Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 174

Archive 170

←

Archive 172

Archive 173

Archive 174

Archive 175

Archive 176

→

Archive 180

Locking pliers

– 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 Andy Dingley on 11:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Locking pliers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) Equinox (talk · contribs) Hoary (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Locking pliers is an accepted generic title. Commercial brands are (US) Vise-Grips and (UK) Mole wrenches. Vise / Vice is a commonplace US/UK s/c spelling difference. "Vice grip" is widely seen as a UK (possibly more Australian) local respelling of "Vise Grip" into the local spelling of "vice". That much is, I think accepted. Now, the question is, should the lead of this article give "vice grip" as an alternate name, and do this in Wikipedia's voice? i.e, should WP propagate a common misspelling as if it were a more formal name? This mis-spelling is even rarer in the UK, as "Mole wrenches" are more numerous and their name is used widely and generically. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk:Locking_pliers#The_spelling_"vice_grips"_is_missing How do you think we can help? Should WP's voice be used here, to present this with the weight of an alternate name (recent versions have scatter-gunned every possible combination of hyphenation too, which is even more unclear). Or should this be presented as a mis-spelling, although still in the lead? Is that useful (we don't normally concern ourselves with listing obvious and trivial mis-spellings). Summary of dispute by Equinox Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Hoary I hadn't thought that en:WP had a responsibility to avoid "propagat[ing] a common misspelling"; anyway, a spelling of a word (as opposed to a name) that appears in multiple printed sources worth taking seriously is no longer a mere misspelling, whether or not one likes the spelling or chooses to use it oneself. No, there's no pressing need to mention "vice grip" (or any other orthographic variation on "Vise-Grip") in the first sentence. However, the sentence that now reads "Mole" and "Vise-Grip" are trade names of different brands of locking pliers, yet mechanics and do-it-yourself hobbyists and craftspeople generically refer to locking pliers as "Vise-Grips" in the US, and "Mole wrenches" in the UK would be beneficially replaced by something like "Vise-Grip" and "Mole" are trade names of different brands of locking pliers, yet mechanics, DIY hobbyists and craftspeople refer to locking pliers generically as "vise-grips" (particularly in the US) and "mole wrenches" (particularly in the UK), with minor variations of spelling. ("Spelling" here used with unusually but I think permissibly wide reference: I'm trying to avoid "orthography" as a much less widely known term.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Very minor rephrasing of the recommended text -- Hoary (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Locking pliers discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing party has not notified the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC) They're notified via the article talk: page, where they're both active. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2019 (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:People's Mujahedin of_Iran#Page_protected_for_4_days

– 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 Kazemita1 on 06:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:People's Mujahedin of_Iran#Page_protected_for_4_days  Users involved Kazemita1 (talk · contribs) Alex-h (talk · contribs) Icewhiz (talk · contribs) Saff V. (talk · contribs) Sa.vakilian (talk · contribs) Mhhossein (talk · contribs) Forest90 (talk · contribs) Stefka Bulgaria (talk · contribs) El_C (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A group of editors based on sources shown in the following link believe a sub-section with title "Ties to KGB" is due for inclusion in the MEK article. The other group disagrees: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=next&oldid=889238040 Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have inquired about it on WP:RSN https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=895595162&oldid=895595035 How do you think we can help? Please, resolve whether having a section is due or undue given the sources mentioned in the following diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=next&oldid=889238040 Summary of dispute by Alex-h Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Icewhiz Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Saff V. Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Sa.Vakilian Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Mhhossein Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Forest90 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Stefka Bulgaria Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by El_C I, actually, am the uninvolved admin who encountered this dispute through a report on An3 (perm link). I subsequently fully-protected the article for four days. El_C 07:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC) Talk:People's Mujahedin of_Iran#Page_protected_for_4_days 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.

Cartoon Network

– 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 Electricburst1996 on 14:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? No, but others have. Location of dispute Cartoon Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Electricburst1996 (talk · contribs) HappyINC (talk · contribs) Dispute overview HappyINC keeps re-adding information on the recent Cartoon Network website hacks. I maintain the position that the information is not relevant to the article, since the hackings did not affect the United States Cartoon Network site. Another issue I have with HappyINC's edit is that it uses loaded words and phrases like "causing a shocking outrage to viewers". Have you tried to resolve this previously? Although I haven't really taken any steps, a talk page discussion was started by other users, with User:HurricaneGeek2002 saying it's not very significant and should not be added. So far, that's the only input given on the matter in that discussion. How do you think we can help? I think taking this matter to DRN will allow a consensus on this issue to be formed by allowing multiple editors to weigh in. Summary of dispute by HappyINC Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Cartoon Network 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:Sampling (music)

– Closed as failed. 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 Popcornduff on 11:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Sampling (music) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Popcornduff (talk · contribs) Liftarn (talk · contribs) Sergecross73 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I and another editor, Liftarn, disagree over whether to include a paragraph in the article Sampling (music) in the section " Legal and ethical issues". The paragraph summarises a case of plagiarism in a particular song by Timbaland. We seem to agree that the section should not merely list every case of plagiarism in sampling history. Instead, cases should only be included if they've had a notable impact on legal and ethical issues in sampling. We disagree about whether the sources demonstrate this. Sergecross73 responded to a request for comment and felt the paragraph should not be included. The discussion has lasted over a month, with no consensus in sight. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Placed a request for further opinions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums 11 days ago. So far, only Sergecross73 has responded. How do you think we can help? We need some more experienced editors to review the sources and help reach a consensus about whether they justify the content. Summary of dispute by Liftarn The Timbaland plagiarism controversy gives a description of the case in question. It is an interesting example since Timbaland refereed to what he did as "sampling" when what he did was mute the bassline, add some drums and song on top of an existing track and passed it off as his own work. This new and novel definition of what sampling is should be enough for the case to be included, but it has also have a lasting impact on what is called "collective forensic musicology" and it is used in books about music education. // Liftarn (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Sergecross73 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Here’s my take on it, as the only person who looked into the dispute from the WikiProject notification. “Sampling” is a widely used technique in modern music. As is frequently an issue on Wikipedia, is “example bloat” - everyone always wants to add their preferred example to illustrate an idea. Because there are just thousands upon thousands of examples of sampling in music, Popcornduff requested that he prove his specific example regarding Timbaland was particularly noteworthy. He’s provided a couple relatively weak sources noting Timbalands sample usage, but no particular commentary on its importance or impact. He wants to make grand claims of importance, but popcornduff and I have pointed out that none of his sources back that claim. He insists they do. We’ve asked him to outline the exact content he’d add, and the exact content from the source he felt backed the assertions. He has so far refused to do so, stating he feels he has already proven his point (even though he’s 0 for 2 on convincing anyone.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC) List of sources from Liftarn Wow... There is a lot of them... That Timbaland plagiarised Sunni's track: Zeilinger, Martin J. (2013). "Chiptuning Intellectual Property: Digital Culture Between Creative Commons and Moral Economy". Journal of the International Association for the study of Popular Music. 3 (1). Cuepoint: Was Timbaland’s Skillful Sampling a Cultural Crime? "Chris Abbott: Doin' it for themselves: what's going on in Timbaland?". C64audio.com. 2007-01-18. Archived from the original on 2009-08-15. Retrieved 2010-02-28. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) That he refereed to it as sampling: "Elliot in the Morning - Timbaland interviewed transcript". Retrieved 2010-02-28. That is had a lasting impact: Tobias, Evan (1 sep. 2014). Promising Practices in 21st Century Music Teacher Education. Oxford University Press. p. 207. ISBN 9780199384754. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Talk:Sampling (music) discussion  Note to participants: All participants have been informed of this dispute resolution request via their talkpage by me. Discussion will start only after all involved editors have given a summary of the dispute. MrClog (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)  Volunteer note: I hereby open this dispute resolution. Please note that this resolution is meant to find a compromise that you all can agree on, and that this resolution is non-binding (but it is very much requested that users do follow the agreed-to decision). @Liftarn: It seems like a good first step to me that you list all sources that support your side of the story under "List of sources from Liftarn". MrClog (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)  Volunteer note: @Liftarn: If possible, could you share the specific quote in which Evan Tobias says that it had a lasting impact, that would be great. Note that unless Tobias explicitly states that Timbaland plagiarising and calling it sampling had this lasting impact, it could be considered WP:SYNTH. MrClog (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Yes, you’ve pretty much experienced one full cycle of the looping argument we’ve had going on with Liftarn now. He’ll list off a few sources, but refuse to explain what in the source specifically verifies the claim. And while of course off-line sources are generally acceptable, his refusal to supply or understand the issue here - that we need a source that explains impact specifically - makes me rather wary to be persuaded by a source I can’t verify the contents of personally. Sergecross73 msg me 21:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)*{{  Volunteer note: @Sergecross73: @Liftarn: @Popcornduff: I have managed to find an online version of the book Liftarn uses as source, and the closest to the "lasting impact" claim I could find was this: The phenomenon surfaced throughout the Internet and eventually in mainstream media sources across the world, forcing Timbaland to address the issue in interviews. Even after the case was officially closed in 2007 (according to a statement by the original composer of “Acidjazzed Evening”), the discourse continued through text-based comments and video responses posted on YouTube or related sites, a process that continues years later. Note: This is part of a copyrighted work of Evan Tobias, shared under the fair use doctrine of United States copyright law. From my perspective, this doesn't prove that there was this lasting impact, therefore making it WP:SYNTH. Thoughts (especially from Liftarn)? Also, saying that the fact that it is used as an example in the book proves it had this impact is also SYNTH. --MrClog (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Yes, you citing SYNTH runs parallel with our claims of “not being supported by source” - I think we’re all arguing the same thing against Liftarn here. It’s been days here, and had been going for days at the talk page prior, and there’s still no actually excerpts from reliable sources. I’m getting the vibe Liftarn doesn’t have anything specific prose in a source to verify his claim, or he would have presented it by now... Sergecross73 msg me 23:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Please explain how WP:SYNTH is applicable here as there is no synthesis. FYI, there is en entire section of the book with the title "Timbaland steals music? A case of collective forensic musicology". // Liftarn (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC) @Liftarn: Let's use the ABC structure: Timbaland said his plagariasm was sampling ("A") and this is used in a book as example ("B"). You argued that it therefore had a lasting impact ("therefore C"), but this violates WP:SYNTH, which states: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article. I have read the part on Timbaland in the book and nowhere does it seem to say and/or explain that the example had a lasting impact. MrClog (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC) That is incorrect. A and B are not connected, thus it's no synthesis. The lasting impact is implied with the phrase "continues years later". // Liftarn (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC) @Liftarn: Timbaland justified plagariasm with sampling ("A"), this has been discussed for years ("B"), therefore it had a lasting impact ("therefore C"). The source doesn't argue that C is true. THe fact that the case has been discussed for many years doesn't neceessarily prove it had a lasting impact. You should bring WP:RS that say that it had a "lasting impact", and saying that the fact it has been discussed for many years proofs this impact is WP:SYNTH. MrClog (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC) No, it has been discussed for years, thus is had a lasting impact. "A" does not enter into it. // Liftarn (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC) @Liftarn: Certain murder cases have been discussed for years, yet they had no lasting impact on the legal/ethical aspect of murder. "Discussed for years" doesn't necessarily mean "lasting impact". MrClog (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC) Thank you. That is finally a valid argument instead of the straw man. It certainly changed the interpretation of the Berne convention and US law. See International Copyright Law: U.S. and E.U. Perspectives: Text and Cases (p. 198-204). Also see Making and Unmaking Intellectual Property: Creative Production in Legal and Cultural Perspective (chapter 13). // Liftarn (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC) If you can’t find a source that directly states it, then it’s not a valid addition according to Wikipedia policy. It’s original research to equate “lots of mentions” to “lasting impact”. If you can’t pull an excerpt from a source that directly verified your addition, it’s either WP:SYNTH or a source verification error. Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC) Oh, like "The decision is notable for its sweeping conclusion as to what constitutes a U.S. work under § 411."[1] // Liftarn (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC) That seems like a good source that supports your claim to me. @Sergecross73: @Popcornduff: What do you think? MrClog (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Sorry, but I don't buy it. The source, if I'm reading it correctly, states that in this case the court decided the work in question could be considered a US work. The source then gives an example of another, later case, when a different court reached the opposite conclusion. I think the "sweeping conclusion" here means that the court's conclusion about which works fall under US copyright was "sweeping" (ie included a lot of different works), not that it had a sweeping effect. Popcornduff (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Your claim seems to be unsupported by the source as it says "Given the ramifications of the ruling in Kernel, the case may well go up on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.". Another article says "As a result of this decision, foreign authors face increased uncertainty as to whether the provisions of the Berne Convention will serve to exempt them from the copyright registration requirements applicable to owners of U.S. works."[2] and "the court’s decision adds yet another reason to the long list of reasons why foreign authors should consider timely registration of their works with the U.S. Copyright Office, despite the exemptions provided by the Berne Convention."[3] // Liftarn (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC) That 1) is all speculative, with no examples of how it has changed anything and 2) describes US copyright law generally, n:ot sampling specifically. This really isn't a great or necessary example of an ethical and legal issue in sampling. Popcornduff (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Liftarn, what do you think about Popcornduff's comment? MrClog (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC) He is entitled to his opinion, but I think the facts speak for themselves. // Liftarn (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC) Uhhhh it really feels like Popcornduff’s statement would require a bit more of a rebuttal from you here if you’re deciding to stick to your guns on this. Usually when someone says “there’s no evidence”, you...counter it with evidence...? Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC) Sergecross, what do you think of Lifturn's newest sources? Popcornduff (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC) He didn't say there isn't an evidence (as there is). He just don't like it. Facts should matter, not personal taste. Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley have indeed (as the sources say) had a major impact on how internationally copyright law is interpreted in the US. While the impact is on anything published online it stems from a case of sampling. // Liftarn (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC) But time and time again, you cant (or aren’t) explaining how. You say “no you’re wrong” and “look at the source” but you never really explain your understanding of what the source says other than a basic “the source says so”. It’s clear you’re adamantly arguing something...but it continually feels like you yourself don’t even understand the crux of your own argument. Sergecross73 msg me 01:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC) OK, I'll try to explain it in a simpler way. Don't hesitate to ask if something is unclear. Timbaland found a track by Glenn Rune Gallefoss. He muted the bassline, added drums and song. He then published it as his own work (for simplicities sake we can leave out the ethical aspects of that). This he (and several media articles) refereed to as sampling. OK, so this is a case of sampling according to himself and several sources. You with me? It later went to court as Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley. So we have a court case about sampling. In the case it was ruled that if you published something on a diskette in Australia it was a US work. This reversed the precedence from Moberg v. 33T LLC. Possibly as a revenge for Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick. Anyway, as the sources say this new way to interpret the jurisdiction of works published digitally is a major game changer. // Liftarn (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC) It's the final part we're questioning: "a major game changer". I don't see how the sources you have provided demonstrates how the game has changed, for the reasons I gave above. Can you address those concerns?Popcornduff (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC) I'm thinking about this some more, because I'm trying to figure out how we'd incorporate what you're saying here into the article, if we were to do it. I actually have no idea, based on your summary above, what the outcome for Timbaland was. I tried reading the Timbaland plagiarism controversy article, but it's not clear there either, and it's not an easy article to read generally. I tried rereading the source mentioning the "sweeping changes" we discussed before, but it seems to have been moved behind a paywall - perhaps something has changed on my end? As best as I can manage right now, the relevant parts of what you're arguing should actually amount to something like this (very different from what you've added to the Sampling (music) article so far): In 2011, the US producer Timbaland won a copyright infringement case after sampling a composition owned by the Finnish record label Kernel Records without permission. Under US copyright law, a work must first be registered with the US copyright office to become the subject of a copyright infringement lawsuit. The court held that by being published online, the composition had been simultaneously published every country with internet service, including the US. The work therefore satisfied the definition of a US work, and as it had not been registered with the US copyright office it could be sampled without permission. Does that look reasonable to you? But please note that I would not advocate to include this in the article, as it lacks the critical element: what makes this different from any of the thousands of other plagiarism and sampling disputes, why is this more important, what lasting impact has this had? I can't find anything in the sources we can use to add to the text I wrote above. Popcornduff (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC) In short the case caused a fundamental shift in how online publication and international copyrights work. Basically the court threw out the Berne convention. That is no small thing. // Liftarn (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC) And yet the same source also says that in another, later case, a different court reached the opposite conclusion, indicating that it might have had no lasting impact. The sources you're relying on now also phrase everything in terms of general copyright law, rather than giving specific indication about how this affects sampling. We're getting lost in the swamp here. Stand back and look at the big picture. This section should summarise major legal and ethical arguments in sampling, ones that really changed things and are important to sampling. Like Sergecross said a thousand years ago, we can't throw in every case. We have to figure out which ones are a big deal and which ones aren't. This one isn't a big deal. Popcornduff (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC) I think you are referring to Moberg v. 33T LLC that was in 2009 and before Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley (2011).[4] "On October 6, the United States Court for the District of Delaware ruled in a case of first impression that a photograph posted to the Internet from a foreign server is not a “United States work” within the meaning of section 411 of the Copyright Act, and thus need not be registered in the U.S. in order to bring suit for infringement.". The case Moberg v. 33T LLC did not change anything as it just preserved the status quo. However Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley reversed that and it's a big deal. // Liftarn (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC You're right, I misread the source. The case you're talking about did indeed come after the other, not before. Sorry about that. ... But in my view it still doesn't provide any evidence of any lasting impact. And that's what I've been asking for since day one. Popcornduff (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC) This has dragged on for almost two months, now, so here are (hopefully) my final thoughts on this matter: Like Sergecross said, there are countless examples of court cases and disputes over sampling we include in this section. But this isn't supposed to be an exhaustive list of such events. It's supposed to be a concise summary of major events that have shaped the use of sampling in music. We have a few weak sources that describe the Timbaland incident, but nothing to show it has had any serious impact on anything. The source Liftarn is pushing now focuses mainly on the implications for copyright in general, with little discussion of what it means for sampling, and with no examples of anything having changed. As you can probably guess, I would still prefer to exclude the Timbaland incident in this article. But in the interest of reaching some conclusion, if other editors would like to review these sources again, and feel they demonstrate reason to be included in this article despite my objections, then I'll live with that. Sergecross73? MrClog? Any thoughts? Popcornduff (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC) I’m pretty much in the same spot as you. As I’ve said since the beginning, I could probably be swayed if Liftarn proposed specific prose, a specific source, and the specific excerpt of the source that backed it. But I still don’t think he’s managed to do that. (If I missed this in the massive wall of text above, feel free to re-add it down here, with the 3 parts I’m requesting. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC) As I've made the edit[5] there is some very specific text right there, but the main points I'm trying to get across is 1) Timbaland expanded the definition of sampling to also include taking someone else's work and pass it off as your own with just some minor changes. (This is the ethical aspect) The resulting court case reinterpreted US copyright law contra the Berne convention (this is the legal aspect). // Liftarn (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC) The text you added doesn't make clear what relevance, if any, the case has. The quote from Timbaland is baffling, and the supposedly important part (the outcome of the lawsuit) isn't mentioned at all. I notice you haven't responded to my proposed text, above. Popcornduff (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC) That would work with some tweaks. The text "after sampling a composition" is incorrect. Something more in line with reality would be "passing off somebody else's work as his own. Something he called sampling". Or "Apart from the lyrics the song was nearly identical to used a piece from 2000 for the Commodore 64." // Liftarn (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)  Volunteer note: Due to holidays, I'll not be able to further be engaged with this dispute resolution. I'll change the case status to reflect this and to request other volunteers to take over. --MrClog (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)  Note to participants: I will resume moderation from tomorrow forwards. --MrClog (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)  Volunteer note: @Liftarn: Popcornduff proposed the following text: In 2011, the US producer Timbaland won a copyright infringement case after sampling a composition owned by the Finnish record label Kernel Records without permission. Under US copyright law, a work must first be registered with the US copyright office to become the subject of a copyright infringement lawsuit. The court held that by being published online, the composition had been simultaneously published in every country with internet service, including the US. The work, therefore, satisfied the definition of a US work, and as it had not been registered with the US copyright office it could be sampled without permission. (emphasis mine and two small grammatical fixes) You said the part I now emphasised was wrong. Could you propose a specific rewrite for that part of the text? --MrClog (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC) The problem with that text is that it gives the impression that Timbaland sampled (as in used a small portion of) the original track while in reality he passed off someone elses work as his own after some minor changes. I think the technical term is "biting" but I'm not sure about the terminology. Timbaland claimed it was just sampling., thus expanding the definition of what sampling is. I think this should be made clearer to the reader. // Liftarn (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC) Liftarn, what if we change the emphasised part to read after copying parts of a composition and add ..., claiming it to be sampling. to the end of the first sentence? --MrClog (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC) Sounds good to me. // Liftarn (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)  Note to participants: @Popcornduff and Sergecross73: The proposed text now reads: In 2011, the US producer Timbaland won a copyright infringement case after copying parts of a composition owned by the Finnish record label Kernel Records without permission, claiming it to be sampling. Under US copyright law, a work must first be registered with the US copyright office to become the subject of a copyright infringement lawsuit. The court held that by being published online, the composition had been simultaneously published in every country with internet service, including the US. The work, therefore, satisfied the definition of a US work, and as it had not been registered with the US copyright office it could be sampled without permission. Are you okay with adding this text (plus references) to the article? --MrClog (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC) From a copyediting perspective "claiming it to be sampling" ain't too hot. I could find other ways of phrasing that, but why do we need to hedge it at all? Sampling is sampling whether you do it legally or not. And besides, Timbaland can't claim to have sampled it and say it was his own work. I still think this entire story is not worth adding and overall to the detriment of the article, but I can live with it. If Sergecross is still not happy with it then unfortunately I'd have to go with them. Popcornduff (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC) @Sergecross73: --MrClog (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC) It reads like a bit of a tangent, but at least it’s much better sourced version of it now. I can live with it, though I do hope that Liftarn plans on maintaining the article for a long time - I’d see this being trimmed out pretty quickly if anyone was ever doing a serious cleanup or GA/FA push. I think the only reason there is any debate at all about this is because of the lack of interest/participants. Sergecross73 msg me 12:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC) @Liftarn: Are you willing to change the text to address Popcornduff's concern and then implement it in the article. Also, do you plan on maintaining the article (as per Sergecross's concern)? --MrClog (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Sure, I can do it. But just to be clear here, is he suggesting that editors may knowingly and willingly ignore the sipute resolution? // Liftarn (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Liftarn, I think he means that other editors may remove the part when doing a cleanup. They may not know about this dispute resolution, and dispute resolution is not binding. Can I close this dispute as resolved? --MrClog (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Fine with me. // Liftarn (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC) And the section is already blanked by Popcornduff.... // Liftarn (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC) Yes, because you added a version of the text that wasn't agreed on, with the wrong sources. I think I explained my rationale clearly in my edit summary, but I'll continue this discussion on the Sampling (music) talk page instead of here. Popcornduff (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC) That is nonsense. It's the exact text we agreed on. It's very hard for me to guess what you feel is not supported by sources when you constantly refuse to say and I have to guess and then you just blank the entire section. I think this dispute resolution need to be reopened. // Liftarn (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2019 (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.

Men Going Their Own Way

– 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 NathanHollister on 15:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Men Going Their Own Way (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved SummerPhDv2.0 (talk · contribs) Bilorv (talk · contribs) Jorm (talk · contribs) Dispute overview They keep posting a link to the SPLC page, stating that SPLC calls MGTOW a hate group. SPLC does NOT actually list MGTOW as a hate group, and now the person is starting an edit war. SPLC does not say what they say it says. They are citing unreliable sources, misqouting sources blatantly, and writing the article in a non-neutral way. This violates the premise of an encyclopedia. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We have talked about it in the talk page, and I noted that they are posting wrongly socurced material over and over. They don't listen. The source does not claim what they say it claims. How do you think we can help? Please remove the unsourced material listing MGTOW as a hate group. Summary of dispute by SummerPhDv2.0 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The article's lead section originally said, "The Southern Poverty Law Center has identified the community as a male supremacist group, placing it "on the borders of the hateful incel community". While this is an accurate and neutral summary of SPLC's statement, it is not an appropriate summary of the "Reception" section. After discussion on the talk page, the three sources' statements were summarized as "The community is a misogynist male supremacist group." Soon, several once-and-done IPs arrived and removed the statement, insisting it is wrong and unsourced. Once the page was semi-protected, NathanHollister arrived, after a 3 year absence from Wikipedia. Their edit summaries are often inaccurate, describing additions of POV material as typo corrections and improving readability. Moreover, their edit warring against four editors repeatedly ignores the relevant discussion. Now another long-dormant account, Jtcampbell baseball, has joined in. Whether this is meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry or simple off-wiki canvasing has yet to be determined. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Bilorv Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This is not a case of a content dispute, but of a POV-fuelled editor edit warring against current consensus. Their violation of 3RR shows they have no interest in actual constructive argument, as does their refusal to engage with the substance of the points made at Talk:Men_Going_Their_Own_Way#SPLC_in_lead and their answer to the question above of "How do you think we can help?" with "Please [enact my opinion of what should be done]". Editors genuinely interested in reasonable discussion should join existing discussions at the talk page. I should add that I wasn't notified of this case filing by NathanHollister but by Jorm here. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Jorm Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Nathan is one of a cadre of drive by Men's Rights activists who DO NOT HEAR or engage with the discussion at all and blindly reverts. There are not one but two edit warring threads about him open, both of which seem to be pending action on this waste of time here.--Jorm (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC) The filer is blocked now for socking, so maybe we can move on.--Jorm (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC) Men Going Their Own Way discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing party has not notified the other editors of this filing. (The other editors appear to be aware of this filing, but notification is still required.) If proper notice is given, participation here is voluntary. If proper notice is given and the other editors agree to discuss here, we will discuss here. While waiting for proper notice or for agreement to discuss, edit-warring is not permitted, and may be dealt with by sanctions. If proper notice is given and the other editors decline to participate, edit-warring is still not permitted and may be dealt with by sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2019 (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.

Olympic Torch Relays

– 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 RainbowSilver2ndBackup on 00:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? No, I have not discussed this issue on a talk page yet. Location of dispute Talk:1998 Winter Olympics torch relay (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Talk:2000 Summer Olympics torch relay (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Talk:2006 Winter Olympics torch relay (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk · contribs) Aleenf1 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Aleenf1 basically removed important details about these relays. He removed the edits by an IP on the 2000 Winter Olympic Torch Relay. The evidence came from a site called Sportcal, just google the torch relay and you will find cities and towns that are part of the relay. He reverted edits of the IP. I had to revert back to the edits of the IP because there are proofs which is on Sportcal. The reason why I wanted to add (https://www.shinmai.co.jp/feature/olympic/alacarte/s-japan.htm) is because I want to the readers to visit the news articles from a Japanese perspective. He even remove these info made by the IP (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Winter_Olympics_torch_relay&diff=816127355&oldid=815987143) in the 2006 Olympic Torch Relay. I had to revert to the edits made by IP because these info are from the official PDF of the 2006 torch relay (https://web.archive.org/web/20060217202304/http://ftp.torino2006.it/uploads/pdf/PercorsoCompleto.pdf). I did reason with him but he thinks that I've ignore it, misunderstood it or something else even though I (and the IP) provided sources for. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried explaining with proofs and everything but it didn't work was well. How do you think we can help? Try to have Aleenf1 accept these urls because they are have more info and details surrounding these relays. Summary of dispute by Aleenf1 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Olympic Torch Relay discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. How do I cancel the dispute? RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2019 (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.

Cuban sandwich

– 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 Zeng8r on 11:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Cuban sandwich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Zeng8r (talk · contribs) Averette (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Long-time editor Averette is trying to insert POV material again, after an identical attempt in 2009 that had to be resolved with the help of a third party. Averette left Wikipedia for quite a long time. He resumed editing a couple months ago and got himself temporarily blocked in an unrelated dispute, then returned to this article and began editing in the same POV manner as he did 10 years ago. MANY good sources were added during the last dispute on this topic. They disagree on the origin of the sandwich, so the text has long reflected that uncertainty. The problem stems from the fact that Averette insists that the sandwich originated in his hometown (Key West) and demands that the text reflects his belief. I have repeatedly pointed out that the experts disagree, and that even some of his favorite sources also express uncertainty about the origin, but he has repeatedly changed the text with very little discussion. And after every attempt at discussion this week, his edits have become even more obviously POV. Since the article in question is not monitored by many regular editors, I thought I'd request a third party to take a look and give some input. Thanks... Have you tried to resolve this previously? Repeated discussions / discussions on the talk page with little response and repeated attempts at discussion on Averette's talk page, which he usually deletes. How do you think we can help? Third party intervention settled the same issue with the same editor in 2009; hoping it will again. Summary of dispute by Averette Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Cuban sandwich discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Civility is required here, as everywhere in Wikipedia. Civility warnings are not in order here. Leave them on the talk pages of the uncivil editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC) Without wading into the debate itself, I was reviewing the article history, and edit summaries like this are a MAJOR problem. @Averette: "Vandalism" is NOT a synonym for "things I personally disagree with" and if you continue to use that word as though it were some magic spell that makes your own preferred version of the article stay, and makes other people's go, it will not end well for you. It is NOT vandalism, and if you continue to mis-apply that word to the edits of people who have a different perspective than you, regardless of how this discussion ends up, you won't be around to enjoy the results of it. Consider this a clear warning. --Jayron32 11:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC) User:Jayron32, this is standard behavior, at least according to recent history [[6]]. POV pushing and aggressively so at that and it appears to be more acute then just this one issue. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC) If so, WP:ANI is right over there... --Jayron32 13:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC) User:Jayron32, I'm confident that if you see no need for scrutiny (as a responsible admin is capable of deciding) it would likely be the same there. There is not one particular set of actions that may help here but if you are going to bring up specific issues and there is a history it seems appropriate to point out recent incidents which have also led to other actions [[7]]. It is helpful to understand background when considering how to resolve this conflict. My ANI days are voluntarily numbered, I occasionally look there but my desire for involvement there with anything short of egregious issues can not be understated. I find I am more productive and less likely to be a dick to others and I like low key editing at this point, much more pleasant. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC) I never stated that I "see no need for scrutiny". You said that. I said that if you think it DOES need scrutiny, ANI is the place to get that scrutiny. I have avoided taking any position one way or the other on the matter. It may very well need more scrutiny. It may not. I don't know. My directing you to ANI took no position one way or the other. --Jayron32 16:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC) I may have misunderstood your post and its intent as I believed you may have misunderstood me. This wasn't a criticism and I hope it didn't come off that way just an explanation of why I brought up a conduct issue at a content noticeboard. I'm sorry to bother you and again I didn't think it was egregious to that point it was simply my main thoughts here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC) NOTE: (I added this same note on the article's talk page but thought I should add it here, too, for some context.) You might think that it's silly to argue over a lunch food, and in the big scheme of things, you'd be right, of course. But the Cuban sandwich is at the center of a long-running friendly semi-rivalry between Tampa and South Florida. Mayors and other public officials have taken positions, and a 2007 content dispute in this very same article was covered in the Tampa Tribune. As you can see, some people take the issue very personally. And as with all articles about controversial topics, it's important to keep a balanced, well-sourced approach that includes all sides. The article was built through consensus back in 2009, and my argument is that there's no reason to alter that balance now. Zeng8r (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC) I get you and understand completely, try and watch a Colorado-New Mexico squabble on the origins of green and red chile...fun stuff. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editor of the filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC) User:Robert McClenon, you are mistaken [[8]], it was received and completely ignored. Also if you see above, the filer states attempts were made on that person's talk page prior to doing this. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2019 (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:2019 Indian_general_election

– 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 Muthalganesan on 16:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:2019 Indian general election (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Muthalganesan (talk · contribs) Ms Sarah Welch (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I had provided several links across a wide date range explaining about the terror attacks had influenced the Indian election - and it certainly was a major event in the Indian media. She has a long history of showing up on articles to bias it. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Since the election is current news, the most I have done is discussed on talk page How do you think we can help? A sensible person would allow the edit. It has notability and has also had a profound effect on the security situation of South India. Summary of dispute by Ms Sarah Welch See. I am surprised someone so new to wikipedia and so few edits, apparently knows me! Anyway, there has hardly been any substantial discussion on the article's talk page, fwiw. The affected article is among the 100 top high traffic wikipedia articles in recent weeks, and the OP's stance/behavior there and this request is difficult to understand. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC) Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:2019 Indian_general_election discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. OP has not discussed this situation previously on a talk page. They have made one post before coming directly here. I am not directly involved in this dispute but have made the OP aware of the relevant policy and guideline by posting to their user talk. Tiderolls 16:57, 19 May 2019 (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.

User talk:Ronz#Concerning_the_BLP_vios_in_two_articles

– 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 Michaelgmitchell45 on 18:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:Ronz#Concerning the BLP vios in two articles (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Michaelgmitchell45 (talk · contribs) Ronz (talk · contribs) drmies (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I made two additions to the Nicole_Eggert page, which I believe to be encyclopedic. Final version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicole_Eggert&oldid=897711553. One concerned her bankruptcy, the other her first assault claim against DJ Lethal, which was dismissed at trial . In addition, I added a sentence to the section on her claims with regards to Scott Baio, noting that he had taken and passed five polygraphs, which is in alignment with the DJ Lethal verdict. These changes were very well sourced by multiple citations for each component, from mainstream sources that are often used. The wording of each addition was neutral. The elements were clearly encyclopedic. All of these items were deleted without explanation by user ronz. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have conducted a lengthy and respectful dialogue on user ronz talk page, seeking in good faith to understand the basis for these deletions. I have sought compromise in the content. I have sought understanding of the rationale. User ronz has rebuffed each attempt, and int fact edited one of my comments from his talk page. He has escalated his rhetoric, including implying threatening actions towards my user status. I do not believe his deletions to be merited. How do you think we can help? I would appreciate a consensus from other experienced editors on whether these deletions were merited, and seek consensus on restoring them, with or without edits that the consensus may suggest. Summary of dispute by Ronz Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by drmies I think the edit history speaks for itself--editor proposes something, it's not accepted, editor reverts, it's again not accepted, editor threatens to escalate, editor escalates. Rather than let talk page discussion take its course, they take their bad manners here--and I say "bad manners" because all this is unnecessary, and I sure didn't see much "respectful dialogue" on Ronz's talk page. I wouldn't be be surprised if Ronz chooses not to respond here, since there really is no dispute to resolve: the editor isn't looking, I think, for a solution to a dispute about an edit. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC) User talk:Ronz#Concerning_the_BLP_vios_in_two_articles 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:Erdős number#Scientiometrics

– 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 Wikiman2718 on 18:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Erdős number#Scientiometrics (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Joel_B._Lewis (talk · contribs) David Eppstein (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The dispute originated when I attempted to add "Scientometrics" to the "see all" section of the page Erdos number. My edit was reverted, and a discussion opened emerged about whether or not the Erdos number is a scientometric index. I supplied a reliable source demonstrating that it was. In order to link to the Erdos number's position in the tree of knowledge, I proposed in the talk section the following change to the lede. The Erdős number (Hungarian: [ˈɛrdøːʃ]) is a scientometric index which describes the "collaborative distance" between mathematician Paul Erdős and another person, as measured by authorship of mathematical papers. The same principle has been applied in other fields where a particular individual has collaborated with a large and broad number of peers. References A vote overwhelmingly opposed the edit on the following basis: 1) WP:TECHNICAL 2) Some editors do not believe that the Erdos number is a scientometric index. This concern was not well-sourced. Following the BRD guidleline: "Cycle. To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion..." I boldly edited to lede to address the concern WP:TECHNICAL. The edit was reverted without seeking consensus, and I was accused of edit warring for having made it. I accused the reverter of edit warring for having reverted it. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion How do you think we can help? A moderator decide how Wikipedia's guidelines should be applied. Specifically: 1) Do the sources justify the claim that the Erdos number is a scientiometric index? If not, is the Erdos number a bibliometric index? 2) Does the proposed compromise contain a submarine link? 3) How much weight should be given to the tree of knowledge? Summary of dispute by Joel_B._Lewis I do not have anything to add that cannot be gleaned from the article talk page. --JBL (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by David Eppstein Except for Wikiman2718's bull-in-a-China-shop attitude, escalation to noticeboards, and stubborn reinstatement of his preferred version despite opposition on the talk page, this is a boring content dispute. It is already under discussion on the article talk page and forum-shopping it here accomplishes nothing useful. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by XOR'easter I was tagged, so I'll add my summary, concurring with the two by JBL and David Eppstein above. This exercise in forum-shopping is a silly escalation of a dull argument by an editor who repeats talking points verbatim rather than engaging with good-faith objections. XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Talk:Erdős number#Scientiometrics discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The opener has indicated that he considers this issue resolved ([9] [10]). --JBL (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2019 (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.

List of music considered the worst

– 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 Electricburst1996 on 01:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute List of music considered the worst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Electricburst1996 (talk · contribs) Interlude65 (talk · contribs) Micky Moats (talk · contribs) A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) Sergecross73 (talk · contribs) Rjrya395 (talk · contribs) Ferret (talk · contribs) Wanna Know My Name? Later (talk · contribs) Batmaniacdc27 (talk · contribs) SummerPhDv2.0 (talk · contribs) A lad insane (talk · contribs) Noelrock (talk · contribs) Brandt Luke Zorn (talk · contribs) Tosk Albanian (talk · contribs) Glumblebee (talk · contribs) GenQuest (talk · contribs) IndyNotes (talk · contribs) Herostratus (talk · contribs) Hunter Kahn (talk · contribs) LM2000 (talk · contribs) Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A protracted, heated content dispute over the inclusion of the Beatles album "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" has been going on since September 2018, when an anonymous editor reinstated it after a similarly protracted dispute from 2014 was resolved at the end of that year. Attempts to resolve the dispute this time around have been met with no success thus far. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page discussions were held - an RfC held there was closed as "no consensus", and a discussion on criteria for inclusion has yielded no productive results so far. How do you think we can help? I think DRN can help establish a clear consensus on whether or not the album, in fact, merits inclusion. Summary of dispute by Interlude65 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Micky Moats Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by A Quest for Knowledge Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Sergecross73 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Rjrya395 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Ferret Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Wanna Know My Name? Later Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Batmaniacdc27 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by SummerPhDv2.0 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by A lad insane Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Noelrock Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Brandt Luke Zorn Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Tosk Albanian Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Glumblebee Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by GenQuest Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by IndyNotes Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Herostratus Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Hunter Kahn Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by LM2000 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Curly Turkey Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. List of music considered the worst 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:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

– 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 JFG on 21:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved BullRangifer (talk · contribs) FoxyGrampa75 (talk · contribs) Jawz101 (talk · contribs) JFG (talk · contribs) Mr Ernie (talk · contribs) My very best wishes (talk · contribs) Onetwothreeip (talk · contribs) Psantora (talk · contribs) Slatersteven (talk · contribs) Starship.paint (talk · contribs) The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) Websurfer2 (talk · contribs) X1\ (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Over the lifetime of the article, there have been recurring disagreements about which items deserve to be included in the timeline, and which ones are off-topic. Some editors, including me, argue for a strict scope encompassing any activities by Russian entities to interfere in U.S. elections. Some others argue for a broad interpretation of "anything linked to this affair", which may encompass essentially any news item that includes the words "Trump" and "Russia", including stuff from 30 years ago. Recently, the discussions have flared up again, and I have attempted to structure the discussion by theme. Several talk page threads are open, and there is active participation from various people, however most discussions are repeating prior arguments and people are entrenched in their positions. Despite the fact that we are now much better informed as to the real-world scope of Russian actions, and Trump associates' involvement or lack thereof, the article has fallen victim to statu quo stonewalling, which is in my opinion not the best way to inform readers. Have you tried to resolve this previously? After some recent edit-warring between the two "sides" involving mass removals and restorations of content (because one side deems it irrelevant / off-topic and the other deems it important to keep), I have carefully segmented the discussion by subject matter, and summarised all timeline entries that are under dispute. See the various threads under Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Disputed pre-2015 content, by theme. How do you think we can help? Help editors agree on the appropriate scope of the timeline. Collectively establish criteria for inclusion of any current or future entry. Advise on other places where out-of-scope information for this article could be better suited. I feel that a mediation process is more likely to break the deadlock and converge on a viable path for article improvement, than a series of RfCs which would probably reinforce the entrenched positions of participating editors. Additional statements by JFG It would be pointless to address X1\'s long catalogue of grievances, as this is not conducive to article improvement and resolution of the dispute. X1\ regrettably fails to AGF with other editors, but that's a conduct issue; instead, we are here to talk about content. The fact that some editors tend to delete stuff while others tend to include it boils down to a fundamental disagreement on article scope, as I described in my opening statement. Indeed this scoping issue has existed ever since the article was created. For example, two years ago in a May 2017 thread, I already proposed a set of objective inclusion criteria; today I hope that mediators can help editors come to a gentlemen's agreement on the appropriate article scope, with clear criteria to include or exclude any proposed timeline event. — JFG talk 21:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by BullRangifer Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The scope of this article isn't just Russia, but anything which RS relate to the Trump-Russia investigation, Mueller probe, and any back history which RS relate to Russia's efforts to cultivate Trump for possible later use. This all includes Trump's presidential campaign and Trump's history with Russia, because he and the Russians were already talking about him running for president way back in the 1980s. They knew in 2013, before Americans knew, that he would run in 2016, and they were publicly promising to help him. (Americans didn't notice this until later.) RS say this goes very far back, and RS see that as the origins of the current interference in our elections, and they tie kompromat collected over decades about Trump's behavior as a tool in Russian's interference efforts. That's why this is all on-topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC) The article is "unreadable"? Of course. This isn't a prose article, but one of many chronological list articles, which, by their very nature, are not read in the same way as a prose article. These are bits of information from RS which are added by date, often with no obvious "readable" connection with the entries before and after. This complaint is a red herring. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC) 123IP writes: "...if this is a list article" There is no "if" about it because it is indeed a chronological list. Period. "the reader cannot sort through the list from most important to least important". Of course not, because it's in chronological order. In a prose article one can organize by theme and importance, but not here. This is better used for research, not for easy, cozy, bedtime reading. "seemingly designed to..." The only "design" is to present what RS have said about events in the events' chronological order. 123IP seems to be seriously confused, and hold illogical expectations, about the article, its format, and its purpose. We have many chronological list articles of this nature. What we really need is another article, using this information, to describe in prose all about the Trump-Russia investigation(s). This is a serious lack. The relatively new Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation) prose article is making a brave, limited scope, start in this direction. 123IP is welcome to start writing the much needed article because we definitely need it. That would be the place to organize things with a design, with priorities, with a building thematic narrative, etc. That is not done in chronological list articles, only in prose articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC) Different article, but same deletionist behavior without a consensus. Check out this deletion of 49,670‎ bytes and the misleading edit summary, and then check the talk page discussion which rejected 123IP's suggestion. (see below) Even though the editors there objected, 123IP made the mass deletion anyway, but it was promptly reverted. This is typical of 123IP. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC) I owe 123IP an apology. There was only one partial objection with a mild warning before they made the deletion. The warning was accurate as the rest of the objections and the restoration did come afterwards. I misread those times on the page and have stricken the incorrect parts above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC) TFD seems to be ignorant of the background for the Russia investigation when they write "there is no evidence that any of these contacts related to the election." There is plenty of evidence. The evidence that is lacking is that Trump campaign members had any legitimate reasons to be holding so many secret meetings with Russians and then lying repeatedly about it. We know they weren't talking about the weather because we know they were discussing election interference. How do we know? Because, starting in August 2015, no less than eight foreign intelligence agencies (United Kingdom, Germany, Estonia, Poland, Australia, France, a Baltic state, and Holland) overheard conversations between Russian assets describing their secretive contacts with Trump campaign members. I have collected more evidence and sources here (this spread around in our articles): Foreign surveillance of Trump campaign members. Later, U.S. intelligence also overheard conversations. This foreign surveillance made some totally incidental and unintentional discoveries. The Trump campaign members were not under surveillance, but the Russian spies they were talking to were indeed under surveillance. This was the earliest recent evidence of active collusion between the campaign and Russians, and lots more was to come. (Strictly speaking, in 2013 (before Americans knew about his plans), when Trump and Russians were discussing him starting to run for president in 2015, and that the Russians promised to help him, that was earlier.) TFD had also mentioned this subject on 123IP's talk page. I'll let others judge it, because it's worth reading. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC) X1\, there was no fishing. The relevant part of TFD's comment in that diff is "we can remove all mention of Trump's contacts with Russians." If that is the real intent of all this, then we are dealing with a serious matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC) TFD, collusion is not a legal term, whereas conspiracy is. The Mueller Report did not prove conspiracy. The more informal terms "coordination" and "collusion" were examined by Mueller, but only in the formal and legal sense that they "require an agreement" (IOW conspiracy). No, that agreement may never have been formalized, but there was plenty of what is informally known as "collusion": "the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests" (Mueller), and multiple intelligence agencies (see above) would disagree with you that no collusion happened in the sense of directly planning with foreign agents how to help Trump win. They listened to Trump campaign members and Russian agents talking about election interference, and it alarmed them so much that they informed U.S. intelligence. It was so serious a matter that it was handled by in person direct contact between Robert Hannigan (GCHQ head) and CIA director Brennan, not even by phone or mail. Mueller wrote: "We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." To illustrate, they were caught playing baseball without first making a formal agreement. They were colluding, but not in the legal sense of a formal agreement, which is what Mueller needed to prove. In the end, you can call it what you will, but it was coordination of activities with enemy agents to disrupt the election, to harm Clinton, and help Trump win. It was wrong. Giuliani said it best: "I never said there was no collusion between the campaign, or people in the campaign. I said the President of the United States. There is not a single bit of evidence the President of the United States committed the only crime you can commit here, conspiring with the Russians to hack the DNC." -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by FoxyGrampa75 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Jawz101 My whole dispute can be summed up with this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries. This article goes back decades leading up to a premise that this involved Donald Trump- omitting that he had to be picked over Rick Santorum, Jim Gilmore, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie, ben arson, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Ted Cruz... and finally Hillary Clinton. Read that last sentence out loud to a friend and then convince them why it's not relevant. The only edit I see in the point of this article is to start after Trump won the primaries or remove Trump's name from the whole equation. I hate to give away the secret, but that's the gist of why this article needs to be scrapped. Summary of dispute by Mr Ernie Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by My very best wishes First of all, there is nothing wrong with the page. Yes, the timeline is long, but it is well organized and 95% sourced. The timeline is highly informative, much better than many other pages in Wikipedia. If you look at my edit history in article space, I am mostly a "deletionist". I like removing or fixing poorly sourced or poorly written content. However, there is not much to delete on this page. What's the problem? I think this is definitely not a content, but behavior. I think one of the contributors, JFG (filer of this request) is engaged in WP:OR. For example, this long thread is not based on discussion of any specific sources and distorts/misrepresents the items present in the list. But this is really simple. If something was described in RS as related to the subject of the page ("Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections"), this should be included to the timeline. Including or excluding something must be decided by sources. WP:NOR please. Another contributor, Onetwothreeip is engaged in sustained edit warring on this page ([11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16] and a lot more), flatly ignores what the sources actually tell, makes comments like that, and asks others to support him with reverts [17]. Importantly, a lot of content Onetwothreeip would like to remove [18] was NOT at all discussed on article talk page, contrary to his edit summary. So, I suspect this is probably for another noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Onetwothreeip JFG, The Four Deuces and Slatersteven have it right. There is overwhelming status quo stonewalling particular by two editors who have been very disruptive. There are parts of the article that really should be uncontroversial to remove. I might write more here later. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC) In response to My very best wishes, I will just say that our role is to summarise information, not to include everything that has ever been reported that could be construed as even tenuously related to the subject. I also agree with Starship.paint that content can be moved to other articles, new and existing. The massive article as it is now is simply unreadable, I think someone observed that it would be over 100 A4 pages if printed out. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC) My response to BullRangifer is simply that if this is a list article, the reader cannot sort through the list from most important to least important, in any way that may be defined. Call it a list article if you want, it's an unreadable list then, seemingly designed to make the reader give up on thinking there is any substance to the implication made by the title of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC) In general, the few editors who include the excessive amounts generally act as though they are trying to prove that Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign was linked to Russian business interests and the Russian government. Even though there was undoubtedly such involvement, this is not something that has to be assertively proven. This is evident from all these minor details which are used to show the guilt and the motivations of certain people involved, as if this was some kind of criminal trial where it's relevant to analyse these people's thoughts. The facts should speak for themselves and we should remain completely neutral. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC) What an absolute nonsense. There were no objections on the talk page to removing those columns when I had removed them. If you would actually bother to read that talk page section, the objections came after I had removed them. You wouldn't even have to compare the edit history of the article to know that, the talk page participants make that clear themselves. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Psantora It should be noted that the article(s) in question are under active discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBAP2 w/{{American politics AE|Consensus required=no|BRD=yes}}) including WP:1RR and enforced WP:BRD; at least based on the notice at the talk page, I'm not sure if this is 100% accurate. - PaulT+/C I appreciate JFG's efforts to try and bring this to some conclusion, but I don't think this is going to help with the article. I agree that it certainly needs work, though JFG and I do mostly disagree on the specific content under dispute. I'm happy to participate in the discussion if a volunteer decides to take it on, but until then I'll save my fingers. - 20:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Not that anyone needs more to read, but as an example of some of the craziness present in this article, I point you to this section on the talk page about a duplicate entry on the timeline with almost identical wording for two separate bullets. JFG and I mostly disagree about the inclusion criteria for content in this article, but on this point it was very clear to me that something needed to be changed or removed. It was still inexplicably blocked because removing the duplicative entry would somehow be interpreting the source in such a way as to be WP:OR, which is ludicrous. - 20:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Also, I'm very interested to hear from Websurfer2 on this as they have contributed the majority of the content to the main article. - 20:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Slatersteven I have disagreed that this needs to cover anything other then the interference and the events linked directly to it. Its not about Donnies contacts (or links) with Russia (that is covered by another article), its not about the investigations (that is covered by another article). All I think this does is muddy the water and makes it hard to follow the actual events. It also makes it far to big, and thus adds to the above difficulty.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC) Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Suggestion by Starship.paint Not summarizing because I’m not familiar. Would simply like to suggest splitting content into Timelime of links between Trump associates and Russian officials. Hopefully more people will be happy with that. starship.paint (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by The Four Deuces Agree with JFG's overview. Currently the article contains information that anyone who has worked for Trump who has had contact with Russians. That has all become moot since there is no evidence that any of these contacts related to the election. TFD (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC) User:BullRangifer, your argument seems to be that since people connected to Trump had so many discussions with the Russians, some of them must have been with the purpose of coordinating the election effort. That of course was something Mueller investigated and found no evidence. Your statement that there was "evidence of active collusion" is contrary to what Mueller found. Also, you fail to provide the context of my remarks to My Very Best Wishes. He said that the claim that Trump was a Russian agent was a "flat earth theory," yet at the same time claimed that a book that argued Trump might be a Russian agent was a reliable source. TFD (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Websurfer2 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by X1\ Too long, didn't read. More than 2000 words. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC) To the Readers of this DRN posting: Please forgive me if I make mistakes in this process as I have never participated in a DRN posting.[19] There are multiple Users involved that the Filer left out upon filing.[20] and it is an example of my concern about what the Filer is doing, upon which I will detail further. Some others involved are: AlsoWukai (also aka Wukai), Jasonanaggie (historical large contributor [21]), Cpaaoi, Arglebargle79 (article originator), Casprings, SPECIFICO, Objective3000, Theoallen1, MrX, Nerd271, Soibangla, etc... It is notable the Filer included drive-by editor Jawz101 (but not Phmoreno, who was in the same section, but has self-disclosed they have a conflict-of-interest of owning "Russian small cap stocks") and drive-by editor "FoxyGrampa75" (who was only a lead-in to "Onetwothreeip", who I will call 123IP), but not major historical contributors. As BullRangifer has stated this is a red herring, which it is at best. This DRN posting appears to be an unhelpful timesuck SOAPBOX. On the surface, the behavior can call CIR into question. One can see some more of this from the section titles created at the article, such as "This article is very long", "Too much here", and "Finally getting on with fixing the article"; or this from User talk:Awilley. Notice the hyperbolic language and inherent illogic in the deletionists' discussion. I find the Filer JFG's Dispute overview description as clearly biased, and yet another example of the battleground mentality that has been exhibited. There are not two "sides". There are deletionists and those attempting to follow the spirit of BRD. This DRN posting itself appears to be abstractly similar to the GANG 123IP has attempted to create with not just JFG, but The Four Deuces (who I'll call 4x2) and Slatersteven (Slatersteven has overly avoided the ganging).[22] It is inappropriate for the Filer to characterize events in passive voice verbs regarding "discussions have flared up again" as the "flare-up" was by 123IP and JFG; both by mass deletions (examples can be given besides the ones below). The scope is stable and long-standing. As some context here, there are by just one count many ongoing investigations into this topic,, and there are there are 12 that are unknown due to the still-redacted Mueller Report. This is not the time for the ignorant or premature deletions, as many things won't be clear for (as a guess) two years; so keep what the RSs tell us. While JFG has politely worded rhetoric here (and only recently at the Timeline Talk page, with the veneer of BRD), along with 123IPs' here (as My very best wishes pointed to), the deletionists' actions are very different at the article itself as is their lack of concern for editors that don't align with their agenda. I call b.s on "I have attempted to structure the discussion" by the Filer, as what has happened is yet another mass deletion storm (some most recent examples: 27 April 2019, 28 April 2019, 29 April 2019 123IP, 29 April 2019 JFG, 30 April 2019, 2 May 2019, 3 May 2019 JFG, 3 May 2019 123IP; other past links can be given). Included in these is an example attempt to change the longstanding scope/lede without discussion (other examples can be given). JFG has previously deleted my explanatory notes from the Talk page (links can be given). The deletionists' behaviors are followed-up by IDHT; while mocking, downplaying, and trivializing RSs and spewing OR. Note: my characterizations are from observing the deletionists at my over 1 3/4 years contributing to the Timeline(s). Why all this effort to aggressively delete? Why the rush to delete? JFG wanted information out of the Timeline, from which it went into the related Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum; then JFG promptly attempted to delete the entire page. For Giorgi Rtskhiladze, who is in the Mueller Report, JFG wanted to delete the article. Make no mistake, this is an epic event whose roots go back decades. It has been called called a "political pearl harbor","an act of war" (Dick Cheney, example), the "most successful covert operation in history" (Michael Hayden (general)), and Michael Morell compares it with 9/11 (see Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 1#Timeline). Would one want to arbitrarily limit the Timeline of the event that brought the U.S. into World War II? Only someone with a biased agenda would. At Wikipedia we go where the RSs lead us. Learn about the insidious tactics of the Internet Research Agency and related actors; with their goal being corrosive to democratic society. These experienced editors, deletionists, should very well understand what a "bold edit" in BRD is by now, but persistently behave as if they don't. Why would someone ostensibly engage in BRD if they have not read the RSs involved? Or worse why would someone change the meaning of content on the wp article without having read the RSs involved? There are many reasons, some are to gather information, to get attention, to disrupt, to muddy, to confuse, and to attrit. Tendentious and tedious. The Filer has admitted not reading the RSs, yet still engaged in BRD. The Filer has changed the Timelines content without knowing the RS. Links can be provided. While honest editors are attempting to follow this DRN posting's process, JFG [23][24][25] and 123IP [26] have continued mass deletions; disingenuous to this DRN process. Some of the notable items that were deleted (and since reverted) are the oft quoted Trump son's admitting (recorded) that a great deal of their money comes from Russia: Trump Jr., then an executive vice president of The Trump Organization, says, "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets, say, in Dubai, and certainly with our project in SoHo and anywhere in New York. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia." Eric Trump tells author James Dodson, "We don't rely on American banks [...] We have all the funding we need out of Russia", and says, "We go there all the time". In May 2017, Eric Trump calls this "fabricated" and an example of why people distrust the media. If I didn't know better, one might think this disingenuousness against the DRN process, this denialism by the deletionists, is an attempt to get themselves banned or even blocked from the Wikipedia community entirely. And I don't know better. Maybe some of the deletionists are meatpuppets attracted by rageaholism? I don't know. It would be likely, for the good for the Wikipedia community, given just one more violation of the spirit of BRD, and disrespect for the DRN process, not to say the disrespect for non-deletionist wp editors; that JFG and 123IP be, at least topic banned; 4x2 be at least temporarily banned (other deletionists could be added), and possibly Phmoreno banned for COI editing. Just an idea (and not just mine) to improve the culture and decrease the attrition forces disingenuously working-on Wikipedia. To send a positive message to beleaguered editors volunteering for the betterment of Wikipedia. Long live Wikipedia. Thank you to the Readers, and particularly the Volunteers, of this my first DRN posting for hopefully bearing with me. This has been a rushed job, but I have attempted to organize it (cleaning-up some of the errors; as this posting was created in two chucks chunks over today and the WIP saved here yesterday); but I have, out of brevity here and my time resources, left-out much evidence of the deletionists/denialists negative disruptive behavior at the Timeline(s) but I will provide links, if given the time. While I would still call my posting here in this section a "Work in Progress", my guess is, this Summary of dispute by X1\ is a start, and there is more to do. X1\ (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC) I concur and second Casprings opening "Summary of dispute". X1\ (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC) To further upon a BullRangifer comment, see "2011" from his earlier Talk posting. We go were where the RSs lead us. X1\ (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC) To further upon a My very best wishes comment; JFG Filed this DRN 21:19 May 18, then a JFG 07:09 May 19 mass deletion, which is BEFORE Volunteer Robert McClenon's comment at 17:37 May 19 (the first by a Volunteer). X1\ (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC) BullRangifer's note of lack of BRD spirit in 123IP at List of PlayStation 2 games is a curious example. X1\ (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Regarding 4x2's "flat earth theory" comment, per BullRangifer pointer, seems like fishing. Regarding Additional statements by JFG: While JFG throws around phrases such as "conduct issue", it is not, for me, personal. My guess the gamble in this DRN is those who have not delved, sometimes rather deeply, into this topic and the edit histories of the Timelines and associated Talk pages will assume it is. Sure it is an attempt at some kind of intimidation by JFG of me and other followers of Wikipedia's BRD spirit; but what matters is quality content driven by credible RSs. X1\ (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC) I second My very best wishes's comments regarding "What's the problem?" regarding the deletionists JFG and 123IP behavior here per wp:OR & edit warring. Other deletionists do this also. X1\ (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC) Sources Summary of dispute by Casprings This shouldn't be this hard. If a WP:RS connects a meeting/event to Russian interference, that should be in the timeline. The question is, would it be useful for a reader to understand Trump connections to Russia in the 1980s and do WP:RS connect that event, even if not directly. However, user:JFG and others have taken a bit of ownership of the article, instead of allowing the article based on WP:RSes.Casprings (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC) Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - There has been extensive discussion in multiple sections of the article talk page. It has been inconclusive, which is not surprising when it has been scattered over multiple sections. The filing party has given proper notice. While it is a good idea to try to do something to resolve the inconclusive discussion, moderated discussion with thirteen parties and a moderator is like trying to herd four sheep, five cats, three rabbits, and a llama. One or more Requests for Comment are more likely to work. This request will be left open to see if a volunteer is willing to try either to conduct moderated discussion or to facilitate the RFCs. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC) Volunteer Note - I have read the statement by User:JFG. I am not as optimistic as they are that moderated discussion will help, but if a volunteer wants to try, thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC) I'm uninvolved, though I have worked on closely related articles and I have worked with most of the editors involved. I stumbled onto this discussion and would just like to say that I agree with Robert McClenon that an RfC (on this broad issue of article scope) would have the best chance of resolving this dispute. R2 (bleep) 17:14, 20 May 2019 (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.