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:Kshama Sawant#Self published sources and Sawant.27s positions (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ricky81682 (talk · contribs)
• Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs)
• GraniteSand (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Should Sawant's campaign issues section states that she "is also a supporter of expanding public transit and bikeways, ending corporate welfare, ending racial profiling, reducing taxes on small businesses and homeowners, protecting public sector unions from layoffs, living wage union jobs, and social services." citing her campaign page

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talkpage discussion (added by Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum)

How do you think we can help?

I think suggestions could be made on the best way to describe what the issues of the campaign were. If the general view is that the best way is to quote from the candidate's page itself, then I'll defer and focus more on independent sources but my view is that using the candidate's obviously self-servicing campaign rhetoric on the page is better removed then kept for an example of the issues of *the campaign* (which is not the same as her political positions).

•  Volunteer note: - At time of writing;
• Ricky81682 has notified all parties, however;

1. Dennis Bratland has declined to participate at DRN.
2. GraniteSand has has declined to participate at DRN.

• Since DRN is a voluntary moderation forum, and parties cannot be dragged into moderated discussion at DRN, this case will be closed due to: lack of participation.

If the dispute continues and the editors' positions change and would like to use DRN, a refiling is allowed and welcomed.

Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:33, 27 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:Karait (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• YuHuw (talk · contribs)
• Неполканов (talk · contribs)
• Toddy1 (talk · contribs)
• Warshy (talk · contribs)
• Dbachmann (talk · contribs)
• Wbm1058 (talk · contribs)
• 31.154.167.98 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is a conduct dispute arising from harrassment on Talk pages. The discussion began on Talk:Karait but soon spread to other talk pages:

Talk:Keraites Talk:Turkic_Karaite Talk:Crimean_Karaites Talk:Karaite_Judaism#Russian_Empire_Karaites_.28Qaraylar.29 Talk:Karaylar#Delete_or_Keep?

It spread to these pages is because User:Неполканов brought my attention to the issue of potential confusion with Crimean Karaites and various other ambiguous words which could be used to refer to them.

However the Harassment has also appeared on User Talk pages: User_Talk:Toddy1 User_Talk:Warshy

It began with my reversion of what I thought was vandalism (I apologized later) of an article here

I looked at User:Неполканов's edit histories to try and pinpoint exactly why they started to harrass me. I found this here apparently canvassing support for against the author of the article, an IP address from the biggest ISP company in Israel whose only contributions were on that article maybe the Wikimedia Administrative Offices can identify if that IP has ever been used consistently by another user before.

It turned out I was not the first person accused of being a sockpuppet for taking an interest tn this at that time foggy topic. The User WBM1058 had also been accused of being a sockpuppet here .

Looking through Неполканов's history he only ever seems to start editing wikipedia when Toddy1 needs assistance accusing sockpuppets. Toddy1's canvassed Warshy into this as you can see from that talk.

DBachmann said that we may have all been duped by a sockpuppet of another user but it did not stop the harassments which are too many to post here but an initial list was made here but they did not stop, and neither did my requests for them to stop.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to turn the other cheek, I have tried to be warm and welcoming, I have invited friendship, I have tried to reassure the users that I do not have any negative agenda and encourage the users to engage in discussion pages and bring their sources for un-sourced disputed content rather than talk about me as if I am a sockpuppet everywhere. Any content recommendations from the Users which have been made I have tried to include into the articles, I have taken advice etc..

How do you think we can help?

The Wikimedia officials can surely see the IP addresses which I am assigned by my IP service provider (a major company in my country). I always edit wikipedia from an IP address provided me by that provider. I believe if I can prove my true identity to one trusted Wikimedia Foundation Official that the Users can then be reassured that I am not the person they think I am and they may then join in discussing the facts about the articles rather than continue their current path of Harassment.

I was drawn into this when I spotted technical issues. My first related edit was to the unrelated article about Bungarus venomous snakes, where I removed a hatnote because Karait did not redirect there anymore; but it seems that I stepped into topic areas where one needs to tread carefully, to avoid getting bitten by a Bungarus. I understand that there is no one correct way to spell "Karait"; that varies depending on what foreign language the word has been translated or transliterated from. I understand that peoples characterized as being "Karaits" may come from different geographic regions, far separated from each other, and I understand that some "Karaits" identify as members of the Jewish faith, or some variant of that, while others do not consider themselves to be Jewish. I've seen that Knowledge has multiple articles covering various geographic, ethnic and religious variants of "Karaits", and that editors, some based in Israel and some based in Russia, cannot agree on how to disambiguate these topics. As an American who identifies as neither Russian nor Jewish, I have limited knowledge, and sorry, limited interest in, these topic areas. I believe that YuHuw is a good-faith new editor, and have no basis whatsoever on which to even remotely suspect them of "socking". Wbm1058 (talk) 14:10, 27 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:KH-1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 20editor16 (talk · contribs)
• KH-1 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

https://en.wikipedia.org/Computer_forensics - an external link has been added to the article. The link is to a notable article on "computer forensic expert's specialisation" which in my view greatly complements the topic. User: KH-1 has removed this link. I left a note and undid the edit. KH-1 appears to be determined to get rid of all external links rubber-stamping all as spam and removed the link again. I am a retired expert in computer forensics and this was my first attempt to contribute to wikipedia. I don't believe user KH-1 has any understanding of computer forensics or desire to read the linked article first. Unfortunately, there is appears to be no other contact details on his/her user page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

tried to leave a comment on editing page and user talk.

How do you think we can help?

Review KH-1 contributions and comment on them. It appears KH-1 is simple an external links Nazi.

---

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:Paul Singer (businessman)#Copy edit (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• FoCuSandLeArN (talk · contribs)
• Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs)
• SegataSanshiro1 (talk · contribs)
• NickCT (talk · contribs)
• Jonathan A Jones (talk · contribs)
• ‎Comatmebro (talk · contribs)
• Meatsgains (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This post concerns Paul Singer (businessman). I recently copy edited the article due to its NPOV tag. One of the sentences I removed from the lede was reinstated by Nomoskedasticity, mainly "His business practices have been described by detractors as having the characteristics of a vulture fund, a characterization which Singer rejects." The phrase has since undergone several changes, and is now somewhat different, however the "vulture" term remains steadfast. I hold the use of "vulture" is not only non-neutral but pejorative and offensive, as treated in RS. Posterior discussions, such as here, here and here, were thoroughly unproductive. I request mediation with the intention of receiving feedback regarding both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, their ramifications with regards to the use of the term, and hopefully an end to this slight content dispute. So far I've been able to fathom a 3v3 !vote regarding the use of said term, which is indeed far from consensus. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've posted messages on both BLPN and NPOVN, but not a single person outside of the disputing editors cared to offer any comments.

How do you think we can help?

I am hoping you can provide advice and direction with regards to policy on this issue (e.g. neutrality), and finally put us on the right path to improving the current article. I believe we are all willing to compromise and find common ground. We need to get this moving. There will continue to be content disputes every time the article is edited unless we find a way to resolve the article's tone and the use of a specific set of adjectives.

• With apologies -- I decline to participate. This issue was the subject of an RfC that was closed three months ago. I do not think the interest of a single editor newly active on the page is justification for an extensive DR initiative. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The premise of the argument is unfounded. Vulture fund was discussed very heavily at W2W here and the consensus was to follow the sources and go with the commonly used term, that being Vulture fund. Editing a BLP, one has to be careful not to attribute the term to Singer specifically in Knowledge's voice, but do make sure sources are represented and there are many, many sources which indicate that he has been referred to as a vulture directly and others purely describing his business as a vulture fund. While the need to avoid smearing is necessary, but we're not here to avoid hurting people's feelings. Leaving this out would be akin to whitewashing and it's seriously damaging to Knowledge's credibility if this page is going to read like a nice PR piece for Singer (as it has in the past). The very simple solution would be to use the term, but use it wisely. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:Jonathan A Jones, User:SegataSanshiro1 and User:Nomoskedasticity. This conversation has had a lot of input from a lot of people. This looks like a somewhat extraordinary fourth bite at the DR apple by User:FoCuSandLeArN. NickCT (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Nomoskedasticity and SegataSanshiro1: this topic has gone round an apparently endless cycle of discussions, RFCs, noticeboards, and so on, raising forum shopping to a veritable artform. There's no real dispute here, just an editor not prepared to accept a clear and utterly uncontroversial consensus, which is that in this article we should adopt standard Knowledge practice and follow what the sources say about the subject. The term "vulture fund" in not intrinsically pejorative, though some sources use it in a pejorative fashion, but even if it were agreed to be so then there would be nothing wrong in noting that "vulture fund" is one of the descriptions widely applied to Singer's activities as long as such descriptions were properly sourced and due weight was applied. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I've stated from the beginning that I find the term to be non-neutral pejorative as well as offensive. I think if the argument is being made that the term should be used "sparingly", than the argument should be made that the term shouldn't be used at all. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Consensus on this issue was claimed to have been met on RfCs and noticeboards however, prior discussions prove that the same involved editors disagree on whether the term should be added to Singer's BLP. I maintain that the term "vulture" is a derogatory pejorative not suitable for Knowledge, especially a BLP. Comparing somebody or their business practices to a bird that feeds on the death of a sick or injured animal or person violates WP:NPOV. The opposition (those who favor adding the term) argue that there is only one editor who is unwilling to accept use of the term but there are several who disagree with adding it. Clearly we have not reached a definitive consensus since this issue is being addressed yet again. I would like to see feedback from other users (not the same ones pinged here) and for an admin to take a look at this dispute. Meatsgains (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer's note: Two important points to FoCuSandLeArN:

• DRN will not accept cases where there has been no extensive and recent discussion on a talk page, preferably but not necessarily the article talk page (but not through edit summaries). The most recent discussion I can find at the article talk page is approaching two months old and I cannot find any more recent discussion which involves much the same editors elsewhere. Unless you can point us to some more recent discussion, this request will be closed 24 hours from now.
• It is the filing party's obligation, as noted at the top of the page, to notify the other listed parties with a note on their user talk pages of the filing of this case. The template {{DRN-notice|Paul Singer}} — ~~~~ can be used for that purpose, or you can leave a custom note with a link here. A notice only on the article talk page will not suffice. However, having said that, if this is going to be closed due to lack of recent discussion there's no point in bothering to give those notices.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

 To DRN volunteers: TransporterMan I did some quick digging through the archives of the BLP/N and the NPOV/N (both very dusty and dark BTW) and found this NPOV/N thread with the last dated comment being from ... New Year's Day (UTC)! So it has had almost three weeks to cool off. I haven't read the actual content in each page's discussion yet which may influence any decisions since it has apparently "done the rounds" of WP:DR forums. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Good catch, Dr. C. FoCuSandLeArN, I think that probably solves the issue raised in my first bullet point, above (if barely), but you still need to notify the other editors and this listing will be closed as abandoned if you don't do it in the next 2-3 days. Also bear in mind that the other editors must choose to participate here since the purpose of DRN is to help editors to try to come to consensus. If they do not choose to do so — they are not required to do so — then this will be closed as futile. One of the things that a large passage of time between the end of discussion and filing here does is to make participants reluctant to restart something they thought was already finished. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the above points. I posted this last night and have been away from a computer since. I'll rectify the notifications issue shortly. I am also aware of the participation caveat. I appreciate your help. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

 To DRN volunteers: I would like to formally recuse myself from moderation of this case due to being both involved in the WP:W2W RfC discussion - concerning the use of "Vulture Fund" and associations - with several of the above users and having other interactions with several of the above users in other areas that would likely bias me. I am still happy to help with providing unthought-of ideas and solutions but will stay at arm's length from the dispute. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 02:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer's note: I'm not taking this case, but I do have a question to ask FoCuSandLeArN, ‎Comatmebro, and Meatsgains: There clearly has been a consensus in the past to use the term in this article. Consensus can, of course, change, but for it to change it must be changed. That means that there must be a new consensus discussion, either in the form of just a plain discussion or in the form of a RFC or both, which comes to the new consensus. (Or a long-unreverted edit in contradiction of the prior consensus, but that's not the case here.) If no new consensus is formed — that is, the new discussion ends in either a consensus to retain the existing consensus or in "no consensus" — the existing consensus remains in place. It is, also of course, permissible to start new discussions or continue prior discussions in an effort to change consensus. (That right does not mean, however, that the opponents must participate or continue to participate in those attempts) However, to form a new consensus one must either bring new supporters into the discussion (which presumes that the reasons to support both options are very close in weight so that the number of supporters becomes relevant), convince some of the opponents to change or compromise their position, or most often to advance new arguments or new circumstances which were not considered or not adequately considered in the prior consensus discussions to show that the prior consensus was inappropriate. With that introduction, I'm concerned that there's not really a dispute here for us to moderate. DRN does not take cases where there is already consensus on a dispute. In this case, that means that there must be at least some demonstration, of the type noted above, that the existing consensus should change. What has been offered in the discussions since the last consensus was formed on this matter which should cause that consensus to change? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I find your predisposition quite unsettling, especially after the points you established above. First of all, I am a new uninvolved editor (as Nomoskedasticity aptly mentioned) who's entered the discussion - a "new supporter" as you put it. I did not participate in the aforementioned RfC, which by the way was deemed "weak". There have been other editors in previous discussions (such as Capitalismojo) which were not summoned, so I hold there is ample space for discussion. This has been an ongoing dispute for months (as far as I've gathered), and the new circumstances you mentioned are presently clear. Now, I can propose a new RfC in due course, or we can try to reach a favourable outcome for the encyclopaedia together through this thread. I have tried to raise this issue in several instances, during which no new editors have come forth; how do you suggest we bring new users into the discussion without being accused of forum shopping? What you're effectively implying is that DRN is only viable for stale RfCs. If that's the case, then we should all be very worried about how the encyclopaedia processes discussion. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You say, "the new circumstances you mentioned are presently clear." Do you mean something other than you being a new participant? If so, what are those new circumstances? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding new circumstances: The W2W RfC regarding the use of the term "vulture fund" occurred after the RfC in question, so if anything circumstances have strengthened the consensus established. Furthermore, the RfC in question did not involve many of the editors summoned here, though many were involved in this one (over a year ago) which also established consensus on the use of the term. The circumstances are the same as usual: this has done the rounds multiple times, has seen countless editors get involved and establish consensus repeatedly on the term's usage (we could even do an overall tally across the board if required). Presently, the only "dispute" which is occurring is between editors who choose to respect sources and consensus and those who do not - there is no grey area here, Knowledge's guidelines are pretty clear and I agree with many of the editors here that there is simply nothing to discuss. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The W2W you are referring to was over a page name, not including the term "vulture" on a BLP. Also, please point me in the right direction where you are seeing "countless editors" getting involved in this dispute. It has been the same six editors going back and forth with no forward movement. Meatsgains (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe I made myself clear with the above post, TransporterMan. The exact conditions you listed were met, and yet here we stand back at square one. What do you suggest be done? This dispute is not going away by sheer ignorance. "There are no uninteresting things, only uninterested people." Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - If it isn't clear to User:TransporterMan what has changed since consensus was reached, then, User:FoCuSandLeArN, then the failing is yours for not explaining, not his for not understanding. I don't see what has changed other than you being a new participant either. Refusal to answer a simple question from the coordinator is not a good way to get this case started. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I believe refusing to take the case before asking questions was "not a good way to get this case started". In his own words:

• "there must be a new consensus discussion" - there were 3 in the past month; none were even near conclusive.
• "It is, also of course, permissible to start new discussions or continue prior discussions in an effort to change consensus. (That right does not mean, however, that the opponents must participate or continue to participate in those attempts) However, to form a new consensus one must either bring new supporters into the discussion (which presumes that the reasons to support both options are very close in weight so that the number of supporters becomes relevant)" - last consensus was deemed "weak", hence this is precisely where the number of participants takes special weight.
• "convince some of the opponents to change or compromise their position, or most often to advance new arguments or new circumstances which were not considered or not adequately considered in the prior consensus discussions to show that the prior consensus was inappropriate" - this is precisely what is being attempted here.

Now can we please move forward? If, as TransporterMan implied above, DRN is merely a venue for stalled RfCs, I'd be very happy to organise one promptly. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

FoCuSandLeArN, can you answer the simple question of "What new circumstances have come to light since the prior RfCs?" This does not include a single uninvolved editor (yourself) entering into the long-running dispute that has achieved some consensus. Give us a simple answer, not a round-the-merry-go-round-we-go response quoting the DRN Co-ordinator's concerns about accepting this case for moderation, which are quite valid considering the DRN "Charter" and the sheer response-size this dispute has garnered. I would also invite @Nomoskedasticity, SegataSanshiro1, NickCT, Jonathan A Jones, Comatmebro, and Meatsgains: to present, to TransporterMan (DRN Co-ordinator) and/or Robert McClenon (highly respected DRN Moderator), what is new to the debate, if anything, since the three previous RfCs were completed regarding 'Vulture Funds' and their managers, in the context of the Paul Singer (businessman) article? Please remember to be civil and not comment on user conduct, keep the focus on the article content and respond concisely. -- Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

To make things more simple for the volunteers, I have taken the time to create some tables and a timeline with the number of times the editors here have been involved in these discussions. There's been a lot of claims that not many editors have been involved, that it's always the same editors or that consensus was weak. Let's just let the facts speak for themselves. I apologise for the length of this, but perhaps it will save more time in the long-run. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Before I provide "what is new to the debate", one thing to note is that two of the users below supporting use of the term have been blocked indefinitely (Joe Bodacious & Two kinds of pork). Also, the W2W should be omitted because this discussion is in regards to Singer's BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The RfC statement was as follows: "Currently on Singer's page, the term "vulture" is described as having "attained widespread recognition throughout the media, and even within intergovernmental organisations, international financial institutions and numerous governments." Should this statement be added to a BLP?" You titling the RfC below as "Should use of the term "vulture" be added to a BLP?" is inaccurate because that is not what users were discussing.

You also failed to mention that other users such as Capitalismojo responded to the RfC's threaded discussion opposing use of the term stating: "Your continuing personal attacks are inappropriate. Please cease. Multiple editors disagree with your approach. I have carefully read the refs. The most reliable don't refer to the subject as a vulture. They refer to his funds as "vulture funds" and to him as the inventor of "vulture funds"."

Look forward to hearing from others. Meatsgains (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have not "fudged" any figures or "framed" anything. Before I respond to your comments, may I remind you that the volunteers here have said specifically to refrain from personal attacks - advice which you have unfortunately ignored.

As for leaving out editors from talk page discussions, I did. I also left out editors who were in favour of usage of the term such as HughD (who I will refrain from pinging as I have with the others since there has been sufficient canvassing in these discussions already) since they were not part of establishing consensus through RfCs. As for the two blocked editors, that's a simple oversight on my behalf and is to be expected when you're going through multiple discussions attempting to tally-up the involvement of 30+ editors. Even not counting those two, the numbers still speak for themselves. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No users supporting use of the term in the RfCs you provided below responded to the threaded discussions so I'm not sure what you are referring to. Threaded discussions are absolutely used to establish consensus on RfCs. Meatsgains (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, leaving out my username in the table for RfC 2 is misleading. Meatsgains (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The number of discussions you (and other editors) were involved in appears next to your name on the table. I have not left out any of the editors in this discussion. Again, I have not mislead anyone - this table is there to count the number of editors not the amount of times they have participated. Please stop throwing around accusations or I will withdraw myself from these discussions along with the other editors. This is really getting on my nerves. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC 1: Should the article Paul Singer (businessman) mention that his company has been called a vulture fund? 16 July 2014 - 21 August 2014

New Editor	Term should not be used	Term should be used
Joe Bodacious		X
Meatsgains (3)	X
Jonathan A Jones (3)		X
QuiteUnusual		X
Darx9url		X
Comatmebro (3)	X
Kosh Vorlon		X
Elipongo		X (weak)
Jojalozzo		X
Damotclese		X (strong)
goethean		X
Stalwart111		X
Fraulein451	X
Two kinds of pork		X (conditional)
Fox1942		X
Stalwart111		X
Wallace McDonald		X
Nomoskedasticity (3)		X

RfC 2: Should use of the term "vulture" be added to a BLP? 30 August 2015 - 12 October 2015

New Editor	Term should not be used	Term should be used
Safehaven86	X
Gaijin42		X
NickCT (1)		X
Cwobeel		X
SegataSanshiro1 (2)		X (strong)

W2W: Using "Vulture fund" as a page name 14 October 2015 - 24 November 2015

Note: this is not part of the Paul Singer discussion, but the volunteers have asked what new things have happened since the last RfC, and this seems relevant. If it should not be taken into consideration, then feel free to ignore it.

New Editor	Term should not be used	Term should be used
Dcs002	X
Jayron32		X
Drcrazy102		X
FoCuSandLeArN (1)	X
SnowFire		X (weak?)
Lawrencekhoo		X
Calton		X
EEng		X

Totals

	Term should not be used	Term should be used
Not including W2W	4	19
Including W2W	6	25

Total number of editors involved: 31

Discussions started by FoCuSandLeArN:

Copy edit (talk page) - 30 November 2015

New involvement: 0

Paul Singer (businessman) (BLP noticeboard) - 4 December 2015

New involvement: 0

Paul Singer (NPOV noticeboard) - 15 December 2015

New involvement: 2 - support for usage of the term from an IP editor, minor point of clarification from a new editor

Talk:Paul Singer_(businessman)#Copy_edit (here) - 23 January 2016

New involvement: 0

---

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

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

Users involved

• Gonob (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Your people are scrubbing clean the Alex Jones (radio host) page.

There is much factual detail you omit in order to give him an untarnished reputation.

His divorce, the Amanda Bruce affair.

Your listing looks like an advert for his company.

Under "Controversies", there are none, just accounts of his TV appearance. That does not fit the definition of controversy. When I put one in it was deleted without explaining.

In short, wiki plays favorites, thus it is corrupt and not a repository of facts.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I think doing a blog exposing wiki for what it is really would be an idea.

How do you think we can help?

Start by allowing facts to be presented without bias.

---

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

• Template talk:NE regional map (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Riphamilton (talk · contribs)
• Whoop whoop pull up (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Whoop whoop pull up insists that TF Green Airport station should be listed on Template:NE regional map. Reverts have been going back and forth. Amtrak does not (and currently can not) serve that station. In order for there to be Amtrak service at the station, there needs to be significant construction done at the station, as no platform services a rail that is electrified - a requirement for Amtrak service. I don't believe this is disputed by anyone. There is no anticipated opening date for Amtrak service to TF Green. The construction has not been commenced; the construction has not even been funded. I concede that there are news articles that discuss the station. Amtrak's Master Plan lists such a station as merely a "long range plan.... under consideration" (page 6 of the most recent Master Plan, 2010). It should be noted that the Amtrak Master Plan is so speculative in nature that it lists an entirely new NextGen HSR NE corridor (to be completed by 2040) as a proposal in a 2012 addendum. In no way should the Master Plan be construed as a definitive forecast, particularly for purposes of a route map of an existing railroad line. There is no satisfactory source that shows with any certainty TF Green Airport will be served by Amtrak, therefore the station should not be listed on the route map.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I began the conversation on the template's talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Establish criteria for when a station should be added to the template for a United States railway, and provide a ruling in this case.

•  Volunteer note: - At time of writing;

1. The filing party has not notified the involved editor.
2. The discussion on the talkpage, while recent, is not sufficient for a DRN case; nor are undoes/reverts considered part of the "discussion count". Unless there is a secondary page being used to discuss this issue (e.g. user talkpage, Project page, etc.), this is considered insufficient discussion.
3. DRN does not "stablish criteria for when a station should be added to the template for a United States railway, and provide a ruling in this case." as we are intended for informal content dispute resolution. If such a criteria were to be made, it would most likely occur at either the relevant WikiProject(/s) - in this case WP:TRAINS, WP:WikiProject Stations, and/or WP:USA - or at WP:Village pump (policy). In both cases this would be achieved through an WP:RfC.

• Per the 2nd and 3rd reasons, I (or another DRN Volunteer) will be closing this case in 24 hours unless a more detailed discussion has occurred at a secondary page.

If the dispute continues, with discussion, then the case may be refiled and reconsidered without prejudice.

Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:20, 27 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. 'https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Muhammad#Aisha_.22reaching_age_of_puberty.22

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

Users involved

• Trinacrialucente (talk · contribs)
• Eperoton (talk · contribs)
• Jeppiz (talk · contribs)
• FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the section https://en.wikipedia.org/Muhammad#Household there is a very specific sentence which reads "Traditional sources dictate Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad,with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached puberty at the age of nine or ten years old". The dispute is that NONE of these "traditional sources", specifically the Hadith/Sunnah which contains the life of Muhammad as narrated by his contemporaries says Aisha ever reached puberty.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted mediation previously, but was told 2 months ago that the discussion on the Talk page was not extensive enough (although that is very subjective). 2 months later and there is still no resolution/consensus.

How do you think we can help?

As this has to do with the topic of religion, it would be best if there were unbiased arbiters who could make a clear decision based on the facts.

I would like to be party in dispute as I was one of the editors involved in the original dispute FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been extensive discussion on the talk page about Muhammad and Aisha over a period of months. However, there is also an RFC on the talk page that was opened on 3 December and has not been formally closed. This case cannot be accepted while the RFC is open, and can only be accepted after the RFC is open if the result of the RFC is No Consensus, because if the RFC is closed with consensus, we don't change consensus here. It is requested that someone, whether a DRN volunteer or otherwise, close the RFC. (If a DRN volunteer closes the RFC as No Consensus, they should recuse from accepting this case.) It should also be mentioned that Muhammad is subject to discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - In view of the length that disputes about Muhammad have been continuing, if content dispute resolution is appropriate, the parties should consider formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

If you are referring to the case I opened and was initially taken by Transporterman, it WAS closed due to pressure from Neil (not sure the designation for "official" or no). Regardless, can you guide us in what would be next steps for the WP:RFM process?

Trinacrialucente (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - The RFC appears to be No Consensus. However, in view of the sensitivity to some Muslim Wikipedians to what they see as anti-Muslim bias, I would prefer that the RFC be closed by a Muslim editor who did not participate in it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - User:TransporterMan - Was there previous mediation? If there was previous mediation, then attempting to continue this dispute here seems futile. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

As stated previously, there was no previous mediation on this topic.

And if you look through the entire dialogue, the problem is not anti-Muslim bias...it is the opposite. So, I hardly think having a Muslim editor close the RFC is objective or contructive, since that "bloc" are the ones creating the stalemate/preventing any edits. Let's drop the "PC" over-sensitivities and function like an academic encyclopedia. Any qualification of the religion of an editor to settle such a dispute is in itself a form of prejudice. I personally don't care what the religion (if any) the participating editor is, so long as the editor has not shown bias to the topic. Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I'm not saying that I've not touched this case previously, but if I have I don't remember it (which is entirely possible). The only other prior filing I can find is this one, which was closed for insufficient discussion (but I didn't do it). Incidentally, I'm conflicted out on this case, having had dealings with one or more of the parties in the past, except for routine administrative actions. — TransporterMan (TALK) 03:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

That's the same as this case, except that there has not been marginally recent discussion. There is also now a formal Request for Mediation at the MEDCOM about Muhammad and slaves. Does that conflict with this DRN request? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No, as I stated in the other filing, these are completely separate topics (the other involves slavery). This one we are discussing here is in fact much older, yet never been resolved.Trinacrialucente (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This case is probably in need of closure in 24 hours for two reasons, either of which would be sufficient. First, neither of the two editors named by the filing party has made a statement agreeing to mediation. Second, there is still an open RFC waiting for closure. (If the RFC is closed as No Consensus and the two editors make statements, this case may be opened.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This case is now also pending at the edit-warring noticeboard. DRN is not meant to handle a dispute that is pending in another forum, whether another content resolution forum, such as RFC, or a conduct resolution forum, such as ANEW (since edit-warring is a conduct issue). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 30 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:African Americans (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• DanJazzy (talk · contribs)
• Thomas.W (talk · contribs)
• Bishonen (talk · contribs) - Not involved in dispute, does not wish to participate; see "#Summary of by User:Bishonen" -- Doctor Crazy 102 23:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• X4n6 (talk · contribs) - previous discussion on Images in infobox with some overlap
• Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs) - previous discussion on Images in infobox with some overlap

Dispute overview

User:Thomas.W and User:Bishonen objected to me inserting images of notable African Americans on that page's infobox. They cited an attempted rule change at Wikiproject ethnic groups as their rationale for this refusal. The attempted rule change had been unanimously rejected.

In any case, other ethnic groups have images of notable personalities in the infobox e.g.Nubians, Hispanic and Latino Americans, Italians

I strongly feel that this is discriminatory practice.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to discuss the issue on the aforementioned talk pages, to no avail.

How do you think we can help?

I would like some clarity on whether putting images of notable African Americans on the infobox of that page is proper vide Knowledge policy.

No dispute for me. I was involved in a Mariah Carey image dispute. Like I just stated on my talk page: "The current big dispute regarding this is at Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Images#"Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members". A WP:Permalink for it is here." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The issue of image galleries in infoboxes has been previously discussed extensively. On 30 November 2015 an RfC was opened at Knowledge talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups under the title "Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups". It was listed at the following RfC sections: Knowledge policies and guidelines; Society, sports, and culture; Language and linguistics; History and geography; and was advertised at Knowledge:Centralized discussion. The question was clarified to be "Should montages of notable people be removed from ethnic group article infoboxes?". After 35 days, on 3 January 2016 the RfC was closed by User:Sandstein with the following rationale "I'm closing this following a request at WP:AN. The result of this RfC is that there is consensus to remove portrait galleries from the infoboxes of articles about ethnic groups. The main reasons given for this decision are that, lacking objective criteria, it is original research to determine who should be featured in the gallery, that this selection process generates a lot of unnecessary conflict, and that a few individuals are not an adequate visual representation of a large group of people. This also applies to articles about other than ethnic groups, such as nationalities, because the discussion has shown that the same arguments apply to these groups as well." The close was reviewed at AN/I and closed by User:RegentsPark with the comment "Looks like the consensus is that Sandstein's close is good. Boroska is not edit warring so nothing to do re Hungarians. RFC closed. Time to move on". The RfC attracted about 200 comments and the review at ANI a further dozen. Two respected, independent administrators judged the consensus to be in favour of removing montages of notable people from ethnic group article infoboxes, and moreover found that the strength of the arguments would equally apply to other, similar infoboxes.

The content issue is clear: User:Thomas.W was following community consensus in removing image galleries from African Americans and User: DanJazzy is guilty of disruptive editing in his attempts to override the broad community consensus There is also the conduct issues of wasting everybody's time by filling here. As if that were not enough, I note that he inserted a 6 x 6 gallery, when even the previous guidance limited the number of images to 20 (4 x 5). This is because a gallery of more than 4 images wide make the infobox expand considerably wider than its default, and there really has never been any justification or precedent for doing that. --RexxS (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - The filing party has not notified the other editors of this filing. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editors. There has been some discussion on the article talk page. Most of the discussion has been at the filing party's talk page. Other editors besides those identified here have discussed at the article talk page and should probably also be notified if this case is accepted. I will leave it up to other editors whether to accept or decline this case because the discussion has mostly been on the filing party's talk page, but would suggest that taking the discussion back to the article talk page for a few days might result in other editors offering useful opinions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

  Thank you for your intervention. My point was that this issue was extensively discussed on the article talk page. The consensus there supports my edit. However the two aforementioned editors differed;based on a Knowledge rule which does not exist.DanJazzy (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - It appears that administrator User:Bishonen says that she did not participate in a discussion about this subject, but something else. This will probably be taken as declining to take part in discussion of this issue (without prejudice to whether she is willing to discuss something else). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon, TransporterMan, and Bishonen: I have "struck" through Bishonen's name in the list of involved editors per comment in Bishonen's summary, though they may at any time rejoin and "unstrike" their name. I will look through the talkpages, both article and user, and see if any other editors need adding or removing. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: I have added two new users; @X4n6 and Flyer22 Reborn: per previous discussion of same topic in recent time, though not too recent. I will notify them of the dispute and place a notice on the talkpage for general interest editors to view.
• I would also ask DanJazzy and Thomas.W if there are any other current/recent threads of discussion besides;

1. Talk:African_Americans#Unnecessarily_crowding_the_infobox
2. Talk:African_Americans#Does_WP:_IMAGE_RELEVANCE_apply_here.3F
3. User_talk:DanJazzy#Your_repeated_edit_on_African_Americans
4. User_talk:DanJazzy#January_2016 and
5. User_talk:DanJazzy#Please_explain

Please provide a link to them in a comment below this. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Update - I have notified the two users listed above, and posted a notice on the article talkpage for general-interest editors to be aware of this case. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:57, 3 February 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:New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany#.22Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks.22 and this article (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk · contribs)
• Veggies (talk · contribs)
• 81.88.116.27 (talk · contribs)
• UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Is it acceptable to include a contentious SEE ALSO link without any sourcing basis, on the theory that Verifiability and I suppose also No Original Research are inapplicable to SEE ALSO links? It is claimed that since the policy on SEE ALSO links allows that they may include "tangentially related" topics, there is no requirement to use a source to demonstrate, if necessary, that the tangential relationship actually exists or is substantial or noteworthy. Unsourced links may not be objectionable in some circumstances, but in this case the unsourced connection attempts to compare two sets of sexual assault incidents involving numerous living people, without any sourcing or other independent basis for the comparison. User:Veggies wishes to compare these attacks to some attacks that apparently occurred at the NYC Puerto Rican Day Parade in 2000. * * * * No published analysis, commentary, opinion, news reporting or other material has compared these two incidents. Neither article contains any material that references the other. There are many obvious differences between the incidents. No reason is suggested why the comparison is especially apt, other than that Veggies thinks they are similar. If the comparison were put into a sentence ("These German sex assaults are similar to previous attacks that occurred at New York's Puerto Rican Day Parade in 2000."), it would be an unsourced contentious claim and hence OR subject to removal. Moreover, the Verifiability policy explicitly states that it is applicable to all parts of an article, right in the second paragraph of arguably the most painstakingly manicured piece of lawful verbiage on the Wiki. "All material . . . including everything in articles . . . must be verifiable." We have to assume that those words are carefully chosen and are meant literally, right?

The practice may be tolerable for non-contentious connections, but not otherwise IMO. Please advise.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk at the NOR noticeboard but can't get past the policy question of whether sourcing is required, and that question decides the dispute entirely. Veggies insists on the unsourced link, IP user objects to it, and noticeboard user not involved in the article dispute agrees that sourcing isn't needed.

How do you think we can help?

Tell us whether it is acceptable to put a contentious unsourceable SEE ALSO link in an article, based solely on an editor's own analysis of the topic(s).

• Relevant Background Info 1: Talk:New Year's Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany#"Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks" and this article
• Relevant Background Info 2: Knowledge:No original research/Noticeboard#Unsourced comparison of New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany incident with Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks incident

I'll copy what I wrote at WP:NORN:

Discussions on the article's talk page have become intractable and outside help is needed.

The New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany were a series of mass sex assaults carried out by groups of men in public during a celebratory period (New Years) upon strangers. The attacks involved mass groups of men separating and assaulting women as well as robbery.

The Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks were, likewise, a series of mass sex assaults carried out by groups of men in public during a celebratory period (Puerto Rican Day) upon strangers. The attacks involved mass groups of men separating and assaulting women as well as robbery.

Seeing the similarities between the two (both of which have been extensively cited in their respective articles using verifiable, reliable sources), I decided to place a link in the "See Also" section of the New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany article. I did this in accordance with the guidelines at WP:SEEALSO since I figured that readers who'd read the article might be interested in knowing about this very similar incident which had occurred years before in the US. Apparently, User:Dontmakemetypepasswordagain disagrees and has been trying to argue that there must be a verifiable citation in a reliable source which "links" the two before a "See Also" link can be added to an article. Asked where this policy can be found, he linked me to WP:V.

Simple version: Do comparable "See Also" links need "citations" from a verifiable source that links the two before editors can add them as links in "See Also" sections? I do not believe they do.

Despite the similarities between the incidents (sexual assault, festivities, groups), putting unsourced analogies into SEEALSO is a clear invitation to OR and POV-pushing. SEEASLO is there mainly to provide information directly/causally relevant to the main subject of the article - not to draw attention to supposed "similarities", especially if such "similarities" have NOT been extensively explored and overwhelmingly accepted as valid in RS's. If we go down this route - we'll end up with dozens of "similar" see also's - many of which will be inserted primarily for POV reasons. When you potentially have a large GROUP of "similar" incidents, the solution is to name the GROUP and make it into a CATEGORY. I believe this will also be a good mid-way solution here. Gucci81.88.116.27 (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Dispute involves whether or not it is a requirement of See Also links that the link be established by a source. Given that the wording of the policy allows for tangential links, I do not believe this to be the case. Given the considerable similarities between these specific events, I think the link is warranted. I do not feel that it is contentious, and I don't feel that it pushes any sort of non-neutral POV as neither event has a BLP type reputation that could be sullied by its linkage to another similar event. In fact, I'm not even sure what the claims of POV pushing refer to, as far as I can tell the people who say linking these events violates POV have not explained how it does so, or what POV is supposedly being pushed by their linking.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note There has been sufficient discussion at the article talk page. The other editors have been notified. I am neither accepting nor declining the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment WP:SEEALSO explicitly allows tangentially related links. (Though the rule on external links, WP:LINKNO, is strict in the way Anon81 describes.) A link to Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks is clearly allowed. The issue is the editorial decision of whether such a link would improve the article. The best bet in such cases is to gather more voices. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I discussed this at the talk page without reply, so I will just mention the argument one more time. "Tangential" does not imply unsourced. A tangential connection between two article topics could easily be established by referencing a source. Here the focus of concern is an unsourced contentious claim with inflammatory potential. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I will be accepting this case for moderated discussion. Are there any other issues besides a controversial SEEALSO wikilink? All editors are reminded to be civil and concise. Civility is mandatory in Knowledge and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long posts do not clarify the issues. Every editor should check on this page at least every 48 hours and should answer all questions from the moderator, who will check at least every 24 hours. Threaded discussion is not permitted. Address the moderator, or everyone (it doesn't matter). Do not respond to specific posts by other editors. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. It is preferred that you not discuss at the talk page, because this is the place for central discussion and talk page comments may be ignored. Are there any issues other than the SEEALSO? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

In response to the question asked by the moderator, as far as I know there were no other aspects to this particular dispute, although I was not involved until late in the discussion so other editors could speak more accurately to that. The only issue I am aware of is the dispute over the inclusion of the See Also link. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

If the only issue is the SEEALSO link, please explain why the SEEALSO link is appropriate, or why it is not appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The See Also link is appropriate because both events have a number of significant similarities, specifically that both are events in which large numbers of women reported being isolated and assaulted by groups of men during public celebrations/festivities. I do not think that it is necessary for a reliable source to make this comparison; indeed if a reliable source were to make such a comparison it would probably not be included in the See Also section but rather incorporated into the body of the article in the way of the Tahrir Square attacks. Also it would seem that there is precedent in See Also sections for linking events such as these on the basis of commonalities such as circumstance and victims, given that the policy page gives, as an example of a Featured Article with a good See Also section, the 1740 Batavia massacre which lists the "May 1998 riots of Indonesia – riots in which many ethnic Chinese were targeted for violence" in its See Also section. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

There are major differences between the two incidents, already mentioned at talk, that call the completely unsourced comparison into question.

For one thing the incidents that are the subject of German sex assault article appear to have involved something on the order of 20-30 times more participants, victims, and reported crimes than the Puerto Rican parade attacks—and they were spread across multiple cities in multiple countries, instead of being confined to single area of a single city surrounding a parade in that city. Also, looking at cultural factors surrounding the attacks, Puerto Ricans are thoroughly integrated natural-born citizens of the United States, whereas the alleged attackers in Germany and elsewhere in Europe were economic migrants and refugees, taken in via extraordinary measures to avoid an impending humanitarian catastrophe, with many of them suspected of harboring terrorist ties, and many more suspected to have baseline views on women's rights (and appropriate treatment of women) that are fundamentally alien to the host countries that took the migrants in. Thus there may be major political and cultural issues surrounding in the former but not the latter. In the case of the parade attacks, we don't appear to know much about whether the attackers were Puerto Ricans or even people involved with the parade, and this prevents a reader or editor from drawing any clear parallel with the German attacks in that regard.

If the comparison is unsourced and there are serious questions about its scope, validity, or substantive value, and it embraces multiple contentious topics at once while making a contentious claim, I think we need to fall back hard on the core command of WP:Verifiability that "All material . . . including everything in articles . . . must be verifiable." And, while not irrelevant, I don't think the existence of possibly contentious SEE ALSO links in other articles provides us with a solid policy-based foundation to do this as a matter of course. Also, just to note, this example Unequivocal cites at least involved two separate incidents in the same country, with one being a historical event and the other being 20 years old (meaning there has been time for scholarly and other deep substantive discussion to occur) -- thus reducing the risk of a hasty or inapt comparison.

Additionally, discussion on this seems to have died down, and there have been no efforts to re-include or comments about re-including. Has the discussion become moot? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I am going to include what I wrote on the article talk page here, as a disputation to the complainants' arguments. I find it odd that the user writes that the "discussion on this seems to have died down, and there have been no efforts to re-include or comments about re-including" given that I posted my retort to his argument over a week ago and he has not replied or addressed my arguments in any way. Additionally, there have been other comments about the issue on the talk page—to which he has not replied or addressed. This being the case, I think he's being willfully dishonest when he says that the discussion has "died down" only because he has refused to participate in it.

In either case, my retort is: The only "major differences" I see that the complainant has pointed out regards the scale of the assaults, and the supposed, unproven sociopolitical make-up of the attackers. The former is a question of dimension, not a difference in characteristic. In both circumstances, mass groups of men took advantage of crowds during a celebratory event to stalk, sexually-assault, and rob women. That is the fundamental nature of both events and also the reason I chose to include the New York incident as a See Also link—as an invitation to the reader to look at another, similar event.

The latter objection is rather quizzical. I'm not clear where the complainant heard that only Puerto Ricans were involved in the attacks in New York. Second, in looking at the few instances of mass, public sex assaults, I am quite unconvinced that the background of the rapists qua background is a "major difference" that creates a categorical and incomparable shift. Rape is rape—be it by a citizen, a resident, or a foreigner and be they atheists, Christians, Muslims, or Hindus. I don't understand what other categories of criminal acts and criminal events should be cleft like this? -- Veggies (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A major difference in scale is a major difference in scale. The sociopolitical makeup of the German attackers has been widely stated in the press, but not viz. the Puerto Rican Parade. I did not at any point say that only Puero Ricans were involved in the parade attack—in fact I went out of my way to say the opposite. I'm not sure Veggies actually read my comment. Nonetheless it is clear that stark sociopolitical ramifications of the German attacks have been reported and commented upon, regarding culture shock and other issues associated with absorbing massive numbers of migrants from a vastly different society. Not so for the NYC attacks—hence the second dissimiliarity, like the first, is exactly as I stated. And are major. How many major differences are needed to show the contentious unsourced comparison should not be put in Wiki-print?

From Veggies' comment above we can see he isn't too concerned with dissimilarities, or with explaining (to readers or to other editors) why this comparison is any more valid than a comparison with any other sex attack, or even substantiating that somebody in the world thinks this comparison is apt. I don't think they're similar enough for an unsourced contentious claim to say so, and I've stated a couple reasons why the attacks are very dissimilar.

Ordinarily, analytical disputes like this are resolved by appeal to sources, and where there are disagreements among the sources we fairly represent all the notable view points. Here, there are no notable view points; we are manufacturing them to satisfy an editor's sense of The Truth.

Finally, I'll say what should be obvious: sex attacks are automatically of a notorious and conscience-shocking nature. Because of this, I think that comparing these two incidents without any reliable source commentary has broad potential to inflame and mislead. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Since the only issue in this case is the See Also, I have to ask a three-part question. I don't see a compromise. Either the link is kept or the link is deleted. First, are the editors who want the link willing to keep the link willing to agree, in order to keep the peace, to omit it? Second, are the editors who want the link deleted willing to keep the link in order to keep the peace? Third, are the editors willing to agree to an RFC on whether to keep the link? I think that the RFC is the best way forward, but I am asking all three parts. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll abide by the results of dispute resolution if that's what you mean. Personally I prefer this forum because we're talking about a subtle interpretation of core policy and I think a veteran admin is a better source of guidance. RFCs and noticeboards, IMO, tend to get dominated either by the most energetic editors or the most popular views, without much reference to sound policy interpretation. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the link omitted to keep the peace—yes, and I will agree to an RFC to arbitrate this (and to abide by its decision). -- Veggies (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

An editor wrote (and I moved their statement): "Personally I prefer this forum because we're talking about a subtle interpretation of core policy and I think a veteran admin is a better source of guidance." I have two comments. First, most of the moderators here are not admins, only experienced editors. Second, my understanding of how DRN works is that, when two or more editors have significantly different views, and when neither opinion is clearly wrong as in contrary to policy (which, as noted, is subtle), it isn't the job of the moderator to take a side, but to help the participants work things out. So, again, there are three possibilities: keep the link to keep peace; remove the link to keep peace; hold an RFC. If another editor has a different opinion, or a volunteer thinks that I have misinterpreted my role, please comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

My mistake regarding procedures and mods at DRN. Also just want to mention, Gucci suggested a further alternative above that it makes more sense to put the relevant incidents into a category containing both articles, instead of an explicit textual link from one article to the other. I'm inclined to agree that this would be the best middle ground if it is practical to accomplish, and if the category is appropriately named (e.g. not "mass sex assaults with a racial and/or ethnic component") and populated (e.g. it shouldn't wind up containing only the two articles we're talking about). Other than that I acknowledge the other stated outcomes or RFC as the next step. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:52, 3 February 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:American International Group#Content dispute (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• FacultiesIntact (talk · contribs)
• Rjensen (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Rjensen added content that I initially thought was vandalism, due to its being included twice, as well as formatted strangely. I re-evaluated that opinion after being prompted by another user, and now dispute that the content should remain in both sections of the article, in the way that it currently reads.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I offered to collaborate on cleaning up the copy.

How do you think we can help?

Rjensen has refused to work with me. I am still open to collaborating to find a mutually agreeable solution.

•  Volunteer note:

1. Discussion is not extensive enough to warrant a DRN filing, mainly since there are only three comments discussing the edits and content in question.
2. It is the responsibility of the filing editor, FacultiesIntact, to post a notice on the talkpages of other editors to alert them to the discussion here.

It is my recommendation that this case be closed pending further discussion on the article talkpage between the two (possibly three) users. If a continued dispute arises, the case may be refiled. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:10, 4 February 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:ResellerRatings (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ZeroShadows (talk · contribs)
• Techimo (talk · contribs)
• CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs) - Not participating per comment left in the Discussion section below. Dr Crazy 102
• 166.170.37.25 (talk · contribs)
• 71.235.154.73 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am attempting to include well sourced data for a "Company Rating" and "Criticism" section of the ResellerRatings article. The data was originally provided by 71.235.154.73 who was involved in an edit war with Techimo over a year ago. 71.235.154.73 reappeared recently and added better sourced, more neutral data, which Techimo and 166.170.37.25 reverted, citing non-NPOV. His reversions were then reverted by another impartial editor, citing that the original statements were well sourced. 166.170.37.25 then sent a message to that user, and his reverts were undone. Techimo then requested article protection by user CambridgeBayWeather who obliged, I believe, without actually reading the content.

The changes have been discussed ad nauseum on Talk:ResellerRatings and consensus cannot be reached. In summary, I believe a "Criticism" or similarly themed section is appropriate for this article. Historically, Techimo has removed anything which he considers unflattering about this company. He also started the article on the company's founder, Scott Wainner. This points to a COI, in my opinion. Regardless, peer entities such as Angie's List, Better Business Bureau, and Trustpilot all have "Criticism" sections. There are valid, reliably sourced criticism of ResellerRatings which are appropriate for inclusion, to make the article well rounded and less like company PR. The data to be included describes the criticisms of the company and the actions the company took to address them. I believe that's fair.

Citing positive reviews of the company's performance by ResellerRatings' customers for a "Criticism" section would be inappropriate. Those would be better suited for a section with a different title. If Techimo wants to create such a section, that would be his responsibility to do so. I believe the article already sufficiently describes the pro aspects of the business. Con aspects should be included to make the article more accurate and well rounded. A simple Google search reveals that there is quite a bit of criticism of this company, and the data provided reports on some of those aspects, from a reliable source.

This is all well documented on the talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've discussed this with Techimo on the talk page. I've discussed this with CambridgeBayWeather on his talk page, when I requested unprotection. The latter opted to bow out of the request, referring me to take my request up on the article's talk page.

How do you think we can help?

An impartial party can settle the dispute as to whether the data is suitable for inclusion.

ZeroShadows is defending content contributed to the ResellerRatings page by 71.235.154.73, an edit warring IP who posted the same (or versions of) critical attacks (citing user generated, not reliable sources) no less than 103 times in December 2014. This user then began another tirade of posts under the the username NotTechimo, for which he was blocked from Knowledge for impersonating (me) by Mr._Stradivarius. The edit war continued from 32.211.179.232, so the ResellerRatings page was protected for 6 months until August 2015 by CambridgeBayWeather.

Within hours of the Jan 21, 2016 edits by 71.235.154.73, ZeroShadows contributed several edits to the ResellerRatings and Better Business Bureau pages.

ZeroShadows proposed "Company Rating" section sources are all user generated opinions and are not reliable sources per Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources.

ZeroShadows' proposed section entitled "Criticism" has numerous issues:

• The user is editorializing in a disparaging way and the tone is not disinterested (Knowledge:Neutral point of view). For instance, he uses the phrase "drastically increased" despite that language not being in the cited source.
• The user characterized the site as "removing reviews", even though one of the site's employees is quoted as saying that the removal had to do only with reviews that were solicited by merchants who subscribed and then cancelled, not reviews submitted by customers without prompting.
• The user overstates this article as being important in this history of the site. The article interviewed 3 out of what appears to be many thousands of online merchants who subscribe(d) to ResellerRatings.
• The user omits the positive commentary in the article from 3 merchants who raved about the site. e.g. "Jose Prendes, CEO of wellness and beauty products seller PureFormulas.com, which will have 2012 sales of $30 million, says ResellerRatings is the best of the four reviews services it uses...", and "Fat Brain Toys" says... “The Merchant Member program is very turnkey and easy to launch. Provided you’re already taking care of your customers, it’s a great way to let the world know about it". A factual summary of this praise should be included with any criticism.

Ultimately, companies routinely increase rates, and in the case of ResellerRatings, a b2b platform where consumers pay nothing and merchants optionally pay to participate, raising rates over time should be considered in the same light as any other businesses that adjust rates over time. For instance, there are dozens of articles about Netflix (b2c) raising rates for millions of people (consumers, in that instance) with a resultant stock price decline for a time, and none of that is even mentioned in the Knowledge article save for a sentence or two such as "The price increase took effect immediately for new subscribers, but will be delayed for two years for existing members". Many customers "fumed" about the Netflix rate increase in 2011, but it was as irrelevant to Netflix's overall story as it is to ResellerRatings' overall 15 year history.

Applying the Netflix logic here, one sentence presented in a disinterested tone in the history section, such as "ResellerRatings raised prices for some merchants in 2013" with a citation pointing to the Internet Retailer article might be the extent of what's appropriate, but I still disagree that it's relevant or useful info for anyone to add that. Techimo (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Not participating per comment left in Discussion section below. Dr Crazy 102

Volunteer note: Just a reminder to the filing party that it is the obligation of the filing party to notify the other editors by leaving a note on their individual user pages (a note on the article talk page will not suffice). I am neither taking nor opening this case for discussion at this time, but I would note that unless CambridgeBayWeather indicates otherwise we will presume that s/he will not participate here, since his/her only role has been as an administrator, nor will we consider him/her a necessary party to this discussion; he should, nonetheless, be notified. Next, I'd note that I have reason to be concerned that the filing party may be under a misapprehension about what we do here at DRN and would strongly recommend that s/he carefully read the header at the top of this page. Finally, one thing we do not do here is handle disputes over user conduct nor do we allow allegations or discussions about it and all parties are requested to only write about content, not editors. — TransporterMan (TALK) 01:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@TransporterMan I have notified all parties. Thanks for the heads up. I am aware that this area is for content and not conduct. I was merely attempting to be complete with my description of the issue. I have reworded my summary to be brief and include the focal points. The talk page contains the details. ZeroShadows (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

As TransporterMan says I'm not involved and won't be participating. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I am accepting this case for moderated discussion. However, I will point out that I will not be acting as a neutral party to decide whether the information should be included, but as a neutral party to facilitate discussion. I will state a few ground rules. First, be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Knowledge, and especially in dispute resolution. (Much of the talk page discussion has been uncivil.) Overly long statements do not clarify anything. Every participant is expected to check on this discussion and reply to my questions at least every 48 hours; I will check at least every 24 hours. Do not engage in threaded discussion. Address your comments to me, the moderator, not to each other. Comment on content, not contributors. Commentary on contributors or uncivil comments may be hatted. Does the real issue have to do with whether to include a Criticisms section? What are any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, do not edit the article while discussion is in progress (except for minor edits). Also, discuss the article here, not on the talk page, because discussion on the talk page may be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 4 February 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:Marc Randazza (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 007news (talk · contribs)
• XoddaMotto (talk · contribs)
• 172.56.16.206 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Some edits going back and forth on one particular section of a BLP "Career" section. I genuinely feel my edits are worth inclusion in the article and properly cited, but I also am very cognizant of the sensitivities involved (and scrutiny warranted) when it comes to BLPs. Again, I do feel the particular section that was recently removed should be included in the article, but since I've been accused of being an SPA I'm wary of undoing an edit that removed it and also don't wish to start an edit war. I suppose I should point out, objectively, some of the users that have undone my edits show contribution histories completely focused around this one article or were done by people that work for the LP (mind you, I don't necessarily feel that invalidates their edits in and of itself, but it just weirds me out a bit given the SPA accusations being thrown at me).

Nonetheless, the section referenced an Ars Technica article about the LP. Since then, it's been removed a few times (and then modified and/or put back in by myself or other editors), then removed again, heavily modified, unmodified, etc. Most recently, a user removed the section entirely, citing (in their edit comment) a blog post I'm not entirely convinced is something such a significant content edit should be based on. I undid their deletion, but that was undone in turn shortly thereafter. It was at that point I figured I'd post here.

Note: I pointed this dispute resolution noticeboard post on each user's talk page, but if there is a better way to notify someone please let me know. Also not entirely sure an unregistered user would get any notification? 007news (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've attempted to seek some clarification on things in the Talk section, and tried to have a discussion there. Ended up just resulting in more SPA accusations, though. Some edits (by myself and others) were done to make things more objective, which was great. They seemed to stick for awhile, before someone just came along and deleted everything.

How do you think we can help?

Perhaps a review of the edit history, by editors far more wise, capable, and experienced than myself would help. Given the SPA accusations going back and forth, maybe an established editor - with a broader range of contributions - could review? I don't pretend to believe my edits are flawless so am not even asking for back up on that. Just feel everyone would benefit from review by someone at whom an SPA accusation could likely not be reasonably directed. Thanks!007news (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the talk page. However, most of it is old (stale). There has not really been enough recent discussion at the talk page to come here. Also, the filing party has not notified the other editors. Recommend closure here, and that the parties resume discussion at the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 6 February 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:Naomi Ragen#Changes to legal section (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Debresser (talk · contribs)
• TeeVeeed (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Talk:Naomi Ragen#changes to legal section A dispute how to best prune the legal issue in the article about Naomi Ragen. Dispute includes 1. Whether this should be mentioned in the lead at all. 2. How much details should be removed from the Naomi_Ragen#Lawsuits section. There is no dispute that some details can be removed from that section. Important background information: 1. This article was recently extensive edited by an involved party, User:Sarah Shapiro, who was consequently blocked. The dispute might include the question whether as a result of those edits the article is still neutral or not, although I am not clear whether there is a dispute on this account. 2. User:50.182.180.55 is the same as User:TeeVeeed, just when he has problems logging in. 3. The issue is all the more important in view of fact that this article is a WP:BLP.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

WP:3O was declined because "there are more than two editors discussing the issues here", although really there are only two.

How do you think we can help?

Give advice what part of the Naomi_Ragen#Lawsuits section should and should not be pruned. We would prefer the comments to be posted on the talkpage.

This is a messy unbalanced and WP:UNDUEBLP article as evidenced by byte-count of the article size compared to the now proposed "legal"-section. I would like to see the legal issues cut completely except for the briefest of NPOV mentions. Making the problem worse is that some of the current legal content was edited-in in good faith by a WP:COI party to the legal suits who was trying to help clarify the issues I guess. That editor seems to understand now that they should please ask for edits to that page on the TP. There is a history of contentious editing of the legal cases. There does appear to be interest in the particulars of this interesting Israeli legal case, but I contend that maybe another article is the place for that information.It has escalated when I boldly cut most of the legal case info out and I agree we need some help here please.DB would like to run the DRN on the article TP and if that is allowed I have no problem with that as I think it is getting to archive-status anyhow.50.182.180.55 (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion at the article talk page. However, the filing party has not notified the other editor. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editors on their user talk pages. Notification at the article talk page is not sufficient. Also, the filing party notes that a Third Opinion was declined because there were more than two editors. It appears that the discussion has been between two registered editors and unregistered editors. The filing party should also notify the unregistered editors. This request will be left open to allow the filing party to notify the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 3 February 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

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

Users involved

• Makeandtoss (talk · contribs)
• Oncenawhile (talk · contribs)
• WarKosign (talk · contribs)
• No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Some users are opposing the addition of a tiny sentence in the lead using "UNDUE" as excuse. Discussion on talk page lead to formulation of the sentence "Other territories were considered and rejected". A part of Zionism once strove towards the establishment of a Jewish state out of Palestine, an undeniable fact that is discussed in the article and so it deserves to be mentioned in the lead per Knowledge:Manual of Style/Lead section "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. " 6 words are too much to be in lead for a discussion that lasted for about half a century?!? From 1880s to 1940s? The content is sourced to reliable and published sources and is covered in the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on talk page

How do you think we can help?

Check validity of "undue" claims

All the major sources define Zionism as the movement for re-establishment of a national homeland for the Jews in historical Land of Israel, a.k.a. Palestine (region). Makeandtoss has been trying for some time to change the article's definition to say that the movement was not necessarily focused on Zion. While it's true that other locations were proposed, considered and quickly dismissed, they were never the focus for mainstream Zionism. As a compromise I proposed to add a short sentence such as "Other territories were considered and rejected" to the lead (proportional in size to prevalence of the subject in the article body and sources), but picking any location within the lead implied a specific point in time while in reality there was none, and quickly the sentence was modified into misleading and contradicting sources (saying that Israel became the focus of Zionism only after other locations where rejected). I would rather not have this sentence at all since it's too short to be meaningful and the subject is too minor to describe in more detail in the lead. “WarKosign” 07:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Putting this in the lead would be UNDUE. At least 5 editors agreed with this while only 2 disagreed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion, some of it recent, at the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editors of this filing. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but it may be accepted if the other editors agree to take part in moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I am opening this case for moderated discussion. Here are some ground rules. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Knowledge and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements do not clarify. Every editor is expected to check on this case at least every 48 hours and to respond in that time to any questions. Do not edit the article (except for minor edits) during moderated discussion. Do not discuss the article on the article talk page, which is the usual place to discuss the article, but not during moderated discussion, because discussions on the article talk page may be ignored. Comment on content, not contributors. Comments on contributors or uncivil comments may be hatted. Do not engage in threaded discussion; that is, do not reply to the statements by other editors; address your comments to the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Will each editor state, civilly and concisely, in no more than three sentences, what they think the issue is, what should or should not be done, and why? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Please see my description of dispute above. “WarKosign” 08:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• I will be more than happy to abandon "after", if this resolves the conflict. --Makeandtoss (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

What is meant by 'I will be more than happy to abandon "after", if this resolves the conflict.'? Please clarify. Does this mean that there is a resolution? Please clarify. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

We had initially agreed upon "Other territories were considered and rejected", I changed it to "After other territories were considered and rejected". I am willing to abandon the word "after" if this resolves the conflict, as WarKosign is claiming. --Makeandtoss (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I prefer not to have the statement, but don't mind too much. A few other editors objected more strongly, No More Mr Nice Guy is their representative in this discussion, but he seems not to be active in the last several days. “WarKosign” 18:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

If there is agreement to keep "Other territories were considered and rejected" by the participating editors, we may close this thread. Is there agreement?

As WarKosign mentioned, there is an opposing user who hasnt participated here.. --Makeandtoss (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not object since I proposed this text myself. I know that there are editors objecting. “WarKosign” 14:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Non-participating editors cannot be considered to be objecting. I will be closing this thread as having reached consensus. If an editor who hasn't participated in this discussion objects, the next step for them is Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I object to putting this in the lead, as do several other editors, some of which nobody suspects of being Zionists such as Zero and Pluto, but who were not invited here for some reason. It's ridiculous to let two editors here override at least 7 on the talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Knowledge is not a democracy Makeandtoss (talk) 22:22, 10 February 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

• Planet of the Apes (2001 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ommnomnomgulp (talk · contribs)
• SonOfThornhill (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Editor trying to prepend "appears to be" in front of "Lincoln Memorial" since the person memorialized within the memorial is not Lincoln, but an ape general, calling into question the in-universe connections between human history and ape history. "Appears to be" doesn't change the truth value of the sentence since the Lincoln Memorial always appears to be the Lincoln Memorial. This seems a logical compromise since the truth value of the sentence does not change, but it properly calls into question the absolute parallel between our Earth and the movie universe Earth. If it's the Lincoln Memorial, fine--"appears to be" doesn't change that at all. One editor has also wholesale reverted the change of a word "now" for "actually," which, once again, doesn't change the truth value of the sentence, but merely states that the statue is "actually" Thade and not "actually" Lincoln. "Now" implies that the statue was, at one time, Lincoln, and was changed--even up to the moment we view the film. While this may be true, it's impossible do deduce if the statue was ever Lincoln from the film, itself. "Actually," in this case, is directly accurate.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Lengthy conversation on talk page. (Note: I realized that WP:RFC may be the better option and I'm happy to withdraw this and move it to that venue)

How do you think we can help?

Determine whether the addition of "appears to be" (and perhaps the change from "now" to "actually") is detrimental to the edit and if not, allowing the change.

The editor, who has never contributed to the page in question, parachuted in and began to make substantial changes to the meaning of a long standing passage based solely on his own personal opinion and interpretation without any source in support. His edits were reverted and the editor was asked to discuss on article's Talk page before making any further changes. However, instead of waiting for a consensus of editors on Talk page, the editor in question again changed the wording of the article to his version. The editor in question has yet to show any sources that support his opinion nor has gotten a consensus of editors to agree with the changes. Despite this the editor in question is still making changes to the article based on his opinion. SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Just want to add that the Dispute Resolution process may be a bit premature. This only started 2 or 3 days ago. I'd would like more time to give other editors a change to weigh in on the issue. That is the usual process. SonOfThornhill (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editor of this filing. It is the responsibility of the filing editor to notify the other party of the filing of this request. Leaving this case open for filing editor to notify other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - The other editor has been notified and has made a statement. This case is ready to be opened. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 10 February 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

• Code Black (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Unframboise (talk · contribs)
• Drmargi (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the latest two episodes of Code Black (TV series), three characters have gained new roles (roles which will be kept until *at least* the end of the current season, according to press releases available at futoncritic). User:Drmargi believes that by referencing these new roles in the character descriptions, WP:TV standards are being breached. She believes only the original roles of a character should be mentioned, despite an evolving narrative, and indeed, narrative purpose. The differences, of course, are minor, but in order to maintain an accurate encyclopedia, they are necessary. Drmargi is insistent on reverting.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I started a discussion on the talk page, but Drmargi overwrote this by starting a competing discussion, of the same title, directly beneath it. Clearly this is petulant behaviour. She also believes that her opinion is the "status quo" and therefore should be maintained, despite being against Wiki conventions. I stated I would not concede on this issue, which Drmargi believes was a "threat to edit war", despite her breaching 3RR first. Clearly, this is un-resolvable.

Drmargi has since resorted to personal attacks and bullying on another user's talk-page . I no longer feel comfortable editing in this hostile environment.

How do you think we can help?

I would like an official decision stating that the current roles of characters in TV series are of as much encyclopedic purpose as previous roles.

---

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:Battle of Ilovaisk#This agreement was not honored-correct.2C but it was no honored by Kiev.27s forces not by resistance fighters (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 128.97.68.15 (talk · contribs)
• Iryna_Harpy (talk · contribs)
• RGloucester (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Do the cited sources say there was an agreement? Who said there was an agreement? Was the agreement violated? What is best way to neutrally phrase? One of the sources in question is pay-walled(WSJ), so an editor with Wall Street Journal access is preferred.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion, Requesting Citations, Posting to WP:3

How do you think we can help?

By my reading, the sources don't seem to say what RGloucester says they do. But I'm not certain how he is arriving at his interpretation since, he won't quote the text that he thinks supports his position, so I'm not sure what to do.

There is a reference to a broken agreement in the article overview. My question is this do the cited sources say there was an agreement? Who said there was an agreement? Was the agreement violated? What is best way to neutrally phrase?

By my reading, there are two sources. Kyiv Post and Wall Street Journal. Kyiv Post says

"Russian President Vladimir Putin called for a “humanitarian corridor for besieged Ukrainian soldiers in order to avoid senseless victims,” the Kremlin said. " but it doesn't say an agreement was reached or that it was violated. At best it sort of speculates that there might have been a miscommunication or that no agreement was reached: " But either the Russian troops disobeyed their leader, were never ordered to open such a corridor in the first place, and Ukrainians who tried to use the corridor, were destroyed."

Wall Street Journal doesn't assert that there was an agreement. It quotes Beryoza claiming there was an agreement but doesn't explain the terms. Neither WSJ or Kyiv post says the agreement was violated.

My preference for resolution is:

A) Attribute the claim to Beryoza

B) Present both interpretations of the terms.(were arms allowed? were arms brought?)

C) Remove the reference to violated agreement and just stick to the reported facts.

A&C seem like the better options to me as B is probably messy.128.97.68.15 (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page. (A Third Opinion request was made, but was declined because there are more than two editors.) The filing party (the unregistered editor) has not notified the other editors of this filing. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editors. This request is being left open to provide time for the filing party to notify the other editors. When the other editors are notified, if they agree to take part in dispute resolution, this case will be ready to be opened. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• I posted notes in their user talk pages, is this sufficient notification? 128.97.68.15 (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Yes, that is satisfactory. One of the editors deleted the notice, but that means that they saw it, and participation is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Great. I've never done one of these before, how do we proceed?128.97.68.15 (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - I will be closing this in 24 hours unless one of two events occurs. Either at least one of the notified editors should make a statement agreeing to moderated discussion, or another volunteer should agree to moderate and ask the editors to make statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 11 February 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

• Abe Vigoda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mlpearc (talk · contribs)
• American In Brazil (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This meaning of "Survived by" is in dispute.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Requested page protection but, that won't resolve the issue

How do you think we can help?

More opinions

WP:MOS - "Biographies of living persons should generally be written in the present tense, and biographies of deceased persons in the past tense. When making the change upon the death of a subject, the entire article should be reviewed for consistency. If a person is living but has retired, use "is a former" or "is a retired" rather than the past tense "was".

Correct – John Smith (1946–2003) was a baseball pitcher ... Correct – John Smith (born 1946) is a former baseball pitcher ... Incorrect – John Smith (born 1946) was a baseball pitcher ... Historical events should be written in the past tense in all biographies(.) American In Brazil (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Notified Mlpearc (open channel) 21:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editor of this filing. In view of the fact that this is a simple question about wording, a WP:3O:Third Opinion would be an option, but discussion can take place here after proper notice to the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

A third opinon was given at the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay's opinion did not resolve the matter, other than to say: "There's nothing there." In fact, MOS clearly states that historical events should be in the past tense in all biographies of deceased persons. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Tense American In Brazil (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

MOS-in-question, isn't clear on this situation. Requested clarification there. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it is. WP:MOS - Historical events in biographies of deceased persons should be in the past tense. Is there anyone out there who disputes Abe's passing? -American In Brazil (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Why would you say that ? This discussion isn't about Vigoda's death, no one is disputing that. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If no one is disputing it, then his death is now historical and the principle of WP:MOS applies: Historical events of deceased persons should be in the past tense. American In Brazil (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Keep discussion here to a minimum until a moderator accepts the case. Until then, discuss at the article talk page. When there is a moderator, discuss here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: I'm taking this case as a volunteer of DRN for moderated discussion. Given the inconsequentiality of this dispute, I'm not going to go over the regular process of sectioned discussion. I believe we can solve this sooner than typical DRN cases. Please be civil, concise and comment on the content, not on the contributor. Regards—UY Scuti 04:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@UY Scuti: It might be better if you didn't, as we are both active at ACC. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Since Mlpearc has indicated he has no objection, I'm continuing with this case. The dispute words are is survived by and was survived by. Both the words here imply that the someone is dead and that someone's relative is alive (immediately) after their death. But the difference in using those is here. If you're going to use is survived by, implies that the person is dead and their so and so are alive, even now. For example, Foe is survived by his wife and two daughters (meaning, Foe is dead but his wife and two daughters are still alive). If you're going to use was survived by, implies that the person is dead and their so and so were alive, but not now. For example, Foe was survived by his wife and two daughters (meaning, Foe is dead and his wife and two daughters 'were' alive). The use of was can be justified if even at least one of their so and so is not alive. For example, Foe was survived by his wife and two daughters could be used if either of his daughters or his wife is dead. Per this source (cited in the article and uses is survived by) Abe Vigoda's daughter, grandchildren and a great-grandson are still living. And this source which explains the use of is survived by. Did that solve the issue? (pinging participants American In Brazil and Mlpearc) Regards—UY Scuti 06:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@UYScuti - Thank you for your analysis. However, it is gramatically incorrect. The subject of the sentence, "He" (Abe Vigoda), is now dead; his death is an historical fact. Therefore, he should be referred to in the past tense in WP, in accordance with WP:MOS - Past tense of historical events should be used in biographies of deceased persons: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Tense

It is acceptable to use the present tense in obituaries, which are written shortly after the death of the subject. But historical facts are written in the past tense in common English usage. Precision of language is important in conveying information. In any event, WP:MOS should prevail. American In Brazil (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@American In Brazil: Yes, we should be referring to history, as history, no questions. In this context, the 'is/was refers to the people that are surviving the dead person and not the fact that the person is dead. Use of was can be justified if atleast one of the people surviving him are dead. We don't consider forums as reliable sources but I'm ignoring all rules and giving you this source. Please read the comment #4, consider that as a third opinion to this dispute. Then I found this dictionary definition, and I quote

“ ”

..to live longer than......; He is survived by his wife and two sons.

And the news source cited in the article uses is. Can you give sources supporting your claims? Thanks. If we don't come to a conclusion, the plausible solution would be a compromise of using a different wording. Regards—UY Scuti 15:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see en.wiktionary.org/be_survived_by, and the reference from the article which uses is survived by Mlpearc (open channel) 15:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mlpearc & @UY Scuti. Thanks to you both for your thoughtful comments. I am familiar with the Associated Press obituary you reference, since I am the one who cited it in the article. As stated above, the present tense 'is survived by' is acceptable in obituaries, which are written immediately after the death of a subject. But in referring on an historical basis to the death of a person, such as a WP article of someone who is deceased, the correct usage is the past tense 'was survived by'. The Oxford English Dictionary agrees with this usage, which is the same for British and U.S. English: (definition 1.2 of the verb 'survive' - to remain alive after the death of a particular person: 'he was survived by his wife and six children'):

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/survive?q=survived

This reference is the definitive answer to your question. As a general rule, it is best to follow WP:MOS, which is unambiguous on this point: Biographies of living persons should generally be written in the present tense, and biographies of deceased persons in the past tense...Historical events should be written in the past tense in all biographies(.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Tense

American In Brazil (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@UY Scuti: FYI, I have nothing further to say. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

If Mlpearc has nothing more to say, I believe this case can be general closed with no further discussion. This case will be closed in 24 hours. Regards—UY Scuti 04:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mlpearc & @UY Scuti - If we are now in agreement, and without further objection, in 24 hours I will change 'is' to 'was' in the Abe Vigoda article. I trust this meets with your approval.

This seems like such a small point, especially in view of the major controversies swirling around the current U.S. presidential candidates and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (see 'Zionism' immediately below), but I think there is an important lesson to be learned here. If we as editors are helping to create an encyclopedia for the world, accessible by anyone anywhere, we must apply consistency, as well as objectivity, in the treatment of the subjects we cover. The best way to do this is a manual of style. Fortunately, the creators of WP recognized this and have given us WP:MOS. If we follow it, we will have a superior product, one that fairly and accurately summarizes the world's knowledge. I thank you both for your intelligent comments and cordial conversation. -American In Brazil (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@American In Brazil:, @UY Scuti: I only said "FYI, I have nothing further to say" because I feel there is no need for me to provide any more evidence for my point, because I believe I have shown that American In Brazil point is incorrect in this instance. I will say if the discussion is closed, in favor of "was" because that is just wrong, I will take this to the next level. American In Brazil I suggest you do not return to edit warring after the close of this discussion. Also @American In Brazil: please review Knowledge:Indentation as you are making following this discussion very inconvenient. User:Mlpearc|Mlpearc]] (open channel) 16:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mlpearc:, @UY Scuti: I thought by your comment that we had concensus. I am disappointed you do not accept the authority of the Oxford English Dictionary, which is considered by scholars to be the final arbiter of definitions and usage in the English language. In addition, you apparently do not accept the principles of WP:MOS which should be the standard usage of all WP editors. If you wish to take it to another level, that is your prerogative. I will not make any change to this verb for 30 days, which will give you ample time to make your case. As for indentation, I start on the left and write to the right. Why is that difficult to follow? -American In Brazil (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@UY Scuti and American In Brazil: Let me be clear, I think "is" is correct. I stand by all my evidence and statements I have made. I would like the opinion of more users, not just one moderator, If I have to the next stop is I guess WP:RfC. @American In Brazil: Please use indents. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@UY Scuti and Mlpearc: This should be a learning moment. You own your opinion but not the facts and facts are stubborn things. If the Oxford English Dictionary and WP:MOS are not good enough for you, please take it to the next level. PS, how's my indentation? -American In Brazil (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: I acknowledge the contradicting sources and I have asked help from the reference desk for language. If we see varying opinions there too, we'll go with a compromise. Until then, I've placed this discussion on hold. Once participation in that thread ceases, we can bring back our discussion here. Regards—UY Scuti 09:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: @Mlpearc and American In Brazil: Thanks for your patience. The discussion in the reference desk almost having come to a stop, I'm opening the case here. There isn't a consensus there on a particular format, so I'm proposing two compromises. 1) An alternative to using Is/Was survived by..., like the one used by InedibleHulk in this diff. 2) Or using Survived by his daughter, three grandchildren and a great-grandson, Vigoda died in his sleep on January 26, 2016, at his daughter Carol Fuchs's home in Woodland Park, New Jersey. Would this work? Or is there even a better compromise? Regards—UY Scuti 10:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@UY Scuti and American In Brazil: It doesn't matter to me either way if the family is even mentioned, what I am concerned about is, if the article is going to use the phrase "survived by" then it needs to be in the "present sense" ex. "He is survived by". If a compromised pharse is going to be used, "Survived by his daughter, three grandchildren and a great-grandson, Vigoda died in his sleep on January 26, 2016, at his daughter Carol Fuchs's home in Woodland Park, New Jersey.", works for me. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: As both Mlpearc (indicated above) and American In Brazil (in reference desk ...It works for me....) indicated they are OK with 'proposal 2', I believe we are done here. This case will be closed in 24 hours failing to hear further objections. Thanks and regards—UY Scuti 17:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@UY Scuti: Just wanted to say that you've done a great job here, thank you. Now let's put this to bed :). Mlpearc (open channel) 17:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Since Mlpearc is ok with the sentence: Survived by his daughter, three grandchildren and a great-grandson, Vigoda died in his sleep on January 26, 2016, at his daughter Carol Fuchs's home in Woodland Park, New Jersey., and since the sentence is entirely in the past tense, which is what it should be according to WP:MOS, I am ok with that, too. I will replace the current sentence with the sentence Mlpearc has agreed to. American In Brazil (talk) 23:24, 12 February 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.