Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. Not to be confused with WP:DNR.

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV	Resolved	Avi8tor (t)	19 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 days, 6 hours
Norse Deity pages	In Progress	Dots321 (t)	12 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 11 hours	VeryRarelyStable (t)	2 days, 2 hours
List of South Korean girl groups	Closed	98Tigerius (t)	11 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 14 hours
Benevolent dictatorship	In Progress	Banedon (t)	11 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 12 hours	LokiTheLiar (t)	10 hours
Talk:Taylor Swift	Closed	Gsgdd (t)	10 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	10 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	10 days, 6 hours
Kylie Minogue	Closed	PHShanghai (t)	8 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 13 hours
African diaspora	Closed	Kyogul (t)	5 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 6 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 20:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Gog and Magog and Talk:Koka and Vikoka

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by PiCo on 10:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Gog and Magog (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Talk:Koka and Vikoka (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved PiCo (talk · contribs) Xinheart (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This dispute covers to two articles, Gog and Magog and Koka and Vikoka. The issue is essentially one: User:Xinheart wishes to include material to the effect that there are "similarities" between the names Gog and Magog and Koka and Vikoka, and that scholars have made "comparisons" between two legendary walls, one in Christian/Muslim legend, the other in Hindu cosmology. My position is that these two ideas are NOT held by current scholarship in the relevant areas of biblical studies, Islamic studies, Sanskrit studies, or mythological/folkloric studies. They are, in short, non-notable. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive Talk-page discussion; previous RfC (on Gog and Magog talk page). How do you think we can help? Is this idea - that there is a connection between the names Gog/Magog and Koka/Vikoka, and also between the "wall of Dhul Qarnayn" and the Hindu world-wall - one that should be in the article? Summary of dispute by Xinheart Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Hi, This is the second dispute resolution raised by PiCo (talk · contribs) on the same subject. The last one goes back to July 2015 and involved other respectable and learned wp contributors @Snow_Rise (talk · contribs), @Ian.thomson (talk · contribs), @TwoHorned (talk · contribs) and may be an anonymous IP. It can be consulted here, in the TP (the title of the section was set up by PiCo (talk · contribs) in a ironical manner on purpose, that was noted by the others participants). The conclusion written in August 2015 was that no formal consensus reached, but "involved editors seem to have reached consensus on alternative wording". Basically, it was admitted that the introduction I proposed, written differently, is acceptable and involves notable authors in the field of metaphysics and symbolic studies. Despite this, PiCo (talk · contribs) never admitted the arguments of other contributors, and reverted one more time, and here again in December 2015. The basic argument has been said by Ian.thomson (talk · contribs) here where it is found that the introduction of René Guénon's text is justified and that author notable. Other related sources are mentioned in that section of the TP. I have nothing to add to what has been said before. PiCo (talk · contribs) should accept once the arguments given by the other non-partisan contributors and the conclusion reached previously. Xinheart (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC) Talk:Gog and Magog and Talk:Koka and Vikoka 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 adequate discussion on the two article talk pages, and the other editor has been notified. While most discussions at this noticeboard are of a single article, I don't see anything in the rules for this page that prevents a discussion of the extent to which two articles are related. I am neither accepting nor declining this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC); moved per note on User talkpage; cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)  Volunteer note: While the two original editors have responded, there does seem to have been a bit of a growth of involved and interested editors. These editors may include (from talkpage discussions): Ian.thomson - joined discussion of RfC and later discussion of Guenon source Snow Rise - bot-summoned to RfC and provided extensive advice and comment both during and after the RfC I've pinged them in case they would like to join but I have not placed a notification on their respective talk pages. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC); I would also like to state that I am neither accepting nor declining the case, 04:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC) My observations of the dispute and of Xinheart and PiCo Hi folks. Very pressed for time at present, and much of what I have found for the project is divided still further by some involved projects and discussions, so I will try to comment here once at length to provide my opinion of the dispute and the parties, but I will probably not comment further unless anyone has any really pressing questions. Apologies at the outset for the probable length here. I'll begin this noting that I don't think the content question is too complex, and those who want to understand it are best served by reviewing the thread. I came to the thread via RfC notice just after the article had been protected by KrakatoaKatie, following a brief edit war between PiCo and Xinheart. Aside from the two of them, about half dozen other editors took part in the RfC discussion (which PiCo opened), most of them summoned by bot like myself, having had no prior exposure to the dispute, but also a pair of IPs (one of which may have been Xinheart, who registered during the discussion). None of those of us who arrived felt that either disputant was particularly in the right concerning how they regarded the sources and the disputed piece of content. Nevertheless, over the course of a couple of days, we were able to hammer out a reasonable compromise solution, the gist of which was that the sources in question were WP:RS, but that the statements they were being used to support needed to be better written, attributed, and contextualized. Comment on content, not contributors. This applies both to participants and to other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Xinheart, for his part, seemed to realize that he was new and that he was working within a collegial/consensus framework here and, after the initial edit war with PiCo, conformed himself well to the policy issues and worked with the RfC respondents to construct a more neutral middle-ground approach to the content. PiCo, by comparison, refused to have anything be not exactly as he wanted. He has very idiosyncratic notions on sources in particular, and whenever those opinions part from our actual WP:RS standards, he insists that his requirements be met as well, even be they based only on WP:IDONTLIKEIT notions. Of all of the editors participating in the relevant threads, he was the sole party who believed the sources were not reliable (particularly because the author was not a biblical scholar). Worse, despite apparently having been an active on-and-off participant on Wikipedia for years, he seemed to lack basic familiarity and competency with some of the policies being discussed (for example, he would often confuse WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability as one concept and make arguments about the sources that were found in neither) making arguing with him arduous, as he would often WP:IDONTHEARTHAT any discussion of the actual wording and purpose of those policies. But the truly disruptive behaviour only started after the discussion closed. PiCo would wait until eyes were off the page and then would revert the consensus content. When challenged, he would offer arguments like "Well, I'm re-opening the discussion. So the present !vote is now 1:2." even when the previous discussion had just concluded days or weeks before, and the opinions expressed within it were still germane. Troubled by this behaviour and also by constant reverts of the content of various editors aside from Xinheart, I looked at the revision history of the article and discovered that for the previous few months, PiCo had undone the substantial majority of all edits to the article made by any other editor but himself, and there were quite a few such editors. I haven't had time to investigate in detail whether this trend has continued until today, but I should not be surprised if it has. There is a rather severe case of WP:OWN in his behaviour with regard to this article, and he doesn't mince words when it comes to the fact that he believes that he is its primary custodian and knows what is best for it: "I allowed the discussion/editing process to go ahead, but the result has been a severely degraded article, the added material being unbalanced and based on primary or inadequate sources. Nor have I seen anything to convince me that Guernon is a reliable source or his ideas notable. I've therefore reverted to the last good version." So, long story short, I'm very heartened that PiCo has chosen to bring the issues to dispute resolution, but if you take this case, I recommend keeping an admin involved, because if PiCo does not like what other contributors are trying to tell him, my experience with him on this article is that he will just ignore the consensus and keep doing what he wants to do until someone with tools shows up, even if he was the one who requested the third party opinions in the first place. Peculiarly, and to his credit, this behaviour seems confined largely to Gog and Magog; I've since seen his contributions at other biblical articles (apparently his one area of involvement on Wikipedia) and, although he always has strong opinions and has expressed some potentially problematic motivations for his work in that area (he likes to challenge the dogmatic sensibilities of zealous believers), the WP:OWN bebahviour is not in evidence at other articles/talk pages like it is for Gog and Magog. Make of that what you will. Snow let's rap 09:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC) First statement by moderator I am opening this case for moderated discussion. I will remind the editors to be civil and concise, and comment on content, not contributors. Civility is mandatory in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Overly lengthy statements do not clarify the issues. Comments on contributors rather than on content may be hatted. I expect every participant to check this page at least every 48 hours, and to answer all questions within 48 hours after they are asked. I will visit this page at least every 24 hours. Do not edit the article pages while this moderated discussion is in progress. All discussion should be held here rather than on other talk pages, just so that it is centralized. Will each editor please state concisely what the issues are? In particular, it appears that there was an RFC a few months ago about whether to state that these two myths are versions of the same myth, and the conclusion was that this should not be stated. Is there a reason why the RFC either does not apply or should be ignored? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC) First statements by editors statement by PiCo (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC) The dispute is over the following paragraph, which appears in both articles: Few early 20th century scholars noted similarities between Gog and Magog and the Hindu figures Koka and Vikoka[9] and French metaphysician René Guénon went further,[10] comparing the concept of the "great wall" (which in the Abrahamic tradition protects humanity against Gog and Magog) with the Hindu notion of a "circular wall" (Lokâloka) which separates the "world" (loka) from "outer darkness" (aloka). (I think this is meant to read "A few early ...." rather than "Few early...") The statement is not factually untrue, but it gives the misleading impression that these two ideas have currency in contemporary scholarship. That they don't is apparent from the sources being used - source 9 is a book review in French from 1929, source 10 is a translation of a French book published in 1945. Not that there's anything wrong with being French, but if these ideas had currency they'd be available in English, and from contemporary sources. There's also a problem with the subject area. Gog and Magog are biblical figures and the appropriate area of scholarship is biblical studies. I've carried out extensive searches of the literature and there's absolutely no mention at all of the idea that they are somehow related to the Hindu myth. Gog and Magog are also figures in the Quran and in medieval European and Middle Eastern folklore, but again there's no mention of this idea in the scholarly literature. If we run the search the other way, looking through sources on Hindu myth, we do find mentions - but from New Age-style sources, not from scholarly ones. My impression, in fact, is that this idea of a link between the Hindu myth and the Gog/Magog group of stories is pretty much confined to circles that believe in Atlantis and suchlike ideas. I withdrew from the RfC to avoid a personality conflict with one user, whom I find arrogant and overbearing. I would have been prepared to accept the outcome despite this, but I do believe that the overarching aim of Wikipedia is to produce articles with reliable information, and this paragraph is not based on contemporary reliable sources. statement by Xinheart (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC) PiCo writes: "... but if these ideas had currency they'd be available in English, and from contemporary sources". Here is a scholarly one that goes back to 2014: Neba, D. C. Academic Research International5.6 (Nov 2014): 260-272.:"Gog and Magog become the four corners of the world that harbour evil doers. These " Galagoes, prostitutes and business men of Gog" ("The mouth of the liars will be shut, 9 ") can be compared to the demon brothers, "Koka and Vikoka", in Hindu mythology". PiCo writes: "Gog and Magog are biblical figures and the appropriate area of scholarship is biblical studies". Last ref is from academic studies, but anyway the sentence is not true. The subject "Gog and Magog" does not belong only to Biblical studies, but is also used in studies on symbolism and metaphysics. This is where René Guénon's entry is legitimate. Other entries are, on top of those already cited in the TP: [1] [2] [3] PiCo writes: "this idea of a link between the Hindu myth and the Gog/Magog group of stories is pretty much confined to circles that believe in Atlantis and suchlike ideas". This is not true, but even if it were, it should mentioned in Wp as such. Robert McClenon writes: "In particular, it appears that there was an RFC a few months ago about whether to state that these two myths are versions of the same myth, and the conclusion was that this should not be stated". Last RfC here found that the introduction of René Guénon's text is justified and that author notable. The question is not to write if these are two versions of the same myth (that kind of question is complex and I don't intent to go in that direction), but to note the existence of similarities betweens what these two symbols represent. It's important to notice also that, according to studies in symbolism and metaphysics, Gog and Magog, when related to Koka and Vikoka, do not represent real people living actually on Earth. This is a necessary counterpart of an interpretation that identifies these demons with people like Turks or other groups, that latter interpretation being favored by people who focus only on certain "newborn evangelist" biblical interpretation. My only point here to to be able to introduce in the "Gog and Magog" article a sentence taken from a book of metaphysicoan rené Guénon that indicates a link between the two symbols. Guénon's reference is this one, and that book is very notable. During the discussion in the TPs, I changed the wording according to other contributors which found the proposed wording acceptable. Lastly, I would like to add that the discussion in the TP must be referred to, as many arguments in favor of this citation have been provided by contributors. Second statement by moderator First, are we in agreement that no late-twentieth-century or twenty-first-century mainstream scholar sees a connection between the two myths? If not, is the real question whether the older identifications of connections may be mentioned? Were there earlier mentions by mainstream scholars of a connection? I would also like to ask for comments about René Guénon, who was not a mainstream scholar but who was a very influential and notable early-twentieth-century author (and who always saw connections between all things). Is there a reason why he should or should not be mentioned? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC) I think that I see two ways forward. The first, that I would prefer, would be for the two editors (and possibly other editors) to agree to some minimal mention that some authors have identified a connection, without giving undue weight. The second would be an RFC, but the exact wording would have to be agreed on and neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Second statements by editors Statement by PiCo (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Focusing on your questions: First, are we in agreement that no late-twentieth-century or twenty-first-century mainstream scholar sees a connection between the two myths? My own searches in the literature lead me to believe that Gog/Magog and Koka/Vikoka are never mentioned together by modern scholars. Xinheart mentions a D.C. Naba writing in "Academic Research International" in 2014, but D.C Naba is from the University of Burundi and Academic Research International seems to be a new online start-up without much behind it - not very mainstream. The point isn't so much that nobody sees a connection as that nobody even looks for one. If not, is the real question whether the older identifications of connections may be mentioned? Were there earlier mentions by mainstream scholars of a connection? I think, without being certain, that this may have been a topic in the late 19th/early 20th century under the rubric of what was called "pan-Babylonianism". This was the idea that all myths came from a single original, which could be traced to ancient Babylonia - hence Gog-Magog/Koka-Vikoka had a common origin. This idea has no acceptance in modern academia. But as I said, I'm not certain that this is the background to Guenon's ideas. I would also like to ask for comments about René Guénon, who was not a mainstream scholar but who was a very influential and notable early-twentieth-century author (and who always saw connections between all things). I don't think he was ever influential at all, and he certainly isn't now. "While Guénon’s influence remains minimal in the Western academic community at large..." That quote, from a website called World Wisdom, goes on: "...he is the seminal influence in the development of traditionalism." Traditionalism is the idea that all religions have a common origin - which needless to say is not mainstream. So he's important in Traditionalism, but Traditionalism itself is not important. Or so I read that passage. I think that I see two ways forward. The first, that I would prefer, would be for the two editors (and possibly other editors) to agree to some minimal mention that some authors have identified a connection, without giving undue weight. The second would be an RFC, but the exact wording would have to be agreed on and neutral. My own view is that Guenon is a figure in an insignificant movement which today lies well outside the mainstream. The ideas he champions have no following in mainstream academic discussion, and any mention at all would be undue weight. Which is not, of course, to say that he should not have his own article and be mentioned in the article on Traditionalism.PiCo (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by Xinheart (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Robert McClenon writes: "are we in agreement that no late-twentieth-century or twenty-first-century mainstream scholar sees a connection between the two myths?" The question is larger and becomes this one: Gog/Magog and Koka/Vikoka, being mythological figures (and they are necessarily such, because they refer either to ancient or sacred texts), what are the known interpretations of these symbols ? Being mythological figures, their interpretations are manyfold: from Biblical studies, studies in symbolism and metaphysics, and even down to the most stupid "evangelist" interpretations like the one mentioned in article ("modern apocalyptism" section of the present article, which BTW contains interpretations far away from Biblical Studies and which are not mainstream at all). From that perspective, the excerpt from René Guénon's book is one of the most known. But the connection is also supported by academic references, and the 2014 reference given by me above is perfectly academic (the journal was set up in 2011, and it is a regular on-line publication with reported impact factor of 0.6), on top of the older ones going back to beginning XXth century. I don't accept the refutation by PiCo because the author is from University of Burundi, this is looking like defamation. PiCo who seems to be keen on asking for academic references, does not hesitate here to mention an obscure blog called "www.worldwisdom.com" to sideline Guénon's influence, but I can easily cite real academics and references who are working on Guénon: Modène University in Italy Guénon is an author who has his own dictionnary Ecole Pratique des hautes Etudes in France (very prestigious, see École_pratique_des_hautes_études) Known historians from EPHE like Xavier Accart Xavier Accart PhD thesis on Guénon: link. Needless to say that we are far away from PiCo's depiction, whose mention of "pan-Babylonianism" is pure invention. BTW, I would be happy that PiCo provides me academic references that the Gog/Magog-Koka/Vikoka connection belong to something called pan-Babylonianism, as he writes it. I would be happy to see such references, it's the first time I read such an assertion. Guénon did not "always [see] connections between all things" but his studies in symbolism are very authoritative. Lastly I would also favor that we keep the actual wording, which has been written out of discussions in the TP, which is minimal and without any UNDUE. Third statement by moderator I am not, at this time, collapsing or deleting any of the above, but some of the comments are more on contributors than on content. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC) It seems that there isn't any possibility of compromise, since one editor will not agree to having a one-sentence mention of the comments of René Guénon, and the other editor does want a brief mention of the comments of Guénon. In that case, I will ask again whether the parties are agreeable to having the dispute resolved by a Request for Comments? If so, the remaining question is how to word the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Third statements by editors I'm happy to go to an RfC. PiCo (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC) There's already been an RfC, set up by PiCo which has led to the present formulation. I don't think the spirit of RfC is to launch these procedures until one gets satisfaction, it's a time consuming process. I would prefer a reformulation of the actual wording if you will, although that wording has already been worked out by previous contributors. Xinheart (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC) Is there any further activity on this page? If no RfC, maybe some other forum or mechanism?PiCo (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator When the RFC was closed in August 2015, the closer stated that the editors had agreed on a wording. Would they please explain why the current wording needs to be changed? Is the current wording consistent with what was agreed in August? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Since one editor doesn't want another RFC, there is no further forum or mechanism that I would advise. You could try formal mediation, but it isn't clear what that would gain over informal mediation here. The alternative is to go back to the talk page. I don't see evidence of a conduct dispute, and it is good that there is no conduct dispute. (Edit-warring or editing against consensus are conduct issues. Please avoid them, as you have so far.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Thank you Robert McClenon for your honest arbitration on this. I would propose this: since, as you say, last RFC in August 2015 agreed on a wording, I can accept to even more work out modifications on that last wording under your arbitration here. I would like also to point out that, either in the TP, during the RFC or here, I always give references that answer the points raised by PiCo. So I think I am in position to ask that PiCo answer precisely my last question above, I repeat it here: " I would be happy that PiCo provides me academic references that the Gog/Magog-Koka/Vikoka connection belong to something called pan-Babylonianism, as he writes it " I think the answer could help resolve the dispute. Regards, Xinheart (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Xinheart, you ask about pan-babyloniansim. There's a Wikipedia article on that subject if you want to read it, Panbabylonianism. I think theyr mischaracterise it slightly - one aspect of the idea was that all the myths in the world have a common origin, not just the biblical ones. It's not a respectable academic position today, though it was once. You misunderstand what I said, though - I meant simply that the idea that all mythologies derive from a common ancestor is itself common to both Guenon and that school of thought. You also seem not to have grasped what I'm saying throughout: the problem isn't Guenon, it's the idea that any modern scholars see any connection between Gog/Magog-Koka/Vikoka, or between the Hindu cosmological world-mountains and the wall of Alexander. Yes, Wikipedia does try to arrive at articles through a process of consensus, but it also tries to put information before the public which is accurate, and this is not.PiCo (talk) 07:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator I am confused. There was an RFC in August. What is the issue anyway? It appears that the RFC concluded that a mention of Guenon, or of other early-twentieth-century authors who thought that the two mythologies were the same, was permitted in a short form. Is that correct? If so, what is the issue? That wording doesn't appear to be in the current text. This discussion appears to be going around and around. Is there a specific question, or should I fail this thread and send it back to the talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Fifth statement by editors Robert McClenon: to answer your last question, yes, the mention of Guénon was permitted in short form and the present wording in the article is the one that resulted from contributors of the last RfC. The wording was not to say that the two mythologies are the same (they are not, since they come from different traditions), but that they display analogies in their meaning. So basically we can keep on like this. Also, I don't think that the question I raised in the fourth statement by editors section, and which you collapsed, is a comment on a contributor. It was a genuine question about a point raised by PiCo and which is unrelated to the debate, I think. The answer given by PiCo about "pan Babylionalism" is not related to our subject, and the wikipedia article he mentions does in no way mention Gog/Magog, Koka/Vikoka. I am legimate in asking that question, and he has clearly not answered it, instead of me who always answered his asking for references. So I am asking to end this debate and to keep the formulation as it is in both articles. Xinheart (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Sixth statement by moderator I am still confused. Will User:PiCo please explain what they want? What is the question? There was an RFC in August, and it resulted in the current language. What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors 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:New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany#up to now

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by PanchoS on 06:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany#up to now (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Gerry1214 (talk · contribs) Jeppiz (talk · contribs) PanchoS (talk · contribs) det&cor (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The disagreement is about a claim repeatedly introduced by Gerry1214 in the lead, after a related claim was repeatedly introduced by Jeppiz in the infobox. Both have been repeatedly removed by myself, with explanatory edit summaries and further debate in the given section of the Talk page. The two other editors state that the introduced wording is given in sources, while I repeatedly pointed out it constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS and therefore violates WP:OR, misrepresenting these two otherwise reliable sources. Contentwise, and in its last version, this is about the following sentence: It was later revealed by police that 18 of the 31 suspects checked by the Federal Police on New Year's Eve were asylum seekers, which were suspected of grievous bodily harm, robbery and theft, while sexual assaults have not been linked to them, but offenses classified as "insulting on a sexual base". My problem with the wording is that it combines what is being held against the assailants in general (per the WELT article, this includes: grievous bodily harm, robbery, sexual delicts) with statements that a majority of the suspects were asylum seekers, as said by the ZEIT article. This constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS, even disregarding that neither of the sources connects asylum seekers explicitly says so, and that the ZEIT article explicitly rules out asylum seekers from being charged with any of the sexual delicts. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Filed an WP:3O report which however wasn't accepted as there were more than two parties involved. How do you think we can help? Take a close look at the two sources (German-language, but just a few sentences to read), and at the disputed wording, telling us whether the latter seems fully backed by the sources or not. Summary of dispute by Gerry1214 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Jeppiz Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by PanchoS Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by det&cor Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There are two sources: 1. (Die Welt) states: 29 suspects, 18 of them asylum seekers. Some offences sexual. 2. (Die Zeit) clarifies: the sexual offences hav'nt been done by any of the 18 asylum seekers. The last half-sentence should be deleted. Talk:New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany#up to now discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer's note: I'm neither "taking" nor opening this case for discussion at this time. There appears to be adequate talk page discussion. I'd remind the filing editor, PanchoS, that it is the obligation of the filing editor to notify the other editors involved in the discussion by putting a notice on their user talk pages and {{subst:drn-notice|New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany}} — ~~~~ can be used for that purpose. I would also note that there are at least three other editors, Det&cor, Whamper, and JeremyThomasParker, who have been involved in the discussion. Either the filing editor or the DRN volunteer who takes this case should consider whether or not their presence here is needed for a successful outcome (or they may, of course, add themselves here). Anyone who is substantially involved in the dispute and who might, if not involved here at DRN, interfere with any resolution worked out here should be listed, notified, and an "initial comments" section created for them by the person who lists them here. On the other hand, listing them here is a two-edged sword: If they are listed and choose not to participate then this case may be closed for lack of sufficient participation. If that happens, the filing editor may wish to consider a request for comments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC) True, though I expicitly pinged the two involved parties, and from "Check that a notice was delivered to each person you add to the filing," I inferred a notice was usually posted by a bot. My fault, I'm adding the required {{drn-notice}} now, though the case might just be turned mute by recent developments. --PanchoS (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC) 24-hour closing notice: Unless we get participation from the three other editors by this time tomorrow, this case will be closed as futile by a volunteer. If some, but not all, choose to participate, a decision will then be made about the ongoing viability of this request. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC) (DRN coordinator)) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Daniel Holtzclaw#Recent_changes_.282.29

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Oiudfgogsdf on 10:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page? | Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Daniel Holtzclaw#Recent changes .282.29 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Oiudfgogsdf (talk · contribs)
• Jess (talk · contribs)
• Grayfell (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

My contributions are being rapidly reverted with only vague justifications. No attempt to work toward a compromise.

WP:CRYBLP and WP:ROWN ?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

1. Talk, 2. modifying my contribution, 3. requesting suggestions

How do you think we can help?

offer suggestions instead of just quickly deleting, find some compromise consistent with WP policy and goals

Summary of dispute by Jess

I'm not sure DRN is necessary at this point. Oiudfgogsdf has replied only twice on the talk page, and he has yet to even respond to the most recent comments. Jumping to DRN is likely premature.

That being said, the content in question is here. To summarize the article subject, Hortzclaw was recently convicted of several counts of abuse, and a great many sources indicate he targeted his victims because their credibility would be undermined in court. Oiudfgogsdf's edit attempts to do just that: selectively quote a source to say that the victims are not credible, and imply Hortzclaw was wrongly convicted. We don't have a RS which says Hortzclaw was wrongly convicted, and so must be careful not to engage in original research to imply it.

Between the two paragraphs, the first inserts disparaging remarks about the victims worded with a clear POV in mind. The second paragraph boils down to "Hortzclaw's teammate was surprised by the allegations," but is again worded in such a way as to imply his conviction doesn't make any sense and is totally out of character. The substance of that paragraph seems insignificant, and I don't see substantial coverage of it in other reliable sources.

So basically: WP:BLP and WP:DUE.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Grayfell

This is premature at best, as Jess says above. Counting myself, there are four editors who have removed the contested content from the article. The essay CRYBLP is not applicable, as the BLP policy connotations should be obvious here. ROWN is an essay which giving advice which may be useful in context, but is not a free pass to restore content. WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:NPOV, and WP:EW are all policies. Grayfell (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Oiudfgogsdf

Never fear Jess, I am responding now, so that makes 3 times. For you to say that the 2nd paragraph in my edit (regarding the comments of Cortland Selman) just boils down to "Hortzclaw's teammate was surprised by the allegations," is a perfect example of how this page is over-simplifying the subject to fit it into a neat little box. Nevertheless, you continue to argue that not even that major over-simplification would be acceptable to you as a contribution. If you read the content carefully, it is obvious that Selman said a whole lot more, sorry, i.e.;

1. he knew Holtzclaw on a personal level
2. he came 100s of miles to speak out
3. he knows him as a caring, sincere, passionate individual
4. in "all" the time he knew him (sounds like a while) racism never surfaced
5. he sees Holtzclaw as a "brother"

Those words are his, not mine. Sorry if they don't fit into your narrative. I would be happy to shorten it a bit if you and other contributors find it too detailed, but you have not even offered that as a compromise. This content was included almost verbatim from the reference I cited; for you to imply that I have "worded (it) in such a way as to imply his conviction doesn't make any sense and is totally out of character" is your personal interpretation of the passage and makes no sense because I did not write it. And Yes, I do offer it as a counter-balance to the flat narrative presented in the remaining 2497 words of the article which make only the slightest mention (1 sentence?) that Holtzclaw ever even had family or friends, or that anyone had anything good to say about him or was surprised by the trial, instead focusing on minute details of the victims' testimonies, exact dates during the trial, activists, media reaction or lack therof, the blogosphere - anything other than the subject of this supposedly-biographical article. Neutrality and balance of views on a subject is to be achieved as a whole with the article, not on an individual basis with each contribution. That is what I am trying to do here. This is not original research.

Grayfell, I'm not sure what you mean by "premature." WP:DRN states that the only requirements are that 1) "the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page", and 2) a recommendation that more than 2 contributors be involved in lieu of requesting a 3rd opinion instead. Furthermore, your comment that "the BLP policy connotations should be obvious here" leads me to believe that you are staying within the bottom levels of the Graham's Hierarchy instead of the recommended top 3. It highlights what I have experienced throughout this dispute - your justifications for quick deletions are that my edit is "undue", "transparent", "too lengthy" with no real explanations or alternatives. "ROWN is an essay which giving advice which may be useful in context, but is not a free pass to restore content." ??? That article seems to focus more on editors who revert others contributions with no attempt at compromise for dubious reasons:

Revert vandalism upon sight but revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration. It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Furthermore, your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit WP:ROWN

I reverted your reversions (thus restoring my contribution) once, and only after discussing on the talk page and revising my content in an attempt to address your concerns. You reverted in minutes (Jess twice) with nothing more than an edit note WP:BLPZEAL ? I am now reaching out to WP:DRN to avoid WP:EW . Is it fitting to the integrity of WP that an article remain so tightly controlled that not even the shortest counter-balancing contributions be allowed that do not strictly adhere to some obviously-slanted narrative? Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Daniel Holtzclaw#Recent_changes_.282.29 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 adequate discussion at the talk page. However, there have been three editors in the dispute, and only two are named. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the third editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• Note - Also, it is the responsibility of the filing party to notify both of the other two editors of this request. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I posted notices to the involved users' talk pages and added the 3rd user here. Hopefully I did it the right way? Let me know if I didn't. Thanks. Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

It isn't entirely clear from the above responses whether the other editors are agreeing to participate in moderated discussion, so I am opening this case with two questions. First, are you willing to participate in moderated discussion? If at least two editors agree to take part in discussion, this case will continue. If not, since moderated dispute resolution is voluntary, this case will be closed. ub, It doesn't appear to me that discussion here is premature. However, discussion here is voluntary. Second, what do each of you think should be changed in the article, or do you think that the article should be left as it is? Here are a few ground rules. Be civil and concise. Civility is mandatory in Wikipedia, especially in dispute resolution, and overly long statements do not clarify. I will check this case at least every 24 hours, and I expect every editor to check on it every 48 hours. Do not edit the article while dispute resolution is in progress. (If there is edit-warring, I will fail the case.) Discuss the article here rather than on the talk page, so that this is a centralized place for discussion. I do not claim to be an authority on the subject; it is up to the editors to explain the subject matter to me. So: Are the editors willing to engage in moderated dispute resolution? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

First statements by editors

1. Yes I would like to participate in a moderated discussion, thanks for volunteering to help.
2. The subject of the article being disputed here is former Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holtzclaw; the article is a biographical piece on a living person. I'll be brief with my summary.. Holtzclaw was the subject of an investigation into allegations of sexual assault by 13 OKC-area women. The jury in his trial found him guilty in half of the 36 charges and recommended he be sentenced to 263 years in prison. He had no previous criminal record or complaints of misconduct before this trial. During the trial his former girlfriend and a former teammate spoke out in defense of his character. There is some controversy regarding the case - a) all 13 women were black, b) most had criminal records for prior or active cases themselves, c) some activists believed not enough attention was given to a case of white police misconduct against black women and wanted to make sure justice would be served, d) the only "hard" physical evidence presented during the trial other than testimony was skin DNA and GPS proving that Holtzclaw had been at the scene of the alleged crimes. There were no rape kits, 3rd-party-witnesses, or fluids such as semen, e) most of the accusers did not come forward until they were contacted by investigators. Some of the accusers testified they had been afraid to come forward or believed nothing would be done. Sorry I hope that is not too lengthy.
3. My objective with this dispute and for the article is to present the subject in a complete, balanced manner. I feel that up to this point the article overly concerns itself with the political context of the subject rather than the subject itself. Every attempt I've made to add content to the article to create balance and render the complexity of the trial and Mr. Holtzclaw's story have been met with instantaneous reversions with little explanation other than an edit note with vague justifications. I want to open this article up to a more mature, complete analysis.

Oiudfgogsdf (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, I still think the move to DRN is premature. I'm happy to continue discussing the topic at the article talk page, which Oiudf seems to have abandoned, but I don't have a limitless amount of time, and continuing here is likely to prolong the dispute. I can't speak for Greyfell... if he wants to participate, then that's great. But I don't believe moderation is warranted (at least with respect to my involvement at this stage), and I'd prefer to keep my participation on the article's talk page. Oiud, if you could respond to the comments I made there last week, I'd be happy to continue discussing. In summary, we need sources showing significant coverage, so tracking those down would be helpful. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Canadian dollar

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Peter K Burian on 21:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Canadian dollar (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Peter K Burian (talk · contribs) NorthernFactoid (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The Canadian Dollar article was frozen in time, at a point before mid 2014, when the value of this currency was still high. Since that time, it has dropped in value significantly vs. the US dollar. In mid 2013 it was at par, but now it is at 70 cents U.S. However, the Wikipedia article failed to even mention devaluation since mid 2014. Instead, it contained only discussions of the strength of this currency. As I had said on the Talk page, I find it incredible that such a major change - occurring over 18 months to date - and so significant to the topic, has been ignored by an encyclopedia article. (Because of NortherFactoid's content) I had added the relevant information: a sentence in the lede, fully citated (major news organization) and a new section with 2015-2016 content, again fully cited (major news media). NorthernFactoid has Reverted all of the content that I have added on several occasions. since early January 2016, as the History will confirm (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadian_dollar&action=history). Most recently today, he has deleted fully cited content that I had added, on two occasions as of 4:20pm, Eastern Standard Time. I have discussed this with NorthernFactoid in detail on the Talk page under three headings: "This article desperately needs a MAJOR update" "The value of the loonie has been crashing ... how can the lede ignore that???" "Edit War has been started by another user" He has responded to my comments, so he has been reading them, but has continued to Revert (delete fully cited content that I have added.) To be honest, I have eventually begun to UNDO his reverts starting today. (Yesterday, I had simply added new content, with citations, worded in a manner that might be more acceptable to him; but since he has chosen the Revert that content, I have decided to Undo such changes.) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have advised NorthernFactoid that the content I am adding is essential to the topic. The change in the value is not a sudden, one time, factor but has been ongoing for 18 months, though ignored by the content in [{Canadian Dollar]]. I have advised him on several occasions in the Talk sections that I will file for Dispute Resolution. I have served the relevant notice on his Talk page today: == Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. == This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!. How do you think we can help? Remove NorthernFactoid's right to Revert (delete) content added by other editors. Insist that the content of Canadian Dollar rightly includes a discussion of an essential aspect of the topic: the devaluation of this currency over the past 18 months, and still continuing. P.S. by Peter K Burian; instead of continuing the discussion on the Talk page at Canadian Dollar, NorthernFactoid seems to be continuing it on my talk page. User talk:Peter K Burian Topic: 32 Your disruptive trolling behavior Peter K Burian (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by NorthernFactoid Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Canadian dollar 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 adequate recent discussion on the talk page. However, what the filing editor is asking for is not within the scope of this noticeboard: "Remove NorthernFactoid's right to Revert (delete) content added by other editors." Only sanctions at WP:ANI can do that. This noticeboard is for moderated discussion. If the filing editor is willing to engage in discussion with the other editor, and the other editor is willing to discuss, a case can be accepted. Participation here is voluntary, but encouraged, and is a way to alleviate or avoid conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Thank you Volunteer Robert McClenon. I am willing to discuss it with the other editor if he commits to not deleting the content that I had added while the discussion is underway. As of this moment, as of 21:22, 13 January 2016‎, the content that I had added (at the end of the lede and the new Declining Value section under Value) is all there since I had undone his Reverts. Part of the problem is that not a single other editor who has worked on Canadian Dollar has been willing to become involved in the discussion about the need to add content about the devaluation that has been occurring over 18 months and still continuing. (In other Wikipedia articles, support for one side or the other in a dispute as to content seems to get solved by the group favoring one position over the other. But that has not happened at Canadian Dollar.) So, we have a situation where NorthernFactoid is convinced that there should be no mention of the devaluation at all vs. my conviction that it is an essential part of this topic in an encyclopedic coverage of the Canadian Dollar. Hence, I am not sure how the two of us could resolve that dispute with no other voices supporting either side of the dispute. I believe that I have seen Sanctions against editors who continually Reverted content added by another editor in other Wikipedia sections. I would be satisfied with whatever Dispute Resolution can do to have NorthernFactoid stop deleting content that discusses the devaluation of the dollar. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC) You need to achieve consensus before making bold edits, and you've not done that! I'm not opposed to mentioning the dollar's decline somewhere in the article (even though the current exchange rates subsection already relays that), but you've done it in a way that violates numerous sourcing, editing, and stylistic guidelines. You've also offered your opinion as verifiable fact and treated theoretical currency forecasts of others—more opinion—as fact. This is what I take issue with. NorthernFactoid (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC) I believe we need to have Adminstrators inbolved to solve this Canadian Dollar dispute as to content. NortherFactoid filee a complaint about me (after he found out that I had requested Dispute Resolution) re: edit warring, after he had Reverted (deleted) every bit of content I had ever added and I began to Revert his deletions of my content starting today. No problem. Let the chips fly as they will. Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion ... Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. NorthernFactoid (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Peter K Burian (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC) Update by Peter K Burian ... once again NorthernFactoid deleted ALL of the content I had added. Needless to say, I did an UNDO to get my content back into the article. He refuses to acknowledge in the article that the value of the Canadian Dollar has plummeted in the past 18 months. Why? Good question. 01:19, 14 January 2016‎ Peter K Burian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41,286 bytes) (+2,706)‎ . . (refusing to accept deletion of content I had added Undid revision 699715900 by NorthernFactoid 01:19, 14 January 2016‎ Peter K Burian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,580 bytes) (+588)‎ . . (Refusing to accept deletion of content I had added Undid revision 699715303 by NorthernFactoid 00:43, 14 January 2016‎ NorthernFactoid (talk | contribs)‎ . . (37,992 bytes) (-2,706)‎ . . (→‎Value: See talk page BEFORE making bold edits to article. Consensus required WP:BRD) 00:38, 14 January 2016‎ NorthernFactoid (talk | contribs)‎ . . (40,698 bytes) (-588)‎ . . (See talk page BEFORE making bold edits to article. Consensus required WP:BRD) Peter K Burian (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)  To DRN volunteers: This case is now being discussed at WP:AN3. /wiae ★ /tlk 01:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC) Closing per case being discussed at another DR venue. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:RyanTQuinn

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by The Data Junkie on 20:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:RyanTQuinn (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved The Data Junkie (talk · contribs) RyanTQuinn (talk · contribs) Dispute overview RyanTQuinn has entered into an Edit War with me. I have made a small but important edit regarding Adele. I have entered her mother's full name and year of birth. There has only been one birth in England and Wales 1915-2005 for a Penny Adkins, and that is Penny Susan Adkins, born 1968. A search of electoral registers at http://www.searchelectoralroll.co.uk/Default.asp shows Adele and Penny S. Adkins as having lived together at the same address. RyanTQuinn is continually reverting my edit stating that the information I have entered can't be correct because it doesn't tally with quotes that Adele's father has made. The father (I suspect) has told a story which is not entirely true to show himself in a better light, rather than as a run-away father. RyanTQuinn is not willing to accept facts which would alter what has already been entered and which is erroneous based on falsification. I have posted to RyanTQuinn's Talk page but refuses to enter into discussion with me and has been referring to me as a vandal. I have posted links which confirms that Penny Susan Adkins is in fact the mother of Adele. I have been a genealogist and researcher for 42 years. I edit Wikipedia infrequently but do so when I am correct. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have posted information to RyanTQuinn's Talk page showing how I have reasoned my edit. He has not responded. How do you think we can help? RyanTQuinn should concede that the information I have entered is fact and that he should cease reverting my edit. Summary of dispute by RyanTQuinn Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User talk:RyanTQuinn 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.

Laksa

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Zhanzhao on 08:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Laksa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Zhanzhao (talk · contribs) 161.139.222.17 (talk · contribs) Magbantay (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The dish Laksa has a a number of contested countries of origin. Different sources provide proof of the different claims, but these are being removed til only the sources supporting the "Malaysian" claim remains. Repeated attempts to engage the editors in discussion failed. To appease the "pro-Malaysia-only" camp, I even added new content to reflect the existing claims by other countries, but these were repeatedly removed. The editors only took part in the discussion after I successfully request page protection. Even with 2 non-involved editors chiming in (one apparently from an RFC I made, another who edited there before but is not involved in the current dispute), the editors are not listening. Hope to get some more eyes on the article to provide a fresh take on the issue. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Attempted to start discussion on talk page, and repeatedly asked 161.139.222.17 and Magbantay to participate[[4]][[5]][[6]][[7]][[8]][[9]][[10]], but was ignored. I added new references and created a new section on the article [[11]], listing the various claims of origin with sources provided, but this was labelled "vandalism" and removed. RFCed and requested page protection[[12]], new voices chimed in[[13]][[14]] but IP and Magbantay are basically ignoring these as well. How do you think we can help? Would like more uninvolved editors to look at the discussion and provide their views on the matter. And counsel whoever is in the wrong. (If it turns out to be me, I'm fine with it). Alternatively, advise where I could approach to get more experienced eyes on this. Summary of dispute by 161.139.222.17 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Magbantay Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Laksa 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:List of state leaders in 2015

– New discussion.

Filed by Neve-selbert on 12:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Zoltan Bukovszky

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

Summary of dispute by Happysquirrel

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

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

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

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

Summary of dispute by Miesianiacal

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

Summary of dispute by Neve-selbert

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I do believe we should also note that Governors-General (as of 2024) represent the Queen only within sovereign states—a difference which would need to be discerned versus, e.g. the Governor of Anguilla, notably not Governor-General of Anguilla. Her status in the Cook Islands is unique compared to her other realms; unlike Niue, its neighbour, CI uses a seperate representative from NZ on behalf of the British monarch. There is nothing wrong with designating the QRs as a viceroy. Hardly anyone refers to the G-Gs as viceroys, in a similar way David Cameron is usually referred to as Prime Minister instead of Head of Government. We refer to the French territorial presidents under prefects as Head of Government, as this is an unambiguous designation—presidents are never head of government without being head of state as well. It remains quite possible for the position of "Queen's Representative" to be renamed as "Governor-General" at any one time, after all, it is only a title. What exactly would we resort to then?
• I am against changing the designations of all the viceregal representatives as either Viceroy – or Monarch's Representative –. It is unnecessary, there are plenty of governors-general and we need to group them all together. I rule this out as a compromise.
• Represented by is crudely unsuitable. We must remember that we are in-fact referring to just a designation here, not a common description of the duties of state leaders. This would inevitably result in disastrous inconsistency. For example, instead of Head of State – and Head of Government – we would have State headed by – and Government headed by –. Nope, this is not an option—and I completely rule this out as a compromise. It would be too disruptive and involve unnecessary drastic, time-consuming change.

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

History of my position

Initially, I had suggested "Monarchical Representative" as the alternative. Perhaps this may have been somewhat silly; it just happened to be the first thing that initally came into my mind. So, given opposition and my understanding of it, I dropped this description as an alternative. So I then moved on to "Viceregal Representative" (due to the title of this article). I happened to forget that "Viceroy" was the more generally-used singular form. So then, upon knowing this, I switched my stance towards "Viceroy". This was opposed by the second mentioned user to my dismay. So I considered bringing back "Queen's Representative" into the fray, for consideration. I backtracked due to my uncertainty and growing sceptism of his idea about changing the titles of all her viceregal representatives to a single, consistent title. So, reluctantly, I thought about clarifying my previous alternative ("Viceroy") as "Associated Viceroy". Again, opposition. So, having thought about subsequently, I came to the belief that "Viceroy" is simply just fine to use instead.

My stances

• In my opinion, we are entirely wrong to oppose "Viceroy" as the designation on the grounds of inconsistency. Similar to bacteria, inconsistency is everywhere and is impossible to avoid. As long as the inconsistency is not desperately awful, we can live with it. For example, the title of the prime minister Hungary is in-fact directly translated as Minister-President. Considering the fact that the translation in English from Hungarian is significantly closer to Prime Minister than the translation of President of the Government is from Spanish, we understand and rectify this. This point must be considered.
• Presidents are heads of state, prime ministers are heads of government. Just because we may designate the head of state of the Central African Republic (as of this writing) as Head of State – instead of President –, this does not in any way, shape or form mean that all of the other presidents thus on the list is in fact not a head of state.
• If the designations of all state representatives were changing, there would also be the stringing dilemma pertaining to someone such Administrator Paul Bremer. Was he the "President's Representative" when in charge of Iraq after the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Not exactly. But yet, we must not elevate de jure representatives above de facto representatives as this would breach impartiality—as they are both given a pretty equal footing at the moment.
• My option, Viceroy –, is fine and straight-to-the-point. If anybody stumbles on its meaning, they can easily find out what the word means by looking at what it is referring too: the "Queen's Representative". Confusion is not an issue here, and neither is notability. Radio New Zealand has described the QR as a Viceroy. This source is credible and should be placed into serious consideration.
  • On whether or not Viceroy is gender-biased is really simply a fallacy. The word has two meanings, and I also refer to the quote from the Wikipedia article itself above. Nobody refers to female governors-general as a governess-general, and I believe that we can be reasonably certain that any female QR would not be referred to in the media as a vicereine. It is an archaic term to user for a female viceroy in the same sense governess is versus governor.

There is in-fact already a precedent for this scenario. We already use the Head of State&nbsp– designation for the Samoan O le Ao o le Malo (as his title is unintelligible)—yet this does not mean in any way, shape, or form that someone such as Vladimir Putin is not a head of state. There is no credible argument preventing the replacement of Queen's Representative – with Viceroy –. All I ask, is for Viceroy – as the designation replacing the transient designation of Queen's Representative –. This will remain my view. I must reiterate again, that thus far my option of using Viceroy instead has not been successfully and concretely proven wrong. It is absolutely gender-neutral in this day and age, and it is a quick and easy answer to quite a complicated situation of which we are in dispute. Good day. Neve-selbert 22:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in 2015 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 at the talk page. The filing party has not notified the other parties of the filing. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editors. This request will neither be declined nor accepted until proper notice is provided. All parties are reminded to be civil. Keep discussion here to a minimum until this case is accepted by a volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon: How exactly can I message them? Which template should I use? I had presumed they were already notified as they were linked on this page. Neve-selbert 21:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Talk:Jewish Defense_League#Organizations_designated_as_terrorist_in_North_America

– New discussion.

Filed by Wiking on 15:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Nomoskedasticity

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

Summary of dispute by TracyMcClark

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

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

Talk:tvOS

– New discussion.

Filed by Tom29739 on 17:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Jimthing

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

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

Summary of dispute by Guy Harris

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

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

Talk:Immigration and_crime#Neutrality_and_Censorship

– New discussion.

Filed by Billyh45 on 05:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek

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

Talk:Immigration and_crime#Neutrality_and_Censorship discussion

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