Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 95

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:2012 Benghazi_attack

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Aspencork on 03:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

I would appreciate some support in the Benghazi article for including an image of the Rhodes’ email secured by Judicial Watch by lawsuit under the provisions of FOIA. I enumerated my reasons for including the imaging in “Talk” under “Judicial Watch”. Mark Miller and NorthBySouthBaranof have deleted the image without discussion in the ”Talk” section and only stated their reasons in their edit summaries: e.g., “image wastes space” or the surreptitious “replacing image with previously removed image” that he had previously removed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I posted valid reasons for including the image in the "Talk" (Judicial Watch) section. They did not.

How do you think we can help?

This image is of a document that is central to an ongoing Congressional investigation pertaining to Benghazi, and it should be included for the benefit of those using Wiki as a reference. I want this issue reviewed and decided by others not currently involved in this exchange.

Summary of dispute by Mark Miller

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

Summary of dispute by NorthBySouthBaranof

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

This is rather premature given the lack of discussion on the talk page - there has never been a consensus for the inclusion of the image, several editors objected to it for various reasons and the above editor is the only one who has clearly expressed the opinion that it should be included. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by

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

Talk:2012 Benghazi_attack discussion

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

Talk:Nikola Tesla

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Closed 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.
Filed by Atlantictire on 22:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC).


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

First, I'm reluctant to do this because in my limited experience with AN/I, matters were decided impatiently, focusing entirely on obvious breaches of WP:CIVIL and overlooking the chronic disregard for WP:NPOV or WP:VERIFY that was making everyone quit or go nuts. It was extremely demoralizing. Please whoever takes this up attempt to understand the content and ask questions. This is passive-aggressive WP:PUSH games, and they are working. They have worked for this editor with this particular article for years, apparently. And yes, if you want to get my goat: refuse to compromise or collaborate, ignore talk page discussion, make unilateral edits, revert all of my contributions, only collaborate with admins, show a complete lack of regard for reliable sources, and play endless word games. My goat is gotten. I am at the "YOU ARE AN ASSHAT" stage. WP:BATTLEGROUND should not result from efforts to fix facts, and I do not want to edit war. Background: while copyediting the Nikola Tesla article I noticed that it seemed it have an odd anti-Tesla bias. Specifically, it attempted to minimize Tesla's roll in inventing the first practical AC induction motor and credit other inventors with this accomplishment. Exactly. Sounds ridiculous. But apparently Thomas Edison fans are out for vengeance on account of articles like this. Not a single edit that I've made has managed to survive and I've been trying for over a week. Talk page discussion is disrespected. The editor does what he wants and doesn't care about sources or consensus, only respecting the preferences and edits of the admin who patrols the article. People have been objecting to his Tesla edits for years, and he's completely indifferent: [1], [2]

My initial issue was that the Nikola Tesla lead ought to be more like the Thomas Edison lead, that is written for a general audience not already obsessed with Tesla and electronics. Soon, however, efforts to fix up the lead devolved into quibbling over facts: Tesla's importance in the so-called War of Currents, the extent to which Tesla can be credited with having invented the first practical AC motor, Tesla's contributions regarding wireless technology and radio, etc.

I'll just say I had no special interest in Tesla only 2 weeks ago. I like to copyedit electronics-related articles so that 6th graders can at least understand the lead. My objective was that people who come to this page understand fairly easily why people still care about Tesla, and why Cambridge and Princeton are still putting out books about him. The more I learn about this, the more it does seem that the article's take on Tesla is very idiosyncratic. The section on the AC induction motor definitely seemed to have a bizarre anti-Tesla bias. After days of argument, it's far less POV now.

My concern is also somewhat conduct related in that I have yet to contribute anything to the article directly! MrX has been generous enough to add contributions I've suggested, but if I make an edit based on talk page discussion it gets reverted or re-written. This to me seems petty and calculated to frustrate me, and I am starting to take it personally. It's true. I get frustrated. Absolutely.

I'm pretty busy today, but it would be helpful if when we start editing the article again we could ping MrScorch6200 should a content dispute arise. Wikipedia absolutely needs more MrScorches, so I understand if your services are in demand. But, gosh that would be a god-send!--Atlantictire (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

First posting every. single. edit to the talk page. Asking the editor to collaborate, instead of unilaterally reverting or ignoring talk page discussion. Addressing the issue, both on the editor's talkpage and the article's talkpage. Expressing to the editor how frustrated I am. Alerting the editor that I would ask for mediation should it continue.

How do you think we can help?

I would really just like to make edits to this article without having every single one of them reverted. I would like for talk page discussion to be respected. I would like to not have absolutely everything I've written be re-written without discussion. I would like to be able to contribute to this article directly and not via an admin. I would like to not play endless wordgames about sources.

Some mediation would be absolutely fantastic. Come to the article and stick around for 1-2 days and notice when FOBM is making it impossible for me to contribute. Mediation. Now.

Summary of dispute by Fountains of Bryn Mawr

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

This seems to have been a case of Atlantictire taking everything personally and focusing his/her venom on one editor---> me. It all started when I reverted a BOLD edit by Atlantictire per WP:BRD and the editor immediately took it personal thinking I was singling him/her out, making that accusation on my talk pagediff, editor also claimed "singling out" in Tesla talkdiff. I pointed out the specific problems with Atlantictire's bold edit, the article lead no longer summarized the article beneath it, the dates were wrong, the wrong company was cited, Westinghouse did not buy Tesla's patents (he licensed them with the famous "tearing up" of the license coming years later), and we could not say Westinghouse buying the patents "igniting the infamous "War of Currents." per WP:YESNPOV, many sources put that two years earlier when Westinghouse started building AC systems to compete with Edison and Morgan. Many attempts on my part to get Atlantictire to "get the point" re:try to follow WP:RS, look at the related articles and follow their sources to at least clear up the incorrect dates seemed to fall on deaf ears (See my talk page[3], see that long talk[4], that long talk[5], and that long talk[6]. The editor seemed to try to explain his/her behaviordiff And I noted WP:CIVIL for the editor diff. Atlantictire then fell into some serious un-civil rearranging my talk and accusing me of "ignoring" him/herdiff, more diff. Admonishment by me to keep it civildiff, request by MrX to keep it civildiff.

I had to revert two other edits by Atlantictire(diff)(diff) because both edits removed rival motor inventors and boiled it down singling out Galileo Ferraris as a rival AC developer (he was more of an expert on induction and did not "experimenting with AC technology") and incorrectly described what he built (Tesla's and Ferrais' motor did not differ in brush use). Discussion after that focused on should we mention other competing induction motor developers (present sides) or simply not get into a priority dispute and focus on what Tesla did, not whether it was "the greatest". Consensus seemed to be to focus on what Tesla did. War of the Currents was also solidified by Mrx and added to the lead (by me diff). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Latest seems to be Atlantictire hounding my fairly minor edits and one of the many times accusing me of owning the article diff. emoved by MrScorch6200 because it pertains to user conduct Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MrX

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

I am not really a party to this dispute, but have been actively editing the article, including the section is dispute. Although I disagree slightly with Fountains of Bryn Mawr (FOBM) on the extent of content about the the development of AC that should be included, it hardly rises to the level of the dispute. FOBM has posted a rebuttal to my last comments, which I have not had a chance to study.

I have collaborated with FOBM on this article for about two years, and have found him to unfailingly edit in good faith. That said, there are conflicting sources about Tesla's life and contributions, which creates challenges for editors, and sometimes discord. It takes lot of patient discussion to work through these conflicting sources and arrive at consensus. On top of that, there are a number of nationalist SPAs and well meaning, but inexperienced, editors who tend to add hero-worship content to the article.

I certainly believe that Atlantictire is editing in good faith, and brings a fresh perspective to the article. His edits seem to be fairly well researched, and deserve consideration. Generally, I'm not in favor of reverting entire edits of experienced editors who (in my opinion) are not pushing a POV. At the same time, editors should not take reverting personally. Talk page posts that start with "FOUNTAINS OF BRYN MAWR DEFIES TALK PAGE DISCUSSION REVERTS AGAIN..." are not conducive to collaboration and only make it less likely that the disputants will listen when a cogent argument is made.

I recommend that the each specific item in dispute be discussed and that the sources be examined to determine consensus among them, or to identify sources that we think are the most reliable. If we can keep personal comments off the article talk page, and listen to each other, I'm sure we can work through these issues and improve the article.- MrX 13:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Nikola Tesla discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Hi guys, I'm MrScorch6200, a volunteer here. I believe that this dispute is bordering on a conduct dispute, but since it involves what seems to be a large amount of content and a very notable article, I believe it should still run through DRN. I am not opening this case for discussion until Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk · contribs) makes their opening statement.

@Atlantictire: Please be patient. A DRN may take anywhere from a day to two weeks. I will be as quick and as prompt as I can. Stay calm and take your time while formulating responses. AN/I is always hectic and admins are always trying to clear the backlog, and yes, by sometimes half-assing cases (I've seen it done before). We take our time here and try to keep all of the involved parties happy. I'll look over the dispute and guide you best I can. Thanks guys, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much MrScorch6200. It would be an extremely encouraging show of good faith if Fountains of Bryn Mawr were to respond, regardless of what his take is. It would mean he's interested in collaborating, and I have been despairing that he isn't.--Atlantictire (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You are very welcome. I hope Fountains of Bryn Mawr responds so we can clear this all up soon. If needed, I may contact Reddi for input but he is semi-retired as of last week (he originally pointed out that FoBM removed Tesla info in whichever article). MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Irrelevant discussion about user conduct
  • @Atlantictire and Fountains of Bryn Mawr: I'll be looking at the case and returning tomorrow afternoon but just looking at the first diff that FoBM provided it seems that you were wrong in not following BRD. Generally, when a user makes a large edit to an article but it is problematic, it is usually moved to the talkpage and discussed upon there. There was no need to hound on FoBM saying that it wasn't 'cool' while it was actually procedural. Let's keep our cool here and not shout. DRN is about compromise and not getting one's way over another. Let's focus on content and not conduct. I am also going to invite MrX to the dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrScorch6200 (talk • contribs)
Well, I had actually posted the edit to the talk page first [7]. Posted the edit and waited for a response. Maybe Fountains of Bryn Mawr missed it because it was under a hat. But no, I started a section called "lead re-write" and posted the edit I intended to make. I've done that with each and every edit I knew would be controversial. I apologize if my annoyance is evident, but Fountains of Bryn Mawr has been making bold, controversial edits for days either without discussion or in defiance of talk page discussion.
In anycase, we can absolutely focus on content. But yeah, the WP:BRD complaint is a little disingenuous.--Atlantictire (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Atlantictire Hello, I'm also a volunteer here at DRN and the above comment of 02:45, 23 June 2014 is in the raged edge of being a personal attack and "commenting on the user, not the content". I echo MrScorch6200's comments that this is bordering on the edge of being a conduct dispute and invite you to refactor your above statement lest it be used as a contributing cause for this DRN request to be closed. Hasteur (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Hasteur Ok, I'm didn't post diffs, because when you fill out the form asking for mediation, you're limited to 2000 characters. Second, I'm here because there's a tendency on Wikipedia to reflexively look for obvious violations of WP:CIVIL and completely miss the chronic, longstanding disregard for WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV that drives people nuts. Especially editors who care deeply about reliable sources and accuracy. It's the worst thing about this place. I will try to keep it civil, but please can we also focus on the fact that I've been trying to edit this article for over a week and have yet to make a single edit due to reverts and petty re-writes. Yes, I am very much annoyed.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
There's a difference between looking for civility violations and actively dumping additional gasoline on an already existing fire. Your above statement from 13:14, 23 June 2014 suggests a "Everyone is wrong but me"/WP:IDHT mentality. I again reiterate my assertion that you really should refactor your statements to remove the personal attacks otherwise the request will end poorly. Don't focus on what others have done, focus on what you have done and how your edits are supported by policy. Hasteur (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Hasteur, it seems like you've been familiar with this situation for all of 20 minutes, which is a little soon to be talking about "gasoline on an already existing fire," and OMG incivility when there's a lot more to this. I am telling you I am at my wit's end and that's exactly why I'm here.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
And actually, I think this is only going to work if Bryn Mawr and I can agree to the intermediary. When I comment on ANI, I always recommend that both parties be able to choose someone they trust. I appreciate that MrScorch6200 seems willing to reserve judgement, and take the time to learn about the content and nature of the dispute.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • At this point, this dispute has turned into a whirlpool that's throwing around diffs, accusations, and policies. Let's start slow:
@Atlantictire: I want you to rewrite or at least modify the overview to expunge all of the info relating to user conduct and tell me why and how a dispute actually arose. Explain the first edits that were made that started the uproar etc,.  Done
@Fountains of Bryn Mawr: Your opening statement seems fine and I would appreciate it if you could stay and talk things out. After all, in the end, all we want is a resolution.
@Hasteur: Thanks for weighing in. If you would like, I would appreciate some help but please stay as far away as possible from discussing conduct. It will be hard in a case like this but it will help in the end. --Retracted statement; I just saw the talkpage. It would be wise to let Hasteur sit this one out. However, any help is appreciated. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 20:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
@MrX: Thank you for weighing in. I know that you aren't exactly an involved party but it seems you've dealt with the other two a lot so I figured it would be helpful if you weigh in.
To everybody: Let's all take a chill pill and rest for a day. Atlantictire and FoBM have been it at it for awhile and could use this time to ease up. I stress that we need to stay as far away as possible from discussing conduct in order to resolve this dispute. If we start discussing conduct again, I will not hesitate to close this case immediately and defer you to whichever forum I deem appropriate. I will open this case for discussion at noon tomorrow. I would ask that you refrain from editing this (until tomorrow), the Nikola Tesla article, and each other's talk pages. Thank you, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 16:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Wow. Thank you so much MrScorch6200. --Atlantictire (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I support MrScorch's astute requests and advice. All parties, please slow down, and strictly adhere to discussion of content only. Thanking all parties in advance. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC) DRN volunteer coordinator
TY MrScorch6200 and I have this on my watch list, so will comment and participate when needed. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to reiterate that I will not tolerate any conduct accusations or incivil remarks during the course of this particular case. I will not hesitate to close this case on such occasion. Forget about who did what and how they violated x policy. Focus on the content of the article only. I'll be watching all of your talk pages and Tesla's talk page. Thank you all, rest well, and I will see you tomorrow. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 21:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


  • OK guys, let's take this nice and slow. Let's discuss the first edits of the dispute. Atlantictire, tell Fountains of Bryn Mawr why you thought you needed to revise the article. Be precise and on the point; avoid involving your emotion.
Now FoBM, tell Atlantictire why his edits were incorrect or you disagreed with them. Let's work towards a compromise. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 16:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Doing this on my phone b/c I'm in the middle of fetching some furniture. I may not start editing the article again until Thu. Basically, I feel like I'm being made to argue about things I shouldn't be arguing. Like whether something should be in the article if the sources that support it are books by Pulitzer winning tech historians and the sources that don't are crank websites, "juvenial nonfiction," and intros to obscure handbooks. I understand there's a lot of misinformed Tesla mythology out there, but a reliable source is a reliable source. You kind of have to engage with this to understand how frustrating it is. Instead of surrendering to the reliable source we cite unreliable sources, or we claim something is in the sources that isn't actually in them, or we google a few words and cite the search result instead of a specific passage in a specific book. It's like you have to exhaust every trick in the POV play book before something can go in the article. This can take days for one simple fact. And when it does finally go in, it has to be FOBM who puts it there. If I try to it gets re-worded or reverted, with what to me seem like disingenous claims of factual inaccuracy. I feel like I'm being told to GO AWAY. I'll admit, I haven't always been civil, but I'm at least willing to forgive some incivility if I've forced someone to waste time proving I'm wrong.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm on my phone so no diffs but the fight to remove misleading and undue weight on Galileo Ferraris was murder. The article still doesn't simply state that Tesla was the first to attempt and in fact design a practical AC motor. And that's kind of the core reason Tesla matters at all. I'm worried the lead will be a similar ordeal.--Atlantictire (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I want to be able to get you two to see that collaboration is key by this point. I want you two to understand why we're here right now. Yes, a reliable source is a source. It can't be less worthy of being a RS than another book, website, etc,. If a reliable source claims x and another reliable source also claims x, they should both be considered reliable. Now, if a reliable source claims x and the other reliable source claims y, then there is a discrepancy. The way to go about concluding if x or y is correct is to abandon both sources, not consider the more worthy one of being reliable (there's always a chance that an extremely renowned source is incorrect, I've seen it happen!). You would need another RS that confirms that either x or y is correct. If Atlantictire wants to include something in the Tesla article that's in a reliable source that can be backed up, then he shouldn't be held back. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 17:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
That is not a problem. What I don't like is a bunch of disingenuous quibbling over what constitutes a reliable source, or what a source actually says.
I'm here to copyedit, and there are little minor inaccuracies all over the place. Like the job title of one of Tesla's financial backers. I'd like to fix these things without petty reverts or re-writes.--Atlantictire (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Reasons for reversal of this Atlantictire edit by Fountains of Bryn Mawr
  • Edit did not follow WP:LEAD "summarize the body"
Early history summary removed.
(1893) pronouncements on the possibility of wireless communication were turned into "radio" (they are not exactly the same thing). A big event, Wardenclyffe Tower was removed, as well as "wireless lighting and electricity distribution in his high-voltage, high-frequency power experiments"
Wrong date (it was 1888) and these were licensed, not sold.
This was addressed in article edits before this DRN
There is a well developed article at War of Currents covering these details.
Tesla's first demonstration of his motor and system was May 1888
Westinghouse started building AC systems in March 1886 - George Westinghouse: Gentle Genius By Quentin R. Skrabec
The 100 Most Significant Events in American Business: An Encyclopedia has the "war" in full force by November 1886.
The Power Makers: Steam, Electricity, and the Men Who Invented Modern America By Maury Klein shows compitition stiff by 1887 (121 stations by Edison DC, 68 by Westinghouse AC).
The first (grizzly) event noted as part of the war of the currents, electricuting animals, was in 1887. Thomas Edison reacted to the competition and the prospect of losing to AC service by starting a smear campaign against Westinghouse, claiming that AC technology was unsafe to use. In 1887, Edison held a public demonstration in West Orange, New Jersey, supporting his accusations by setting up a 1,000 volt Westinghouse AC generator attaching it to a metal plate and executing a dozen animals by placing the poor creatures on the electrified metal plate.
  • Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing was not the lab where Tesla developed his devices. That was the Brown and Peck financed "Tesla Electric Company"
  • Wording "Tesla’s habit of making public statements on topics such as interplanetary communication and supernatural phenomenon".
"interplanetary communication" is noted in the source but other claims were about "death rays" and destroying buildings and the entire world with tuned vibrations, not "supernatural phenomenon".
  • Tesla's 1884 trip to New York should be part of a Tesla biography (my opinion but its removal seemed too bold so got rolled into the WP:BRD)
  • Further "Edison's $50,000 joke" edit seemed ok but shortening Edison's quoted reply could put a POV on it. This was addressed in article edits before this DRN

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah ha. I think I know what's going on here.
So like I said, I like to fix up leads of electronics related articles so that people who aren't already obsessed with these things can get the gist of what they are and why they're notable. Let's just say that when I knock on the door and say yoohoo the copy editor's here, it's not always the red carpet and buckets of champagne. I expect the draft of my lead to be ignored or even reverted a time or two. I expect there to be some errors in what I've initially written. Eventually the engineers figure out what I'm doing and they work with me. They make sure the facts are correct and I make sure people who don't already know everything there is to know about the topic can read it. Sometimes we have to have extended conversations about whether the first sentence really needs to say "linear filter," but it's generally collaborative and enjoyable.
FOBM has fought me tooth and claw, arguing that I can't touch the article because I'm just wrong about everything. Because I don't think it's healthy for Wikipedia when people do this, I have gotten books about Tesla and read them and learned that... FOBM isn't always as right as he thinks he is.
Basically if something is factually incorrect I'm not going to put up a battle royal about it. The books I'd initially found for the patents said 1885, so it's not like I just made that up. I do think there is a correct answer. All of the incorrect nuance that FOBM is complaining about are either things I've long since acknowledged (ex: whether "ignited" is the best verb re: Tesla and the War of Currents) or never really advocated to begin with. I have given him a hard time about Ferraris and the War of Currents...and other editors have supported my edits and thanked me for raising the issue.
At some point FOBM does need to acknowledge that I'm not going to just go away. WP:OWN is something I refuse to give in to on principle. At some point I'd like to stop arguing about things we both know the answers to.--Atlantictire (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Atlantictire, the above post is almost completely unconstructive. Hasteur also believes this. To resolve this dispute, I need your cooperation. Where has FoBM ever stated that you aren't allowed to edit the article? Also, you said my post above this was "not the problem." Well, you mentioned that your source said that the patents were sold to Westinghouse in 1885. FoBM's source said that they were leased to Westinghouse in 1888. So, which is correct? MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that was a smart phone typo. By "not the problem" I meant "not a problem". I.e., I agree with you about reliable sources;-)--Atlantictire (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
But I guess I'm trying to say I'm not arguing with FOBM about any of those facts. I don't dispute them at all. I want to stop having arguments that are superficially about factual accuracy if they're really about something else. If FOBM feels insulted or his feelings are hurt, let's talk about it. Sorry if that sounded like a personal attack. I truly didn't mean for it to be one.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, I'm used to teasing engineers about how wonky they are. I think a lot of things I intended to be humorous may have been misconstrued as mean-spirited. Again, I apologize.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • At a loose ends for any reply because if the response is "All of the incorrect nuance that FOBM is complaining about are either things I've long since acknowledged ... or never really advocated to begin with" then the question would be why are we at DRN? I am not seeing the "something else" Atlantictire is alluding to. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Because so far every time I've tried to make an edit on something that seems to be consensus and based on reliable sources it's been reverted or re-written to more resemble a nonconsensus POV. I don't want endless arguments about facts that aren't really about facts. It's enormously frustrating. I promise to cut back on the snark if you demonstrate a little more trust in my adding modifying content. Show me that we are collaborating. I feel like I'm begging you to let me make changes and you can never quite bring yourself to let me. At some point I would also like MrX to be somewhat proactive if WP:OWN becomes an issue. I promise I'm not going to take over the article. We'll just fact check it, re-work some of the wording and re-write the lead.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, this all seems to be about conduct. Am I missing something about content? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I guess it does seem to be a conduct issue that often takes the guise of a content issue. We can try editing tomorrow and see how it goes. I would like to hear you say let's find a way to fix this rather than let's constantly find reasons to not make progress or address the problem. I'm trying to figure out how we can avoid falling back into the same pattern as before. Just a direct question: I've said what I'm willing to do differently. How about you?--Atlantictire (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
errr.... I am always "fixing", and removing inaccurate content is "progress", although you may not see it that way. You will find me applying WP:CCPOL. No other promises. If you are implying I applied WP:CCPOL incorrectly you should bring it up here, you opened the DRN. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not the world's greatest wikilawyer, but I think you've just said you're no longer going to revert edits of mine that are well researched and reflect talk page consensus. That means a lot to me. I'm so glad we were able to work through this. MrScorch6200, we'll start editing tomorrow and ping you should things get a bit hairy. I have full confidence that this will be fine.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2014 (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.

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Kurgan

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Ragdeenorc on 04:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

A user named Florian_Blaschke denies the etymology section of the word "kurgan". That's all.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

At the revision history I have tried to convince him with the wiktionary decision on Altaic etymology entries:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Votes/2013-11/Proto-Altaic#Decision

But the only reaction was like "I know better than all", in short he denies the wiktionary consensus. And I am aware I did edit-warring.

How do you think we can help?

Just make him clear to respect the consensus.

Summary of dispute by Florian_Blaschke

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

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Kurgan discussion

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

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I will be taking this case, once all parties have commented. I just wanted to remind everyone to keep it civil and polite, as there has been some heated language used for this dispute. Remember we all benefit if we work together cooperatively. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 04:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi, I'm MrScorch6200, an avid volunteer here. I would like to know if this case actually involves any disputed content of an article, because if not, DRN is not the right place. Also, Solarra, it seems weird to me that you would open this case at the Fringe theories noticeboard, redirect the editor here, then volunteer to take this particular case here. I don't know why you would have not just redirected them here and let a volunteer take care of it, or recused yourself from this particular dispute. But, I guess, whatever. Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 05:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't open the noticeboard incident there, merely found a personal attack on an already opened case there, which is what initially grabbed my attention to the issue. I put a notice at the top of the case there to remind all involved to be civil in discussing the changes. The user asked me where to resolve the dispute on Kurgan and I said this was the place to do it if talk page discussion and direct user communication has failed.
The dispute itself seems to be over some racially sensitive edits on both sides on Kurgan, but I've been waiting for both sides to respond. Both have been blocked once for edit warring, and I want to try to help them resolve the issues they seem to be having. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 07:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
OK! Just remember that we don't deal with user conduct here. ANI would be a better place. Also, I see very little talk page discussion except for here, so if I'm not missing something, then this case should be closed a premature (see the header, emphasis in original, "Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN." Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 13:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
People need to know that User:Radgeenorc is a typical nationalist/chauvinist/ethnocentric POV warrior who tries to force material about fringe ideas such as Paleolithic Continuity Theory (which includes the chronologically absurd identification of the Kurgan cultures as Turkic rather than Indo-European) and Altaic languages into the article. The word kurgan for a burial mound is a Russian word borrowed into English, it is of Turkic origin (apparently specifically Tatar), but it means "fortress" or "castle" there. Comparisons with Japanese (!), which have no credence in mainstream linguistics, have no place in the article. None of this is relevant to the reader, who comes to the article read about kurgans, not speculative "Proto-Altaic" roots. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary and the article is not called "Etymology of kurgan".
In addition, the user loves to hurl baseless accusations of ethnocentrism and racism at others who defend mainstream science, a behaviour apparently learnt from Alinei, the originator of the effectively ultra-ethnocentric PCT, which (among other absurdities) posits that Germany was inhabited by Germanic cavemen in the Ice Age – I wish I was joking! I have expounded in length on Talk:Kurgan hypothesis why it is ludicrous to accuse mainstream scholars, who overwhelmingly support Gimbutas' Kurgan model (with some tweaks), of ethnocentrism, racism or Nazi sympathies. Gimbutas herself did have some controversial (though influential) ideas, but she could not be further from endorsing any totalitarian ideology. She was a feminist and pacifist who despised Hitlerism no less than Stalinism.
Note that the user's behaviour suspiciously continues that of disappeared user User:Yagmurlukorfez and also reminds of User:Hirabutor and User:Barefact, who had similar POVs. These people (or person, if it is a single sockpuppeteer) need to be blocked, not allowed to steal time by waging edit wars and unending pointless debates. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2014 (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.

Timeline of the far future

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed 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.
Filed by Serendipodous on 21:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

User:‎Thunderblade56 has been making uncited changes without discussion to a featured list. I have asked him repeatedly to discuss his changes on the talk page, but he won't. I've probably violated 3RR by now, so I'm moving this up a notch.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have attempted to start a conversation on the talk page, which he has ignored.

How do you think we can help?

by making him realise that this isn't just me

Summary of dispute by ‎Thunderblade56

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

Timeline of the far future discussion

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

Talk:Somali Armed Forces#SAF Structure

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Buckshot06 on 08:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

My focus on Wikipedia is armed forces, with some special emphasis on areas not well covered because of our systemic bias. Under my real name I have published several academic articles; users interested in corroboration off-line are encouraged to contact me. In my editing I’ve encountered POV editing regarding the Azerbaijan, Poland, and Afghanistan articles. But none has matched the subtle but distorting effects this User:Middayexpress, has had. He is on the face of things a good user; references material and adds good content. But on the recent history of Somalia he has a definite blind spot; he is absolutely opposed to any material being included that criticises the transitional governments of 2004 onwards, or that emphasises Ethiopia's significant role in the war. Material that criticises the transitional government is repeatedly removed, sometimes with misleading edit summaries along the lines of "c/e". [8] He repeatedly waters down critical material in a way that misrepesents the political leanings of the people, and cheapens the suffering of those involved. The talkpage record at Somali Civil War will show that I have repeatedly attempted to challenge his watering down of statements and subtle changes of emphasis from the sources, on issues as varied as the actual start date of the civil war, the role of UNOSOM in local peacemaking, and the relative roles of the TFG versus the AU intervention force, AMISOM. This is also at Somali Armed Forces, in a variety of ways. His actions repeatedly whitewash Somali transitional institutions without due consideration of gold-standard investigative sources, for example, Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group. He also has a very WP:OWN attitude to Somalia-related articles; removing material which he doesn't like (such as regions' history), and inserts material which isn't there.


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Continued attempts on talkpages (Talk:Somali Civil War, Talk:Somali Armed Forces, requests via WP:MILHIST, request to Milhist coordinators, request to Milhist lead coordinator, who led me here.

How do you think we can help?

Determine whether a good cross section of the community feels that diffs such as this [9] are WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:POV. This kind of behaviour has been repeated *many* times. If so, the community could recommend actions be taken beyond this noticeboard. Frankly, I've never been as close to quitting in the face of blind censorship - POV - from Wikipedia in eight years.

Talk:Somali Armed Forces#SAF Structure discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I don't want to post much discussion before this is formally started by a volunteer, but I will note that I endorse Buckshot's concerns above: I have had some involvement in this matter, and agree that Middayexpress's conduct across various articles has not been helpful and attempts by Buckshot and a few others (including myself) to intervene have not been successful. I hope that a centralised discussion here helps to resolve this issue. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2014 (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.

Talk:Kasowitz, Benson,_Torres_%26_Friedman

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by NinaSpezz on 14:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Please note I have a declared COI with the subject of this page and have made no direct edits since March 2013. I have, however, recently been active on the talk page as I believe portions of the current article are in violation of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Because of my declared COI, I would of course like to avoid directly editing this content.

The sections in question include No. of offices (in info box, Reputation and rankings, Lawsuits as PR Tools and Whistleblower Targeting, Cold offers, Attrition, Headcount by Office and Title

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Direct correspondence on the talk page with the editor who added this content has not resulted in a consensus on the content in question. A post to the no original research noticeboard went unanswered.

How do you think we can help?

I would appreciate if a third party editor reviewed the content in question and offered appropriate edits.

Summary of dispute by Omaharodeo

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

Talk:Kasowitz, Benson,_Torres_%26_Friedman discussion

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

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here at DRN, but I am neither taking this request or opening it for discussion at this time. I just wanted to note that Omaharodeo has not edited Wikipedia since June 2, has only edited in relation to this matter, and only had 22 total edits at that time. That's not to say anything bad about him, but unless he comes back and participates here, there may well be no dispute for DRN to handle. If that occurs, this is just a mere help request and DRN does not handle help requests. We'll leave this open for a few days to see if he shows up but if he does not, then this will probably be closed and you can seek help at Editor assistance. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

  • @NinaSpezz: To be honest with you, considering Omaharodeo's one month hiatus, I think he's just abandoned his editing of the article, and therefore abandoned discussion. I suggest that you withdraw this case and go on your merry way. Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 03:22, 27 June 2014 (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.

Talk:Madison McKinley

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 209.216.198.101 on 19:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_McKinley - This article needs help with resolving the disputes between editors in fairness. User Jersey92 has unreasonably and ambiguously tagged the article: Madison McKinley which is beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness. Thus, it is impossible for other Wikipedia editors to know exactly how to help this article. The fact is that user Jersey92 wrote, "I started to edit the article from the start and realized that the entire article needed too much work." So, how are other Wikipedia editors expected know which areas to help out? The level of this article has already determined by Wikipedia a year ago as "start-class". Looking at user Jersey92's record, user Jersey92 has a history of requesting for article deletion; However, McKinley is clearly a notable person. According to the record, all user Jersey92 did was placing the ambiguous tags on the article without showing any evidence of solving the issues. User Jersey92 should at least delete the poor sources as stated by user Jersey92 and put "citation needed" so other Wikipedia editors know where to help out.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Yes

How do you think we can help?

You can help by dissolving the disputes using fairness.

Summary of dispute by Jersey92

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

Summary of dispute by Wikiweb10011

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

Talk:Madison McKinley discussion

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

Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 81.99.59.56 on 17:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

I proposed a new system for UK opinion poll tables, adding parties and removing the arbitrariness of the current system to honour Wiki policies on neutrality and inclusion to create an objective, impartial system. Other countries’ tables also follow my system - including who they can and following Wiki policies. I received positive feedback, but Owl In The House opposed.

Last week, unaware of a talk page, I added a Green column. Most supported it, but my edits were imperiously dismissed and removed without appropriate consideration by Owl In The House, who stated their opinion and claimed it as 'consensus'. Others agreed - 'I am concerned Owl's strong feelings on this matter shouldn’t be seen as consensus’. I then found Owl was recently pursuing a similar cause to the one s/he was now rejecting - 'trying to force UKIP in when clearly the consensus was against it’. I said these conflicting opinions suggested Owl was manipulating content using political motivations, and expressed concern that s/he was abusing member status to remove my laborious edits. Today, I found the discussion was closed by Owl, who said my comments were ‘to be disregarded’ and ‘based on provably false defamatory comments’. Owl then gave me 'a warning' which s/he does not have the authority to issue, telling me I 'must' retract my remarks and threatening to ‘escalate this'. I was accused of bias and being 'pro-Green', which is exactly the accusation Owl was trying to persecute me for making. The assertive and aggressive language is one issue I want to raise.

I received positive feedback for my new table design to harmonise with other countries. When Owl got to it, I was told 'NO, this is not an acceptable change', again using aggressive, assertive language and I was shown no respect ('errr duuuhhh'). Wikipedia is a community project, meaning all editors are equal. The callous way in which my and others' views have been arrogantly dismissed goes against my morals and more importantly Wikipedia’s

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I contacted Wikipedia support, and was told 'Wikipedia policy, nonetheless, is that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias'. I was then told to come here to resolve the issue.

How do you think we can help?

While I realise Wikipedia is run by consensus, I would like to question whether the opposition is justified and whether we should have a more inclusive table system and design. I would also like to raise the issue of Owl In The House's conduct in the dispute, e.g. threatening me with a warning s/he does not have the authority to issue.

Summary of dispute by 81.99.59.56

What Owl In The House says below is categorically untrue. I did not implement any changes to the system, which is exactly why I posted a prototype on the talk page - to get feedback prior to posting. I have not in any way sensationalised things, and I wholly reject that accusation. This whole 'hard done by' attitude from Owl In The House should not affect an objective view of the situation. Owl In The House repeatedly demands an apology for the accusations I have made, and yet makes the exact same accusations towards me, as already mentioned in the original post, and which can be seen below. I am frankly appalled by the completely spurious accusation of me being 'abusive' (I wonder how long before Owl starts launching personal attacks). A quick read of the talk page would see the constant domineering approach taken by Owl In The House to anyone who disagrees with them seems to be more than enough to justify the label s/he throws around so erroneously.

I should not have to keep defending myself over these unjust accusations. Owl In The House claims I haven't 'came here to be constructive' but with 'a set agenda'. If that bias accusation were true, would I really spend my time redesigning the entire table on a visual level as well as structurally? The reason I launched the query was to be constructive and follow Wikipedia's policies on inclusion and neutrality.

Owl In The House's 'plea' with me to read Wiki policy, which I had already done, seems like merely an effort to condescend me and try and portray him/herself as the more 'experienced' editor, as is evident in his/her highlighting of me being a 'new IP editor'. If Owl In The House had even read Wikipedia policy, they would know editors should be treated equally and not ridiculed, and they would also know that pages should be 'written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias'. What I have proposed, and what every other country is using, regardless of voting system, is exactly that. Owl In The House seems to be alone in these stubborn opinions, whilst I have received positive feedback for my proposal. Owl insists that because this system has been active for so long, it is automatically right. As I have mentioned, every other country is using the system I propose, so why shouldn't we change the UK system and honour Wikipedia's policies?

Summary of dispute by Owl In The House

The IP editor in question falsely claims that they proposed a new system, they did not, they just went ahead and implemented a change that breached an established consensus that took a very long time to reach. By the way there is no arbitrary criteria for the current grounds of inclusion, there's no fixed percentage, we reflect the reliable sources. I have pleaded with this IP editor to read Wiki policy and to also look in the talk archives to see the consensus reached for the current format. He/she refuses to reason and has also made false defamatory accusations against myself, I have asked that these comments be retracted several times and I am currently minded to pursue this matter further. I am accused of being politically biased towards one political party and against another; I have presented examples which prove that I am not. This IP editor has failed to assume good faith and has made provably false accusations against me, I am clearly owed an apology here. I am not "persecuting" this IP for anything, I was merely reverting a bold edit back to its original version and using the talk page to challenge such edits. If anyone is being persecuted it is me, I am the one who has had false accusations leveled against me, not the IP editor. I regularly find myself having to revert overtly pro-Green Party edits from various articles, we are here to reflect reality and reliable sources after all. The one concession I will make is that I can sometimes be a bit too firm when it comes to rebutting the onslaught of Green edits in various different places on Wikipedia, its often the same arguments over and over again and yet the actual substance never changes. It is very time consuming and hence frustrating. This editor has completely distorted reality in their explanation and sensationalised things, you will see this from the articles talk page. At some point I will give more explanation to the reasoning etc and arguments. I don't see why I should though as much of it is already on other talk pages that I have pointed the IP editor in the direction of. It is clear that this new IP editor is not here to be constructive, they have come with a set agenda, they are abusive, fail to assume good faith and throw around unfounded accusations, I am minded to pursue a block.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election discussion

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

William McIntosh page

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Tafhvmken on 00:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The traditional MUSCOGEE CREEK spelling of WHITE WARRIOR is spelled Tvstvnvkke Hvtke. William McIntosh is my GR-GR-GR-GR-GR Grandfather on my FATHER'S side. I am a citizen of the Muscogee Creek Nation and a READER, WRITER, and SPEAKER of the MUSCOGEE CREEK LANGUAG All I want is that an article about my ancestor is that it be as correct as possible especially when it concerns his NATIVE CULTURE.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I edited the page with INCORRECT information about WILLIAM MCINTOSH

How do you think we can help?

Your researcher needs to do more research on traditional MUSCOGEE CREEK spelling instead of taking someone's word as to how it is spelled. Again I am a MUSCOGEE CREEK READER, WRITER, SPEAKER, AND TEACHER.

Summary of dispute by

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

William McIntosh page discussion

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

Talk:Windows Live_Mail#Routing_of_mail.2C_general_security

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Mydogtrouble on 02:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview


Two users have deleted twice a request for article to contain information on whether Microsoft Live Mail routes emails through Microsoft or only service providers' routes.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asked not to be erased. Pointed out they put words in my mouth I didn't say.

How do you think we can help?

Make a judgement call.

Summary of dispute by FleetCommand

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

Summary of dispute by Codename Lisa

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

Talk:Windows Live_Mail#Routing_of_mail.2C_general_security discussion

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

Talk:Saybrook University

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Pengortm on 05:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

I have been making good faith edits and been getting abusive and poorly referenced changes (with high selective reading) and poor use of the talk page by a user. It's getting to the level of edit warring and I am going to leave the article alone for now since I may be at fault here as well. Users Ugog Nizdast and Stfg have been helpful as a 3O, but I think some more outside help is needed here.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

notice on users talk page, requests that editor use talk page, long discussions on talk page and requests for better sources and attempts to try to teach the user about what type of sources are credible versus not

How do you think we can help?

Not sure. Others weighing in more on the talk page and in editing might be helpful.

Summary of dispute by 175.157.2.57

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

Summary of dispute by Ugog Nizdast

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

Summary of dispute by Stfg

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

Talk:Saybrook University discussion

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

Volunteer's note re parties: I am a regular volunteer here at DRN, but I am neither "taking" nor opening this case for discussion at this time. It should be noted that Ugog Nizdast and Stfg participated at the article talk page as dispute resolution (Third Opinion) volunteers and may choose to either not respond here or choose not to participate. If that is the case, then their absence is not critical since it is unlikely that they would continue to be parties to the dispute. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Administrative note: What I see here are two IP's (likely the same person) both of whom are single purpose accounts, who are unaware of WP guidelines and policies and are ignoring talk page consensus. I think the solution here is to ask for page protection rather than a DRN. Page protection will force the IP's to use the article talk page. It would also be valuable if one or two neutral editors joined the discussion so its not just one on one. So my suggestion is to close this case and make the page protection request. Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
That sounds like a good first (and hopefully final) step to resolve this problem. Do you recommend that I try to close this request and request the article protection or wait for this to be discussed more or allow an administrator to do this instead? Thanks --Pengortm (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Since you are the filing party and you agree with my evaluation I'm going to close this case and make a request for page protection. We can discuss further on your talk page. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:05, 30 June 2014 (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.

Talk:History of the Shakespeare authorship question

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by FatGuySeven on 15:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Following several academic reference books, I have added a greater range of dates to the 'first doubts' concerning the [History of the Shakespeare Authorship Question]. I adjusted the lead accordingly, and was reverted several times. The current phrasing is just plain wrong (Claims that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works traditionally attributed to him were first explicitly made in the 19th century. To that date, there is no evidence that his authorship was ever questioned.)

I have cited two reference books that were already used in the article, but am being told the references are either "wrong" or don't count. At some time, the word "explicit" was added and now the editors are deciding what was implicit and what was not.

There is a related article where similar issues are at play: [List of Shakespeare authorship candidates] where the same mistake opens the article. In a similar issue, an addition I made was deleted because I was told that the academic reference book "was wrong".[[10]]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Because there were multiple issues, (conduct and content), I filed at the administrator notice board and was told they don't do content, and I was referred here. Prior to that I posted extensive quotes from the two reference books, [[11]] but no response other than accusations that I didn't understand the references.

How do you think we can help?

Help build a consensus on the opening statement of these two articles. The current editing team is locked into only adding material they agree with. The leads should reflect the articles and the references and they do not. If scholars disagree, that should be acknowledged in the article. And opinions should not be stated as facts. We need help to correct these issues and provide future guidance.

Summary of dispute by TomReedy

After being here a month, with 96 mainspace edits and 26 talkpage edits, FatGuySeven (talk · contribs) seems to believe that content sourced by old and superseded sources must be included in Wikipedia articles with no exercise of editorial judgement, whilst my position is that we are not required to follow sources into error, especially when supported by later scholarship. As with the original complaint, I'm sure the admins will be able to determine the reality of the situation by reviewing the edit histories (Shakespeare authorship question: Revision history, List of Shakespeare authorship candidates: Revision history, History of the Shakespeare authorship question: Revision history) and talk pages (Talk:Shakespeare authorship question, Talk:List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, Talk:History of the Shakespeare authorship question) of the relevant articles, so I'll hold my peace unless asked a direct question to refrain from making this any longer and more tedious than necessary. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Nishidani

Reedy, I and Paul Barlow (and a few others) brought that article out of the slough of despond it languished in for several years when it was dominated by a true believer User:Smatprt by bringing it up and passing the FA test some years ago. A dozen long-term editors see to it that its quality is maintained, all thoroughly informed of the history of its controversies. The present editor seems to be a newbie, and walks past detailed explanations as to why two books written in the late 50s, with many errors or oversights corrected by later scholarship, cannot be cited for views which are no longer supported by scholarship (but which are still pillars of the WP:Fringe world of pseudo-research that goes under the name of anti-Stratfordism). That's all I have to say. I don't engage in dispute resolution with people who walk into wiki and after a week of not replying intelligently to serious rejoinders, go to A/1 and then to the dispute resolution page. I've been through all this before, and all of the arguments and the patterns of editing, are amply available in the archived pages. If I see something intelligent, I will drop a note. Otherwise, there is no dispute here, but simply a behavioural problem wedded to a frail grasp of policy and practice.Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:History of the Shakespeare authorship question

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

Administrative comments: I've closed the discussion at WP:ANI (see here) and there has been significant discussion on the talk page so it appears this case meets the requirements of WP:DRN. However, having perused the responses from the participants above as well as some of the links provided and the talk page discussion, I am doubtful that this issue is within the scope of this noticeboard's general description and purpose: "an informal place to resolve small content disputes." The issue concerns a wide variety of sources, requires some knowledge of the subject area, and would include significant reading/research for the moderator. It also appears to have impacted the content and editing at several related articles. I'm inclined to think that the issue is too broad for DRN and should be referred to WP:MEDIATION. Comments from others? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer coordinator)

Since the articles in question all fall within the bounds of the sanctions imposed by the arbitration committee in 2011, are there any other procedures that apply? Tom Reedy (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
It would seem to me that both of the responding editors are saying that this is more a conduct matter than a content matter. If that is the case, and I'm not saying that I agree that it is or is not, then since discretionary sanction notices no longer imply wrongdoing then everyone involved here probably ought to be issued one and if they cannot work out their differences on the article talk page and still believe that this is a conduct matter which fails to satisfy the discretionary sanction expectations, then this should be taken to arbitration enforcement. Looking at it from a content point of view, on the other hand, with Nishidani effectively saying that they will not engage in dispute resolution, I believe that this should be closed as fruitless. The requesting editor can then try making a request at the Mediation Committee but they (actually, I should say "we," since I'm a member of that committee) have a participation rule there and while it's possible they might still take the case with just Tom Reedy and the requesting editor, I think it likely that it will be rejected if Nishidani rejects mediation there. Even if Nishidani believes he might be willing to participate, I do agree with Keithbob that this is sufficiently complicated that it might do better there than here at DRN. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with T-Man that:
1) This case should be closed
2) Participants should consider filing at WP:AE if they feel there are clear behavioral violations as outlined at the relevant ArbCom case. (NOTE: On June 24th, FG7 received a notice regarding the relevant discretionary sanctions.)
3) or ask Nishidani if he/she would participate in a WP:Mediation and if yes, go to that venue.
Other dispute resolution options are summarized at WP:DRR.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 30 June 2014 (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.

Star Alliance

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Airplane54 on 16:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

I recently made some edits to the star alliance, Air india, and airline alliance pages. A user named Rzxz1980 deleted all my hard work and said they don't join till July. I gave him a press release from Star Alliance but he still deleted everything.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I told him on his talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I would like a one on one discussion with him.

Summary of dispute by Rzxz1980

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

Star Alliance discussion

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

Nature%27s Harmony_Farm

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Bruceki on 20:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Natures harmony farm has been the focus of controversy for its published practices and procedures. An entry here that covers the basic points of the controversy (as well as text authored by the owners of the farm) continues to be edited to remove any references to the various controversial items; animal husbandry, tampering with reviews on amazon, that the farm is for sale now, opinions of other experienced farmers, and so on.

The original entry was created by a username Candleabracadabra that was later deemed a sock puppet acount.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

after noticing the deletions, I've tried to contact the editor three times on his talk page. No response. Just more deletions.

How do you think we can help?

I'd like to have a discussion about the items he objects to to make sure that they're factual and correct. If there is another side to the story, I'd like him to tell it in the entry. Wikipedia entries are not a marketing tool for a farm, which is apparently what he considers it to be. Failing a discussion, I'd like edits to be restricted on this entry.

Summary of dispute by skynrdman

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

Summary of dispute by Candleabracadabra

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

Nature%27s Harmony_Farm discussion

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

Talk:Ghana

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Masssly on 00:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

A group of editors whom I believe are working together are populating Ghana article with Akan content. (the Asante ethnic group to be specific). Most of the information they provide (already contained on other Akan related articles) are trivial and do not impart further meaning to the context of Ghana article only that it asserts their motive. The Akan ethnic group are the largest in the country and I understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines permit discussing individual ethnic groups relative to their population in the country as per WP:WEIGHT. However, the manner of their edits portrays an unhealthy agenda of promoting Akan dominance overall, whiles downplaying on the importance of other existing ethnic groups. I find such edits regarding a culturally divers country such as Ghana as very controversial and insensitive and has a potential to cause tensions among its people if not properly watched. They are so determined to push this agenda so much so that they avoid discussing their edits on the talk page even after I made incessant polite appeals to them to do so. Should they appear on the talk page at all they do not stay on point of the dispute or try to resolve it but rather resort to personal attacks, revert my edits and template my talk page with vandalism. The parties involved are further engaged in the removal of maintenance tags without attempting to correct the concerns of the tags. They remove "failed verification" and "citation needed" tags in-lines with impunity and once again call me a vandal for requesting clarification.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I first tried placing maintenance tags on the article, they get rid if them and even remove "citation needed" and "failed-verification" templates. Then I tried getting them to engage in article talk discussions but they choose rather to respond with personal attacks in edit summaries and on the talk page. One user (Thesunshinesate in particular) stated in the talk page that "lol, I can't deal with you" and "I can spend time to refute your claims one by one but I won't I can't take you seriously"

How do you think we can help?

I would like that you did away with all disputed statements that fail verification or have no references. I would also like that the article maintains a neutral tone and does not try to promote some ethnic group above others and downplaying on others, such an atmosphere does not and has never existed in the country and is only now emerging on Wikipedia.

Summary of dispute by Thesunshinesate

MrScorch6200 thnx for the notification. I have already engaged the other editor on the talk page of the Ghana article, there isn't anything I have to say that I haven't said there. Thesunshinesate (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC).

Summary of dispute by Bantekas

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

Summary of dispute by 216.165.95.64

Why can't we all just watch the world cup #Team USA

OK, I haven’t been a part of the edit war on the page but The user Masssly who started this report here on the noticeboard has been terrorizing the Ghana for weeks now and was recently blocked for edit warring. He is unhappy that the page has information about the Akan ethic group of Ghana. The countries largest ethic group. The Akan’s mainly the Ashanti people had a huge impact in the development of the nation and has had a significant role in that region for thousands of years. To be honest they ranked among the most powerful African kingdoms of all time. A simple Internet search on the countries history will bring up countless academic and researched information supporting this. But Massly claims it’s all lies and its some sort of consripiracie to push “Akan Dominance”. Massly according to his Wikipedia page is from one of Ghana’s smaller and less influential ethnic groups. His whole purpose is to remove the information of the Akan from the page. Infect he did it and replaced it with the “history” (more like oral folklore) of his people.

Being well versed in the history of pre-colonial Africa as well as knowing about ethnic relations. I am aware of the rift between the predominantly muslin northerners of Ghana and the rest of the other groups who are mostly Akan and Christian. Massly edits are just a form of tribal warfare. He doesn’t like the Akan’s mainly the Ashanti and he wants to remove their influence from the page. Being that they make up about 80% of Ghana’s population it’s hard to not mention them in an article about Ghana when their people and culture helped shaped the country. As John Carter mentioned below it is a issue of WP:WEIGHT. Also, Masssly hasn’t provided a single source to contradict what is written. All he does is remove portions and twist references. He claim there is a conspiracy but if anyone has a conspiracy it is him. All he wants is for any mention of them to be removed from the article. But when you look at the Ghana page. They are not mentioned or talk about as much as he makes it seem. This is my 2 cents on the matter. 216.165.95.64 (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by involved John Carter

So far as I can tell, the essence of the dispute relates to WP:WEIGHT and frequency and degree of mention of the various ethnic groups in the Ghana article. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ghana discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Hello! I am MrScorch6200, a volunteer here. I am not taking this case or opening it at this time, but I would like to note that I notified all involved users on their talk pages. Thanks! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm also a regular volunteer who is neither taking nor opening this for discussion, but I think that we need a clarification from Thesunshinesate: Does your response above mean (a) you've said all you care to say on this matter and will not interfere with any result reached in the mediation here at DRN or does it mean (b) that you're going to continue to edit the article and participate at the article talk page and ignore whatever happens here? Or something else? Let me say that no one has to participate in dispute resolution who does not care to do so, but your nonparticipation here may result either in this case being closed or in it moving forward without your participation with the possibility that a consensus is reached about the article that you do not care for. Note that if you mean choice (a), above, that your position at the article talk page may not be considered in the discussions here or, if considered, may not be given serious consideration; we frequently look at things from scratch here rather than just continuing what's been said at the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello User:TransporterMan, being that the talk page is what the editor listed above as the location of the dispute in, I don't know why the discussions there may not be considered. Also as you asked to make it clear I am not going to stop editing the page. My position is that I've already engaged with Masssly on the talk page and have said all I can say about his theories & allegations, there really isn't anything else that I say.Thesunshinesate (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2014 (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.

Talk:Abiogenesis

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Shandck on 05:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The current lead sentence of the article entitled "abiogenesis" is incorrect. Editors of the page are refusing to allow it to be corrected and closing discussions on the talk page describing why it is incorrect.

Bottom line: If there is a natural process by which life could have emerged from non living material, scientists certainly haven't identified or described it yet, so it is misleading to students and the community to suggest that they have. Because such a process cannot currently be explained and may never will, it simply cannot be assumed that life was formed through natural processes in the first place; speculation and assumption are not scientific facts.

The Oxford Dictionary definition of theory is "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained" and based on current science, that's exactly what abiogenesis is. A theory is only a theory until it is proven with undeniable evidence, and the burden of proof lies on proponents of abiogenesis to show that life was formed through natural processes.

For a structure to be considered alive it must be self reproducing and self sustaining through a metabolism that responds to its environment. A complete cell is the smallest unit that can be considered alive. Amino acids aren't alive. Lipids aren't alive. Carbohydrates aren't alive. Yet these are the structures discussed in the article, and in current science, that have been produced experimentally through natural processes - not life itself. Since scientific experimentation has only showed how organic compounds could have been made through natural processes, not living cells, it is reasonable to doubt that abiogenesis occurred. The burden of proof is on proponents of the theory and they may never be able to achieve it, meaning that life may not have been formed by natural processes at all.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I proposed the new lead sentence of "abiogenesis is the theory that life could have arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds, through natural processes." on the talk page. Several Wikipedia users including ReallyFat B., Dontreader, and 86.21.101.69 agree that this is a much more accurate lead sentence. However, Wikipedia editors like Apokryltaros, BatteryIncluded and Drbogdan continually deny these changes and close our discussion threads on the talk page showing why it is better.

How do you think we can help?

The current lead sentence "abiogenesis is the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds" is not a factual statement by any means. Several Wikipedia users have opened discussion on the articles talk page showing why, only to have them closed.

Allow changes to be made to the lead sentence of the "abiogenesis" article based on facts, evidence (or lack thereof) and logic - regardless of the individual users opinions on the subject who disagree.

Summary of dispute by ReallyFat B.

I agree with Shandck in all he has said. I cannot stress enough that this is a topic open to debate, and that there are several alternatives to the current phrasing. I can suggest a few here myself. One could replace this: Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds. with the following: Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is thought to be the natural process... Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the theorized natural process... In scientific theory, Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the...

I also strongly advocate the removal of the redirect of the page Origin of Life to Abiogenesis, and instead set up a disambiguation page of sorts which may allow users to freely choose which article(s) they wish to look at (Pansermia, Abiogenesis, Creation, etc). The current sentence is misleading and grossly incorrect. Abiogenesis has never once been observed in action, nor has it been ever reproduced in a lab - nobody has even come close. The largest encyclopedia in the world can not have a process which is at best a theory labelled falsely as a fact under the whim of a few editors who have been running down all attempts of review or correction through mean, ad hominem attacks and refusal to address the issue. I sincerely hope that this issue is addressed this time around, and addressed properly.

Summary of dispute by Dontreader

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

Summary of dispute by 86.21.101.69

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

Summary of dispute by Apokryltaros

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

Summary of dispute by BatteryIncluded

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

Summary of dispute by Drbogdan

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

Talk:Abiogenesis discussion

I'm uninvolved, but it is worth pointing out that the actual first line of this article reads ...

"Origin of life" redirects here. For non-scientific views on the origins of life, see Creation myth.

Given that, this is pointless. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I would disagree. Having Origin of Life redirect to this page in any case is wrong, as is the naming of the "Creation" page as Creation myth. But the real problem is that the editors of Abiogenesis are so overzealous in their conviction that what they believe is right, they see fit to put it down as such on Wikipedia, where we're looking for facts and not their opinions. ReallyFat B. 11:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)ReallyFat B. 11:55, 2 July 2014 (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.

Rookie Blue (season 5)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 66.87.81.24 on 10:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

If American airdates should be included for a Canadian series. I removed because its a Canadian series. No need for international premieres. I kept the US ratings as per MOS:TV ("As this is not the American Wikipedia, it would be beneficial to find international reception.")

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing the problem on his talk page.

How do you think we can help?

American or British airdates can't be added to every series. Original airdate is enough. We don't just list airdates for every country.

Summary of dispute by Walter Görlitz

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

Rookie Blue (season 5) discussion

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

Category talk:Cities and towns in Russia#Continental categories

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Paradoctor on 17:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

I removed two categories which violate WP:SUBCAT and WP:V via WP:CAT. The only remotely adequate counterargument (local consensus) to this claim was refuted (WP:CONLIMITED), otherwise nobody has addressed the points raised.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to get WP:3O, but that became moot very quickly.

How do you think we can help?

Maybe this process will get Good Ol'factory back to the table, and help focus on addressing the points raised, instead of trying to drag considerations into the discussion that belong elsewhere. An RfC is a bit much for what amounts to simply enforcing WP:CAT.

Summary of dispute by postdlf

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

Summary of dispute by Good_Olfactory

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

Category talk:Cities and towns in Russia#Continental categories discussion

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

Administrative note: It appears there has been extensive discussion on the talk page and that all participants have been notified of this DRN case on their talk page. After the participants have made opening statements any DRN volunteer may open the case for moderated discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer coordinator)

Status note: It should be noted that postdlf has indicated at their user talk page, in response to the DRN notice, that s/he will not be participating at DRN and that Good Olfactory has indicated at the category talk page that s/he does not care to continue the discussion at all. This listing would appear to be futile and unless they change their minds in the next couple of days, it ought to be closed and referred to RFC. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Prior to the category talk page discussion, the lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:CAT#Exceptions to the rule that members of subcategories should always fit into the supercategories they inherit should provide proper context for Paradoctor's issue. Half a dozen editors there disagreed with his insistence that CAT should be enforced in a particular way, while he dismissed their explanations to the contrary as simply "not relevant" and then proceeded to edit this category according to his solitary view. This is just one tendentious editor trying to insist upon his own opinion, not a genuine content dispute, and it is only incidentally about this category, which is why I don't intend to participate with him in this process here or think an RFC is worthwhile. The issue has already gotten substantial attention from a number of experienced editors and we don't honor heckler's vetoes. postdlf (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll wait for Good Ol'factory's decision. Paradoctor (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree substantially here with what postdlf has written above. I think what can be said about this was largely exhausted in the original discussion, and I don't think pursuing it here will resolve anything. Paradoctor has not been satisfied with the reasons that have been provided in that discussion. I understand the user's concerns and point of view and that s/he regards many of the explanations irrelevant, but I think there is consensus among other editors who are familiar with the area and that that consensus adequately addresses the problems raised. This does have the scent of getting borderline "tendentious". Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I think what needs clarifying right now is whether you're going to participate in this DR. Paradoctor (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2014 (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.

Talk:Rob Ford mayoral campaign, 2014#Ben Johnson and Sam Tarasco

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Ivanvector on 20:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

This dispute is regarding whether or not we should say that Ben Johnson and Sam Tarasco are part of Rob Ford's campaign team, based on available sources. On April 8 this year, Johnson and Tarasco met with Ford, who announced that they were joining his campaign team; the announcement was well covered. A day later, both Johnson and Tarasco said they met with Ford for an unrelated charity event and he surprised them with the announcement, and denied that they have any official role in the campaign. Two sources I added to the article quote Ford's campaign manager backing this up. User Kingjeff is reading this (I think) as saying that they are involved with the campaign but with no particular task, while I read "no official role" as meaning they are not officially part of the campaign team. The dispute is explained in more detail on the talk page.

Kingjeff has also accused me of POV pushing related to this (on my talk page) which I don't take as offensive (it's Rob Ford after all) but I disagree that my edits are biased. I wish only to include factual information from reliable sources, and not publish half-truths about living persons. However I recognize that I may not be able to see my own POV on this (I live in Toronto) thus input on neutrality would be greatly appreciated.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

After User Kingjeff reverted a series of my edits, I opened a set of discussions on the talk page. We reached a compromise on most of the issues, but we are not able to resolve the dispute described above after fairly extensive debate. Since Kingjeff has accused me of pushing a non-neutral POV, I feel that the likelihood of the two of us resolving this one-on-one is remote.

How do you think we can help?

We need a neutral editor to review the sources and determine what is appropriate to include in the article. Any other commentary is welcome.

Summary of dispute by Kingjeff

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

Talk:Rob Ford mayoral campaign, 2014#Ben Johnson and Sam Tarasco discussion

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

Administrative note: In my opinion there has been significant talk page discussion and the issue is defined and meets the scope of DRN. All participants have been notified and as soon as Kingjeff (talk · contribs) provides a summary I will begin moderation of this dispute. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:43, 3 July 2014 (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.

Coffee

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Andrew H. Wheeler on 16:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

When referencing anything that has to do with the coffee plant (coffea arabica or robusta), the fruit of the plant is technically a cherry, or drupe and not a berry. There is a different variety of the Coffeeberry plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhamnus_californica)where the use of coffeeberry is appropriate due to the actual name of the plant.

Even the coffee industry does not use the word "coffee berry" when referencing the coffee fruit. It is a misrepresentation of what the fruit actually is, and factually incorrect. It is not even colloquially or within the coffee industry accurate, or used to represent the coffee fruit.

In, addition, my company (www.futureceuticals.com) owns the trademark Coffeeberry(r) and the worldwide patents to preserve the entire coffee fruit (www.coffeeberry.com). Before our technology was introduced, the mucilage of the coffee fruit was discarded as waste. Consiquesntly, any use of the term Coffeeberry without carrying the (r) is a violation of our intellectual property, and in conjunction with the above noted misuse of the coffee berry terminology, we feel a corrected Wiki page is in order.

I contacted the author of the page, and on several occasions, the author refused to make the changes to the sections that only referenced the coffee plant, and the images with misuses in the cutlines. We have no issue with the coffeeberry borer plant use as it does not reference the fruit of the coffea arabica plant.

The disimbiguation page for coffee berry should also be addressed.



Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The page author suggested this method of resolution

How do you think we can help?

I would ask that all references on the coffee page of 'coffee berry' be changed to 'coffee fruit' or 'coffee cherry' to reflect a more accurate and proper use. Any reference to the fruit of the coffea arabica plant as coffee berry, or coffeeberry, has been trademarked and patented by Futureceuticals, Inc., and thus should carry the proper (r) designation if used in this context. Thank you.

Summary of dispute by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Antiqueight

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

Coffee discussion

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

Talk:Star Alliance#Air_India

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Airplane54 on 16:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

I sent a request and it was answered but not to my liking. I am sending a new request because I have some new information on Air India's membership into star alliance. Here are the links to the new information.Here are the links http://www.staralliance.com/en/services/map http://www.starallianceemployees.com/about-staralliance/member-airline-ceo.html http://www.starallianceemployees.com/about-staralliance/member-airlines.html http://www.starallianceemployees.com/about-staralliance/member-airlines.html?tx_mprefguide_pi1%5BshowUid%5D=30&cHash=2a981fdc5da60bfee95d22271a4e3665


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Requested dispute resolution

How do you think we can help?

By looking at my new information and then see if i can edit.

Summary of dispute by

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

Talk:Star Alliance#Air_India discussion

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

Jennifer Rubin (journalist)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Cwobeel on 17:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

There is an unresolved dispute about critical material about this person. Involved editors have been reverting each other over past several weeks.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Requested feedback at the BLP/N - Talk page discussion Talk:Jennifer_Rubin_(journalist)#Very_serious_POV_problems

How do you think we can help?

By providing moderation in te discussion to identify common ground and arrive at a compromise.

Summary of dispute by Factchecker atyourservice

I can't think what I would say here that hasn't already been said repeatedly (and at length) over at the talk page. Aua and Sepsis have an axe to grind and they are insistent upon committing policy violations to get the job done. IMO these two editors cannot objectively edit articles about Jews whom they plainly despise, and they have each earned a topic ban at minimum. The most cursory inspection of the content these editors insist upon will reveal gross policy violations including inappropriate POV editorializing and misrepresentation of cited sources. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Malerooster

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

Summary of dispute by Sean.hoyland

Thanks for the invite but my involvement there is limited to reverting site banned racist psychopath Grawp/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis, someone who has issued countless threats of violence and been disrupting Wikipedia for 10 years. They are probably the single worst offender in Wikipedia's history. Why they are not in prison or a psychiatric ward given that their identity is known is a bit puzzling. I have no interest in the article or any content issues. I understand from Factchecker atyourservice here that sledgehammer-like reverts may cause collateral damage, at least in their view, which is entirely possible, but I'm assuming editors who are actually interested in the content can cover that. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sepsis II

This is a common problem around ARBPIA articles, one editor tries to whitewash it, I restore and inform the whitewasher why their edits are inappropriate, they violate BLP by posting insults to notable writers, no one cares as the target isn't anti-Palestine, brewcrewer reverts me as he often stalks my edits, the whitewasher continues to not listen, then they go to boards. Sepsis II (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by brewcrewer

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

Summary of dispute by Aua

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

Jennifer Rubin (journalist) discussion

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

Administrative note: Dear Cwobeel (talk · contribs), if you wish to move forward with this case at DRN, you will need to close the discussion at WP:BLPN. Please post a note here when you have done that. Also, what is the critical content that is under dispute? Please specify this in your case summary above. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)(DRN volunteer coordinator)

Closed the BLP/N discussion as requested. The disputed material is on this diff. It is about the critical responses generated by an article authored by Rubin for Commentary Magazine, criticism on comments Rubin made in the wake of the 2011 Norway attacks, and controversy about Rubin's accusing the Occupy Wall Street movement of antisemitism. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, good. Have all of the WP editors listed above been notified that there is a DRN case and that they are invited to participate?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
It appears that all of the parties listed have been notified but Aua was very active in the thread you specified as being the core issue and he/she is not listed. Can add and notify him/her please?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Just saw this! Can't believe I almost missed it.
I apologize in advance for being a tad slow in posting my opinion over the next couple of days because real-life is keeping me away from WP, but I'd be happy to make a statement the soonest I'm able to.
Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 23:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I've added you to the case, however, unless the other editors show up in the next 24 to 48 hrs, I'm going to have to close this DRN filing due to lack of participation. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

24 hour closing notice -- So far there is not enough participation to warrant hearing a case. Unless this changes quickly I'm going to need to close this case as stale and unsuccessful.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:01, 9 July 2014 (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.

Penny McLean

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 98.166.244.250 on 22:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The author of a wiki page for musician Penny McLean is fighting with me on a dispute. I do not wish to deal with this author any more. They are very STUBBORN and wrong and they will NOT relent. If you look at their contributor history, you will see a lot of other disagreements and fights with other wikipedia users over incorrect content, especially with regard to redirects. That is my problem the author refuses to allow me to correct their error on a redirect. They think they OWN this GD wikipedia page and will NOT allow others to contribute. It is NOT their personal webpage for god's sake. I really think you should shut them down or block them from this kind of POSSESSIVE activity over the articles they are contributing to if they are not a specialist in the area of contribution. I am a professional musician. I am also a professional library cataloger. I have a SERIOUS issue with the way the jerk keeps INSISTING that the singer Penny McLean be redirected to the disco band Silver Convention. This is NOT right and I strongly disagree with it. I understand the policy of redirecting musicians that are of no special importance to the band or group they are mostly associated with - I'm not arguing with that. What I beg to disagree with is that Penny McLean does NOT fit this criteria in this particular instance. She was known internationally for a major disco hit called "Lady bump". That means that she had a significant hit and was known as a one hit wonder artist. She also had several other solo hits in the disco genre, OUTSIDE of her involvement with the disco group Silver Convention. The other members of the group Silver Convention listed on their wiki page do not have separate links, but the guy who made this redirect was too LAZY to do proper research on her and write her own article. He took the LAZY way out and made a lame redirect only for her, which again DOES NOT APPLY properly to this particular artist. See the german wiki for Penny McLean!

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

User Kkj11210 thinks he's an expert and won't allow anyone else to contribute to articles. He is stubborn and obviously does NOT know about this artist, so he's too lazy to write and article. The German wiki page for Penny McLean is good and correct. He did not even SEE there is merit for having her own page. All he does is undo the change and keeps persisting on using this redirect to Silver Convention. It's Maddening and annoying that the user won't let others participate here!

How do you think we can help?

1. An authorized wikipedia editor needs to translate the german wiki page for Penny McLean into English and update the existing stub into a FULL article on her in English, NOT a redirect to Silver Convention. 2. Add a "SEE ALSO" which hyperlinks to Silver Convention on Penny McLean's full article 3. Get the psychocase wiki contributor known as Kkj11210 to STOP harrassing other contributors. You should again check his wiki contributions history to see the hostility he is causing!

Summary of dispute by Kkj11210

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

Penny McLean discussion

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

eSys Group

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Drmwahaha on 03:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

My edits on "eSys Group" had been cited as being non-neutral by an administrator and I'm refused further clarification on the subject. The revision the administrator, FreeRangeFrog, maintains as current is itself tagged as an advert and outdated. My best understanding of the contention is my edits are non-neutral due to the use of words like "alleged". This is, however, also the language used in external material sourced. If the word appears to occur too many times, it is due to the nature of the subject being subjected to much litigation and made many claims.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

FreeRangeFrog request further discussion to be opened here after discussions had been closed at his talk page. I had tagged my revision with POV issue tag to enable further discussion but the tag had been removed.

How do you think we can help?

I would like a discussion to see if information I'd provided is neutral or can be edited to be more so. Additionally, there's another user "Pranab.bann" who had written the current revision and could be included in this discussion but the user did also wanted the page deleted .

Summary of dispute by FreeRangeFrog

I have to apologize to the DRN volunteers for having been the cause (at least indirectly) for this ending up here, but I think it might be valuable as a sort of second opinion so that the editor who filed this complaint doesn't feel that I'm the only one preventing them from editing. The alternative is to simply block their account for disruptive editing, which I would rather avoid. I have no content interest with this article, nor am I now or ever been involved in any way with editing it, as is obvious from its history. I initially reverted what I thought was a destructive and POV edit by the user, and subsequently that made its way over to my talk page. Drmwahaha insists this is a perfectly valid edit, which is obviously not the case. The insertion of "alleged" and "allegedly" all over the place, the removal of issue tags and the infobox and addition of citations as external links are unacceptable on any good day, for any article. On my talk page (link to that discussion above) I repeatedly attempted to explain to them that they were free to edit the article and add the information they had, so long as they took five minutes to read the citation guide and observed WP:NPOV. Which of course they refuse to do. The last time they reverted me they went as far as adding an NPOV tag to the top of the article, which is ridiculous. There is no content dispute here per se, and my mention of DRN was more in response to the user's claims that Pranab.bann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was somehow preventing them from editing the article (I note that they did incorrectly nominate it for deletion as well), which I suppose is why this ended up here. I don't know if this is a competency issue, a language barrier or what, but if someone else can explain to Drmwahaha that their edits are inappropriate, I would appreciate it. I've wasted enough time on this already. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

eSys Group discussion

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

Hello, I am Mark Miller, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Since FreeRangeFrog is only acting in their capacity as an administrator I don't feel that my having had interactions with them previously should be an issue for me to review this request, filed by the other editor. FreeRange has indicated that they are not involved so I will check the article, participants etc., to make a quick assessment.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2014 (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.

Talk:Norwegian Long_Haul

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Moresonic on 20:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Dear Sir/Madam.

This regards the article about Norwegian Long Haul, and specifically the section "criticism" which was completly removed by an administrator by username MilborneOne.

Norwegian Long Haul is an international/intercontinental airline that has met hard criticism in Norwegian and international media due to controversial employment contracts and for their ways to avoid paying taxes. They have also received criticism for their establishment within the USA. In short, the criticism can be compared to the criticism presented to e.g. Ryanair and/or other similar low-cost airlines, though this now also relates to an intercontinental airline.

I perceive the criticism to be relevant to the article, while the administrator deleted all of it. He/she (MilborneOne) firstly claimed the criticism section was to big for the article (weight). He later removed the whole section, but then based on contentent, not weight.

After giving my reply on the talk page, he now wants it back into the main article, but he thinks the content is too biased. I agree to the latter, and the airline has been found to use PR agencies on the internet before, and citations were made to Norwegian Long Haul's own pro-operating-in-the-US-documents...

The ammount of criticism against the airline is publicly documented to be extensive (both in Norway and abroad) and thus relevant. Because the article is short in content already, a criticism section will be able to dominate the article if it is consistently revised and written. Part of the cause for this is that most of the information about the airline is fount in the article of the sister-company, Norwegian Air Shuttle.

I cannot see how an administrator can be using extensive power in significant questions, suddenly deleting a whole section of users' contribution built over a long period of time, instead of making a separate article about it, especially when he/she claimed it to be relevant.

I want to ask for your review into this matter.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion, requesting the administrator's feedback (MIlborneOne), giving suggestions, revising content, discussed with other users

How do you think we can help?

Please review the possibility for a separate article. I want to know to what extent the administrator (MilborneOne) has followed Wikipedia administrator guidelines by not creating this already. Wiki-user Mortyman created a separate article, which seem to have been deleted(?). I ask you to look into the matters mentioned.

Summary of dispute by MilborneOne

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
It would be nice to notify others that this discussion has been started. Not sure where the dispute is here, I raised it on the talk page that the criticism section was far to large part of what is a small article and after some discussion suggested that it should be split out into another article. User:Mortyman created a new article as Criticism against Norwegian Air International Limited, when the criticism section was re-added by User:Jhz94 I removed it as it was covered in the new article. The sub-article was later deleted by an AfD (although I must admit I was not aware that it had been deleted until yesterday). As the community had decided that it didnt like the criticism sub-article I commented that we need to find some balanced sources and re-add the section. User:Moresonic didnt reply but came straight here, I have no idea why they do not want to discuss re-adding the criticism section but I am sure he/she will explain. Just to note that the one deletion of text I performed did not require the use of any admin tools. Suggest this request is closed and we use the article talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Mortyman

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I simply moved the material in the original aticle over ot a separate article as it became too large for the main article and took all the focus. Personally I think the seperated article should b KEPT if there is at all a need for such elaborate info on Wikipedia on the issue. It should NOT be moved back to the main article. Better to delete the criticism info then. Mortyman (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Norwegian Long_Haul discussion

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

Talk:Trap (music)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Nograviti on 09:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

There has been a long and involving discussion amongst wikipedia users around the origins of Trap/EDM Trap music. A number of user have provided good credible sources showing that the latest incarnations of Trap music have origins in Europeans genres like Dubstep.

All users bar one individual StaticVapor have agreed with changes to reflect this information in the 'Stylistic Origins' section of the Trap page. The aforementioned user has abused his position as an established wikipedia to define the page as he see fits, completely disregarding credible sources and defining any changes that are made as Vandalism.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have stood apart from the warring that eventually took place and tried to engage the user in a BRD cycle, but he has simply ignored all message requests. Thus as a result I am forced to raise a dispute request

How do you think we can help?

Could you please review the Trap music talk and see the discussions amongst users. about the links between Dubstep, Grime and Trap music, coming to final decision on whether 'Dubstep' should be included in the 'stylistic origins' section of the page and whether 'cultural origins' should also be updated to reflect the development of Trap music in the United Kingdom. This would also be of relevance to the 'regional scene' section as there is a UK based Trap scene.All sources are in the talk page

Summary of dispute by STATicVapor

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

Talk:Trap (music) discussion

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

Michael Pitts (preacher)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Wysiwyg3006 on 00:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC).
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The page Michael Pitts (preacher) did not mention any of his arrests and convictions. I believe that his supporters are trying to deny / confuse this information from being on Wikipedia. The page has a history of editors completely removing the entire section of "Scandals" and "Controversies".

I would appreciate an Administrator to review these edits and also my latest edit (which probably has been deleted already). I believe my latest edit compared to what is being put up there is easier to understand the criminal past of Michael Pitts.

Thank you.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None other than Talk boards and edit summaries.

How do you think we can help?

Please review the edits on this page and also my latest edit (which probably has been deleted already). I believe my latest edit compared to what is being put up there is easier to understand the criminal past of Michael Pitts. The current edits that are being made seem to be from a point of view of someone supporting Michael Pitts rather than his complete background and history.

Summary of dispute by ThePianoMan76

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

Michael Pitts (preacher) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_95&oldid=1084315846"