. Viriditas' most recent response to me was: Appealing to ad hominem and character assasination is about as far from a rational debate as you can get. Is this what communists think substitutes for logic? That would explain their penchant for death and destruction. Responding to that is above my paygrade, and his recent contributions at Talk:Veganism (as well as his block log) indicate that he is familiar with the path this discussion is going on. Next, I made this post at DRN.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempting to engage on the talk page has not yielded any results. Viriditas has escalated the crisis to the point where negotiations are better fit to take place with the intervention of more experienced and uninvolved editors.

How do you think we can help?

Perhaps more experienced and uninvolved editors could more tactfully negotiate in this discussion.

The communism article is being held hostage by the filing party who has blocked criticism from appearing in the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: All involved editors have been notified; there has also been a sufficient amount of back-and-forth discussion between parties. The case is ready for a Volunteer to accept. I am neither accepting, nor declining the case. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Another volunteer note: I have struck out various conduct allegations made by the parties so far. The parties are admonished that DRN neither handles nor allows conduct allegations or discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC) (Current DRN coordinator)

Thanks for the note. With that in mind, I only wished to explain why I disengaged from the discussion and brought it to this noticeboard. →Σσς. (Sigma) 19:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yet another volunteer note - Of the six listed editors, only two have provided statements. Participation in DRN is voluntary. This case is waiting for a moderator for what may be a content dispute between two editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:NCIS (franchise) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Unframboise (talk · contribs)
• AussieLegend (talk · contribs)
• Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk · contribs)
• Drmargi (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute rests in whether JAG, the original series within the NCIS franchise, is actually part of the NCIS franchise. Donald P. Bellisario's legal case against CBS, which was settled out of court, notes that all derivatives of NCIS are also derivatives of JAG, and thus belong to the "JAG/NCIS franchise"; NCIS is also clearly a JAG spin-off. However, editors seem to maintain that it doesn't seem to count at all, though no evidence can be found to back this claim up.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There was a discussion, in which evidence was provided that states an JAG/NCIS military franchise exists, though AussieLegend appears to claim that as this legal document was only filed by the creator of both JAG and NCIS (and what does he know) it isn't a verifiable source.

How do you think we can help?

State, without bias, whether JAG should be considered part of the NCIS franchise. More opinions on this matter will help to put this issue to bed.

Unframboise started a discussion at Talk:NCIS (franchise) asking why JAG was not included as part of the NCIS franchise. Central to the discussion is whether JAG, as the original series used by NCIS as a venue for its backdoor pilot, can be part of the derivative work's franchise. This is not a position supported by media franchise, which is linked from the article, so I answered accordingly. Discussion continued until Unframboise decided to add the series information anyway, despite no consensus having been reached. Unframboise continued to disrespect both WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, restoring the information after it was opposed. It was at this point that I decided to seek the opinion of other editors, and started a discussion at WT:TV#What constitutes a franchise?. The first uninvolved editor to respond supported that argument that JAG is not part of the NCIS franchise. Unframboise continues to argue the contrary. To be brutally honest, I am not expecting that this discussion will result in anything positive. Unframboise has been decidedly uncivil to date. On his talk page he made a point of linking to this gif when I attempted to discuss another matter. Attempts to discuss with him have resulted in posts being completely ignored, or discussions being prematurely terminated. and he still ignores BRD and STATUSQUO. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editor of this case. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, just a side-note from me, yes I have, and he has responded to the notification --Unframboise (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the notice has now been given. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but it appears to be ready to be accepted. I will remind the parties to avoid edit-warring on the article, and to be civil and concise both on the talk page and here. Civility is required everywhere in Knowledge, and especially in dispute resolution, and overly long posts do not clarify. When this case is opened, the mediator will provide more detailed instructions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Just as a point of order, perhaps. All franchises have a point of origin. For JAG and NCIS, the origin is JAG, the series during which the NCIS pilot (which WP denizens insist on referring to as a "backdoor" pilot) was broadcast. Moreover, franchising is linear and directional, stemming from the point of origin. As such NCIS is part of the JAG franchise; that's easily discerned, just as NCIS:LA and NCIS: NO are part of the NCIS franchise. The question then, becomes whether NCIS can subsume its point of origin, JAG, into its own franchise. Intellectually, it makes sense because the two are connected, but do we have NCIS without JAG as membership in the franchise would suggest? That is the question. --Drmargi (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Not all fictional universes are franchises: A franchise commonly needs a brandholder (the franchisor) who grants a license to use the brand to a different person/company (the licensee). Of course this is directional, but note that the franchisor only needs to own the brand; he does not ever have to produce any content by that brand name first, which can make the linear/downstream situation subtly tricky. As long as the article is largely written in-universe, none of this can be decided. Without the real-world franchising information, the title does not match the contents anyway. However, it might be a case of a WP:COMMONNAME, which could be technically incorrect both on the "NCIS"-only part (because the NCIS half of the fictional universe has grown so much bigger than the JAG part that it is omitted), and on the "franchise" part (because there is no franchising). But this common usage remains yet to be shown. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the use of franchise in this context is a loose adaptation of the business model, and does not follow it strictly. It may be that in the industry such a thing is done, but on-Wiki, the term is used to describe clusters of programs, such as the so-called Law and Order franchise, and as such, is an in-house creation. --Drmargi (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The discussion on talk:NCIS (franchise) concerns whether these shows occupy the same fictional universe, which is not exactly the same thing as being part of the same franchise. Discussion there focuses on shared storylines and character interaction, not on legal or economic matters. Sometimes disputes escalate because people focus on the parts of the issue that are easy to define when the real problem is a subjective editorial decision. What question are the participants really trying to answer? "The article should say they are/aren't part of the same universe"? "The article should/shouldn't say they're part of the same franchise"? "The article should refer to their relationship as "? My best guess here, not knowing either of the participants, is that the real issue is whether JAG should be mentioned in this article (whether it is officially part of the franchise or not) and whether it should receive a whole sub-section to itself or just a mention and link. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I am accepting this case for moderated discussion. Here are the usual ground rules. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. Civility is required in Knowledge, and especially in dispute resolution. Long non-concise posts do not help, and confuse. Be civil and concise. Every editor should check on this page at least every 48 hours, and should respond to any requests by the moderator. I will check on this page at least every 24 hours. Do not edit the article while there is moderated discussion. Engage in discussion here, not on user talk pages or the article talk page. Such misplaced comments may be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Please restate the issue. Is the question about what shows should be listed in the franchise? If so, is there a reason why the original show should not be listed? Please state what you think is the issue and how the article should read. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Two editors who were not the original parties to this case have made comments. I will be adding them to the list of parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Nearly 48 hours ago, I asked the two original parties if my summary of the dispute was correct. I haven't yet gotten an answer from them, although two other editors have joined. I see three possible options to this terminological point.

1. The franchise is called the NCIS franchise, but also includes JAG, from which NCIS was spun off through a backdoor plot.

2. The franchise is called the JAG/NCIS franchise, and includes JAG and the various NCIS shows.

3. The franchise is called the NCIS franchise, and excludes JAG.

What editors are agreeable to each option or disagree? Why or why not?

Please reply within 24 hours (not 48 hours), or I will have to close the thread for lack of response. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.