Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 5.226.137.179 (talk) at 17:16, 6 July 2017 (→‎Summary of dispute by User: 5.226.137.179: adding China Post article.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"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)
    Shortcuts

    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?

    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.

    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
    Jessica Nabongo New Log6849129 (t) 2 days, Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 17 hours Valereee (t) 1 days, 8 hours
    Neith New Potymkin (t) 1 days, 21 hours Robert McClenon (t) 23 hours Robert McClenon (t) 23 hours
    Existential risk studies Closed JoaquimCebuano (t) 4 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 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 19:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]



    Current disputes

    Talk%3AWhataboutism#Statement_of_fact_in_WP_is_sourced_by_Teen_Vogue_opinion_piece

    – 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.


    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    There is a statement of fact in the Wikipedia article but the source that it links to is an opinion piece. (Please search for "This is my argument:" on the talk page for full details of my point.) I have debated with Binksternet over the last couple of weeks about this issue and he has been unable to refute me. I went ahead and made the change today and immediately it was reverted by Volunteer Marek, who is otherwise active on the talk page but has not participated in the debate before now. I would appreciate some guidance in the best way to proceed here.

    Since Binksternet has mischaracterized my argument, I will paste it here from the Talk page:
    This is my argument:
    The article makes this statement of fact: "When asked to defend his behavior or accused of wrongdoing, Trump has frequently shifted the topic to Democratic figures, such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and even U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice." It then links to the Teen Vogue article, an opinion piece, as a source for this statement. A statement of fact must be supported by facts, not opinions. DeadEyeSmile (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Have you tried to resolve this previously?

    Debated the point extensively for more than a week on the talk page, waited for any other interested party to join in with the debate, waited for 24 hours after asking Binksternet to refute my point again.

    How do you think we can help?

    It seems like a pretty straightforward issue to me but it is clouded because it is about a politically contentious figure. I think someone uninvolved in the politics of it needs to look at the argument and advise from a Wikipedia POV. Is it OK to support a statement of fact with a source that is an opinion? From what I have researched the answer is no.

    Summary of dispute by Binksternet

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

    I see DeadEyeSmile trying to remove some text that he clearly does not like and does not want in the encyclopedia. This approach is a violation of WP:NPOV. And when he is foiled in his repeated attempts to remove the text, DeadEyeSmile commits the false equivalence fallacy, adding more text to tell the reader that Trump's whataboutism is just as prominent as Chomsky's notional whataboutism.[1] However, only one observer – Terry Glavin – accused Chomsky of whataboutism, and he did so by misrepresenting Chomsky's speech, which contains a perfectly fine assessment of world politics, and embraces further debate ("Glad to go beyond in discussion and don’t hesitate to bring up other questions.") True Soviet-style whataboutism aims to derail debate, which is what Trump does regularly, as described by many observers, in many publications.

    Among the multiple sources saying Trump employs the whataboutism tactic is a piece written by columnist Lauren Duca titled "Trump’s Treatment of the Susan Rice Story Is Classic 'Whataboutism'". Duca compares Trump's diversionary tactics with Soviet whataboutism, saying "Trump’s tactic of shifting focus to left-wing figures like Rice and Clinton can be best understood through a Soviet Union propaganda technique known as 'whataboutism.'" I find the Duca piece to be a clear-headed description of the issue. What about this piece is unreliable? It's opinion, of course, being an op-ed column, but its facts are not in question. Articles about political topics frequently have opinion pieces used for the facts they contain, and for the analysis and comparisons made. Duca's piece was written for Teen Vogue, but that does not disqualify it as unreliable. Duca is known for her strong statements about the toxic behaviors of the Trump administration, for which she has recieved online harassment by political opponents, primarily male, so much so that Twitter shut down Martin Shkreli's account because of his harassment of her. Perhaps some people here don't like Duca's political views, or wish to reduce her in importance by removing her work from Wikipedia. I think a smart woman writer and a sharply accurate political piece are perfectly reliable sources for us to use.

    Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek

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

    Summary of dispute by Jack Upland

    There is a long history in this article of using opinionated sources to try to score political points. The Teen Vogue article is clearly a highly opinionated source. There is also an issue of circular sourcing. When discussing "whataboutism", the Teen Vogue article links to an NPR article which links to the And you are lynching Negroes, which links back to Whataboutism. As I've argued before, I think WP:NEOLOGISM applies.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by 159.246.20.2

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

    Summary of dispute by Stickee

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

    Talk%3AWhataboutism#Statement_of_fact_in_WP_is_sourced_by_Teen_Vogue_opinion_piece discussion

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


    I have just noticed that Binksternet has reverted another change I have made to the page which has nothing to do with this situation. I worked with another editor Stickee to come up with a properly sourced example of whataboutism by Noam Chomsky (See talk page "Noam Chomsky Example" section) and Binksternet has taken it upon himself to declare unilaterally that the examples must only be about Donald Trump and that Noam Chomsky's whataboutism is not to be included in the article. This is despite the fact that others have suggested in the page history that more examples be included. DeadEyeSmile (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Volunteer note - The other editors have been notified. I will comment that the article, Whataboutism, is not about a neologism. The term Whataboutism has been used with regard to Soviet dismissal of American claims of human rights violations in the Soviet Union since the Cold War, and the Cold War ended in either 1989 or 1991, depending on what milestone you use, but, in any case, the term is of much more than a quarter of a century age. I will also remind the editors that ArbCom discretionary sanctions apply under the American politics ruling. Therefore, although moderated discussion here is voluntary, resolving a content dispute by content resolution techniques is an excellent way to avoid having conduct issues dealt with at Arbitration Enforcement. Awaiting statements by the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    First statement by moderator

    I will be acting as the moderator for this discussion. Please read and follow User:Robert McClenon/Mediation rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. It appears that the area of disagreement is the section of the article concerning the use of the term Whataboutism with respect to Donald Trump's replies to criticisms of his administration, and in particular to discussion of a column in Teen Vogue. I will offer my own view that sourcing a statement about a column in Teen Vogue to Teen Vogue is appropriate, because the article is about the term and the technique. State your concerns concisely. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    First statements by editors

    I was not a party in prior discussions about this article but I noticed this DR/N entry and would like to participate. Three initial remarks:

    1. The moderator stated that "whataboutism" cannot be considered a neologism because it "has been used with regard to Soviet dismissal of American claims of human rights violations in the Soviet Union since the Cold War, […so that…] the term is of much more than a quarter of a century age." This sounds incorrect. I could not find any use of this term in the 20th century as indexed by Google Books: [2]. @Robert McClenon: Can you point us to any sources demonstrating use of this term prior to the Economist editorial of 2008?
    2. (Copied from my talk page comment) The first sentence: Whataboutism is a propaganda technique first used by the Soviet Union, in its dealings with the Western world. is false on its face. Whataboutism is an element of rhetoric that has been used by every politician and every nation for millennia (and even, according to the NPR source first cited, by schoolchildren! ). Apparently an Economist journalist in 2008 wrote that it was a "typical" tactic of the Soviet Union vs the United States; this may well be the case but it's also a "typical" tactic of China vs. Japan, France vs. Germany, Israel vs. Palestine, Iraq vs. Iran, and pretty much every pair of nations who ever waged a hot or cold war against each other. A more correct first sentence would be: Whataboutism is a neologism coined by The Economist journalist Edward Lucas in 2008 in reference to the rhetorical technique of pointing out similar misdeeds in your opponent's behaviour compared to what they accuse you of, hoping to focus on their hypocrisy instead of the matter at hand.
    3. I removed the "Soviet Union" sidebar from this article and was reverted by Sagecandor. In the ensuing talk page discussion, I laid out my argument this way:

    The sidebar about the Soviet Union says nothing about this phenomenon, even though it includes Soviet propaganda. As it stands, displaying this sidebar makes no sense in this article. The journalist coined the term almost 17 years after the Soviet Union was dissolved, in a bid to shame Russia; why not include a Russia sidebar then? or a journalism sidebar? or an international relations sidebar? or a politics sidebar? or a fallacies sidebar? or a rhetoric sidebar? or a philosophy sidebar?

    Two other editors (Jack Upland and PackMecEng) agreed that this sidebar was undue, while Sagecandor repeated that it should be here because the article "is soviet". I do not want to edit war over this but the current balance of discussion looks to be against this sidebar, and nobody has credibly refuted my rationale to remove it. Can the moderator give us some guidance?
    I will add that our own article Propaganda in the Soviet Union, which is well-developed, says nothing about "whataboutism" and does not even mention this technique by another name in its section about Soviet propaganda abroad.

    Thanks for your consideration of my input. — JFG talk 20:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with these comments. I simply don't understand the moderator's comments about "whataboutism" not being a neologism. The question of when the Cold War ended doesn't seem at all relevant. The support for this article in its current form seems completely irrational. Editors seem to be responding based on their opposition to the USSR, Putin, or Trump. Many people would oppose at least one of those three, but that's not a valid basis for an article. I would like to see rational arguments, rather than assertions, bizarre reasoning, and threats.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Second statement by moderator

    I concede that the term "whataboutism", while used with respect to the Soviet Union, may be of recent origin. The more common term for the Soviet argument may have been And you are lynching Negroes. However, if the term was used in 2008 by a reliable source, the policy against neologisms does not apply. The complaints about the article seem to be all over the place. Will each editor please state in one or two paragraphs what they think should be done to improve the article? (Making the article into a stub that refers to other articles is a valid suggestion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There have been no replies in 48 hours. Will any editors who are interested in moderated discussion please reply within 24 hours? Otherwise I will assume that interest in the topic has waned. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Second statements by editors

    It's hard to comment, because the article has been essentially rewritten by Sagecandor in a series of 100+ edits over the last few days.[3] No time to analyze all this now, however we should agree on article scope before further editing. My personal view is that a redirect to the appropriate section in And you are lynching negroes would be sufficient. Barring that, this article should only refer to a description of whataboutism in modern sources (post-2008), i.e. as a partisan attempt to expose Russia's excuses in their own partisan attempts to denounce US hypocrisy. Moreover, references to other uses should either be removed or not focused only on Donald Trump. Again, the tu quoque technique has been used by schoolchildren everywhere for millennia and by politicians all over the globe… — JFG talk 09:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is NOT the appropriate forum to suggest disappearing the entire article and making it a redirect. Ludicrous. Sagecandor (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    At this point either making the article a redirect or a short stub article makes the most sense. It's gotten so far off topic and filled with fluff there is not much to save. I largely agree with JFG on this one. PackMecEng (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ridiculous. User provides zero sources to back up their claims and their personal opinions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We don't just disappear articles and turn well sourced articles into redirects because someone doesn't like the well researched content. Sagecandor (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The aspirations about me are at best not helpful, please keep that in mind. JFG makes solid points about the POV of the article that you have not addressed. This subject can easily be summarized to one or two paragraphs while neutrally covering the notability of it. Which is why a merge/redirect or stub article is justified. PackMecEng (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User again fails to provide any specifics or sources to back up their spurious claims. User engages in proposing a paradox — User simultaneously says we should cover "the notability of it", while at the same time proposing to do away with the page with a redirect. Sagecandor (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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:Shark attack_prevention

    – 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.


    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    The issue is around the wording of two sections of the Shark attack prevention page particularly on whether to include the product "Anti-Shark 100" (an aerosol spray made from dead sharks) in the Personal shark repellents sub-section. As we cannot agree with the wording, my recommendation is to delete all reference to Anti-Shark 100. There is also an issue with the neutrality of the Shark shield sub-section, which I believe is fine / wording should be left as is.

    Have you tried to resolve this previously?

    Extensive discussion on talk page. Requested a Third Opinion

    How do you think we can help?

    Help to resolve what the appropriate wording should be on the on the Personal Shark repellent and Shark Shield sections. Also Robert McClenon suggested we try "moderated dispute resolution" following Allenmt92 refusing to participate in Third Opinion.

    Summary of dispute by Allenmt92

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

    Talk:Shark attack_prevention discussion

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

    If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: July 3, 2017 at 07:20 (UTC) Reason: Other party not interested in dispute resolution.

    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:2017 Finsbury_Park_attack#Back_to_the_original_question_again

    – New discussion.


    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    2017 Finsbury Park attack is being described as a terrorist attack by arguably many if not all credible sources, users are removing reference to 'suspected terrorist attack' and suggesting sources from the BBC, UK Prime Minister, UK security forces, the Telegraph, the Guardian, the Independent, London Metropolitan police and London Mayor are not enough to call this event simply a 'terror attack'. Some users have suggested it vital to wait for the trials verdict, however it has been explained by other users that the verdict of the suspect is not reliant upon whether this event is being treated as a terror attack. Many terror attacks are committed by individual/s who will never face trial for various reasons.

    Have you tried to resolve this previously?

    Provide many credible sources and suggested a compromise to change 'terror attack' to 'suspected terror attack'. Despite all credible sources provided simply referring to the event as a 'terror attack'.

    How do you think we can help?

    Suggest whether the sources from below are A) credible and B) allow the page to describe this event as a 'terror attack':

    The BBC ''Finsbury Park terror attack'
    The Telegraph 'Finsbury Park terror attack'
    The Independent 'Finsbury Park terror attack'
    London Metropolitian Police force 'Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park'
    The Guardian 'Finsbury Park terrorist attack'
    The Economist 'Terrorist attack at a London mosque'
    The Financial Times 'Terror attack near London mosque' Erzan (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi

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

    Summary of dispute by Timothyjosephwood

    Phew. Good luck. I'm travelling and I'm definitely not going to try to hash this out via mobile, but I'll try to be around. I was playing a bit of Devils advocate, and I'm not really emotionally connected to either version. Anyway, regardless, this is an argument that can be reliably predicted to carry on for at least the next year, regardless of what version gets used in the short term. It's the same song and dance with every similar article.

    There's good arguments to be had either way, and neither version is probably totally NPOV, but I'm not sure there is any obvious version that is. TimothyJosephWood 22:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by This is Paul

    The original dispute was whether to repeatedly use the phrase "suspected terror attack". The phrase is used in the lede and was then subsequently referred to as the attack. It seems unnecessary to keep using the full description throughout the text. After all, the reader is likely to know what we're talking about. Another issue seems to be whether we call this a suspected terrorist or just a terrorist attack. We need to be aware this topic is currently the subject of sub judice rules under English law, since legal proceedings have been brought against the suspect. It is possible a juror at any future trial may read our article, so it's important we say nothing that could influence their opinion. This is Paul (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by InedibleHulk

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

    "Terror attack" is a buzzword, "terrorist attack" is a crime. If the latter is said at all, it needs a "suspected" appended, or it's prejudicial. The former would imply Osborne's guilty of the crime he's charged with, strongly enough to confuse many readers, and adding a "suspected" to that is just superfluous.

    It should either be called a "suspected terrorist attack" or simply an "attack". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:13, July 2, 2017 (UTC)

    Summary of dispute by slatersteven

    As an involved edd, just not that involved at the time of this resolution I would say the problem is one of BLP, there has been no conviction and so we are saying he committed a crime of which he has not (yet) been prosecuted. It is true it is being called a terrorist attack by many, but we cannot, we are bound to say that it is an allegation only.

    Also I have only seen one source that says it was a terror attack [[4]], and it goes on to say "She made her pledge as more details emerged about the suspect in the", implying the one place they say it (in connection with what Mrs May had said) is a kind of quote.

    Thus I am not sure that the media is saying this was a terrorist attack in quite an unequivocal way as the OP suggests.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Addendum.

    Whilst some sources have now been presented I am still unsure about listing this as a terror attack rather then alleged terror attack. The problem is that all the sources say the accused is only the "suspect" or "allegedly" carrying out the attack. Thus we need wording that does not convey guilt. It seems it is easier and less wordy to just say "alleged Terror attack" rather then say "terror attacks whose alleged perpetrator", or some such.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by Pincrete

    I am the person who most recently removed 'suspected terrorist attack', changing it to 'attack'. My reason for doing so is because the immediately preceding two sentences (in the lead) say a) that this attack is being treated as a terrorist attack by police and b) that someone has been charged with terrorist related murder, therefore both 'suspected' and 'terrorist' are superfluous at this point. The initial para of background section had 'terrorist attack' 3 times in the text, one of which was 'suspected', making the sentence very 'clunky'. Whilst I appreciate the need for accuracy, NPOV and BLP, we need to also remember that the text should be clear and readable. May I also point out that 'terrorist attack' is not synonymous with 'terror attack', the first has precise meaning in law, the second is largely meaningless journal-ese. In this case both Finsbury and the three preceding events have all been described/treated by police/authorities as 'terrorist'. Pincrete (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC) ... please ping if response needed.Pincrete (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:2017 Finsbury_Park_attack#Back_to_the_original_question_again discussion

    Extended content
    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
    •  Volunteer note: Checking pre-requisites:--
      • Discussion on talk page Green tickY
      • Informed all parties--Red XN (2 accounts which are memtioned here as participants in the dispute are seemingly unregistered!)
        • Suitable for DRN--Conditional yesCY. A volunteer may open the dispute after all the other parties have been informed and have filed their opening statement(s).
      • Nota bene*Meanwhile, all parties should:
    Red XN Not edit the topic in concern (unless reverting serious vandalism or copyvio et al.).
    Red XN Stop all discussions at all other venues related to this dispute.
    Red XN Abstain from commenting on contributors in their respective statements, comment on content instead.Winged Blades Godric 12:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Acknowledged replies by participants. Please wait till a volunteer opens the dispute or use your summarry section. Yashovardhan (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Not sure if this is correct, Tim (at least) is an very active account and all have been informed on their talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    All parties who have made edits and in active dispute have been informed. Erzan (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted this edit which was made shortly before this discussion was initiated. The article should not have been changed in this way by someone who intended to open a dispute resolution discussion immediately afterwards. This is Paul (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, I'm Steve, one of the volunteers here at DRN. My style of mediation is a little different to some of the other users here - please do feel free to discuss in this section, though please try to keep the discussion on points and directed at me, where possible. There is precedent here on how to proceed - the first that comes to mind is the article on Osama Bin Laden, paragraph 4, who, while alive, still had the article describe him in a similar fashion to how he is described now. The article does not state that he was a terrorist, but that he was designated as a terrorist by multiple sources, and that he was indicted on terrorism charges. To be neutral here, we can attribute the content to the relevant, reliable source. So while we cannot simply describe the event as a terrorist attack or suspected terrorist attack, but we can state that the event has been described as a terrorist attack/act of terrorism by BBC, Telegraph etc. This way, we stay neutral, as we are simply quoting the relevant sources for the content. I am happy to hear your thoughts, please comment below. Steven Crossin 01:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that sums up what many of us have said, that we should not say in Wikipedia's voice this was a terrorist attack. At best we should say "has been called a terror attack".Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Nathu La_and_Cho_La_clashes#Discussion_about_improving_this_page

    – New discussion.


    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    I raise concerns about some of the content in current main article which I think obviously violate the five pillars of Wikipedia. I opened a discussion and explained my rationale and gave time for editors who support current version to gather supporting sources to back current version. This goes on for few days and I found while my concerns remain unchallenged in talk page, my counterparty don't seems like to talk about content with me in talk page and wouldn't even allow me to insert tag in current article to indicate a dispute is in presence -- my edit was immediately reverted without refuting my reasons. So I conclude this discussion is going nowhere without third party's help.

    Dispute focus on two issues: first is I think irrelevant information is included in the main article without proving any supporting sources; second is I think a piece of opinion is stated as a fact and is given unduly weigh.
    My rationale is: for the first one, the topic of this page is about a "military conflict", information about "territory change" is included in section "aftermath" without providing any evidence that these two things are connected. For the second one, giving some conclusive statement in lead is a lot of credit, the sources to back it up must match this status whereas the only source to back this statement is a stand-alone statement in a book[1]. Moreover, the authors of this book writes that sources for making this statement could be "3.Author", and the theme of this book is about economics rather than history thus no further information is written in this book to back its own statement.

    References

    1. ^ Hoontrakul, Pongsak (2014). The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics (illustrated ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. p. 37. ISBN 9781137412355.

    Have you tried to resolve this previously?

    I try seeking help form Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard in section "14. Can I conclude this source unreliable?"

    How do you think we can help?

    Please conclude: 1. Whether "territory change" related information should be included in the main article without any sources support the connection; 2. Is that appropriate to state this as a fact and give this the credit to be put in lead: According to an independent source, the end of the conflict resulted in the defeat of Chinese military in the hands of Indian forces.

    Summary of dispute by Capitals00

    Yashovardhan I think this needs to be closed quickly because the filer is currently blocked for 24 hours. He is here for editing no other article than this one and there is no "dispute" when 100/100, I mean 8/8 other editors disagree with one specific editor who is waging edit war all the time. Capitals00 (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by 2405:204:6400:F012:0:0:174B:D8A0

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

    Summary of dispute by Adamgerber80

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

    Summary of dispute by Razer2115

    I am a bit suprised to be included in this dispute as I have not participated in any of the past discussions at the talk page of the concerned article. My involvement in this dispute is limited to reverting edits of User:Fenal Kalundo as he was making drastic changes to the article before building proper consensus. RazerTalk 18:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Nathu La_and_Cho_La_clashes#Discussion_about_improving_this_page discussion

    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
    •  Volunteer note: While there has been adequate discussion, the parties concerned have not been notified on their talk pages. Please use the template {{DRN-notice}} to notify potential participants on their talk page.All parties are requested to file a summary in the respective sections above. Meanwhile, do not edit the page in concern, stop all other discussions and only comment on the content (and not the contributor) in your summaries. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC) [edited: 09:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)][reply]
    •  Volunteer note: When providing references using the ref tags, please use the template {{reflist-talk}} immediately preceeding the next section to avoid references from flowing to the bottom of this noticeboard. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Volunteer note - Discussion should not be taking place both at this notice and at the reliable source noticeboard at the same time. If the parties want to move this dispute from RSN to here, they should close the thread at RSN first. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Volunteer note: @Capitals00: while you've raised a valid point and we can close this case now, it'll have no use if the filer comes back here and files the same dispute again after his block ends. I'd wait for his block to end and see if he raises the matter again. If not, we can easily close this dispute. I'd reiterate what Robert McClenon said. The discussion cannot continue at the RSN and here together. If the RSN discussion isn't archived within 24 hours, I'll close this dispute. However, if most of the other parties are not interested, we can even close it earlier. Also, if this case continues, we cannot discuss the conduct of the filer or any other party here. If that's the main issue, this case should be closed. Yashovardhan (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Volunteer note - To restate, this dispute will be closed within 24 hours unless: (1) the WP:RSN thread is closed instead, or a request is made for help in closing the RSN thread; (2) the parties at this noticeboard provide summaries above to indicate that they wish to discuss here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Dunno if I'm allowed to talk in this section, but I request help on closing my RSN. I will delete this if it is inappropriate. -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Marsha P._Johnson

    – New discussion.


    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    "BrothaTimothy" believes that a person who self identifies as a "transvestite" cannot be "transgender woman" and refuses to acknowledge wiki definitions that support this. He erases aspects of Marsha P. Johnson's life story that support the concusion that she was transgender and tries to use "he" pronouns in certain circumstances to describe her. He ignores the opinions of those who knew Johnson and who uniformly identified her as transgender. His approach is transphobic and although he may be well meaning the overall effect is oppressive.

    Have you tried to resolve this previously?

    i have written at length on Talk to try to explain to him some of the subtleties involved here but he is on his own wave length.

    How do you think we can help?

    Perhaps you could guide him towards the wiki definition of "transgender woman" and encourage him to stop removing that identifier for Marsha from the by-line. It is a painful misrepresentation of Johnson to describe her as someone who fits into the contemporary definition of a drag queen. I was trying to accommodate by leaving all the reference to her confusing self ID intact.

    Summary of dispute by BrothaTimothy

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

    Summary of dispute by FlightTime

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

    @Rebismusic: Can you please point to all these "Wikipedia definitions" you're referring to. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Marsha P._Johnson discussion

    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
    • Volunteer note - While there has been discussion on the article talk page, it has been minimal. The editors should continue discussion on the article talk page. This thread will be neither declined nor accepted for now. It can be opened for moderated discussion if discussion at the article talk page is inconclusive. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Volunteer note: @FlightTime: Please do not start a discussion here until a volunteer opens the case. I have moved your question to your summary section. You can elaborate upon the dispute there. You have also been listed as a party to the dispute and can participate in moderated discussion if and when this case is opened. The other party is requested to file a summary if interested in dispute resolution. Yashovardhan (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:LaughingAlbatross

    – 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.


    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    Hi Im new to Wikipedia. I joined to try to add information to the BioArt page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioArt

    The article states "Although BioArtists work with living matter, there is some debate as to the stages at which matter can be considered to be alive or living. Creating living beings and practicing in the life sciences brings about ethical, social, and aesthetic inquiry. "

    I added an example:

    " Consider "Regenerative Reliquary", 2016 by Amy Karle, a sculpture consisting of 3D printed scaffolds for human stem cell growth into bone installed in a bioreactor[2]. The cells and genetic material come from a live human donor, are expanded in a lab, grow into tissue and mineralize into bone along that scaffold. The cells continue to live on separately from the body they came from, and may continue to live on after that person dies, raising interesting questions about what is considered to be "life" and "alive"."

    I linked to "Regenerative Reliquary" and cited a source from PopSci. There are other sources I may cite as well.

    I also added Amy Karle's name under BioArt practicioner. She is a popular emerging artist in the field and has been widely recogonized as an artist working within in the scientific, medical and technological community. She shows regularily alongside other artists mentioned in the article.

    I am wondering why this is being rejected? Am I doing something wrong? Please advise.

    Best, Laughing Albartross LaughingAlbatross (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)--LaughingAlbatross (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you tried to resolve this previously?

    I have done research through wikipedia to understand guidlines for submission and edits. I submitted to talk page.

    How do you think we can help?

    Please let me know why this is being rejected and what I can do to correctly sumit edits that will be accepted in future. Thank you! LaughingAlbatross (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:LaughingAlbatross 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.

    Madurai Airport

    – 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.


    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    IndiGo airlines operates flights from Hyderabad and Goa to Madurai. I added those destinations in Madurai. The other user seems to be deleting it again and again. I have posted the issue in his talk page, but the other user ddidn't bother to reply. Since we both violated 3RR rule, both were blocked for 24 hrs. After the block was removed, I posted the screenshot from IndiGo airlines' website in Madurai Airport Talk Page which shows the operation of those flights to Madurai and left it for other's reply. But the said user continued to revert it back. Now there is one more IP which adds the same content and now, that IP and the said user involved in same edit war. I have informed that IP in his talk page not to involve in edit war as I am taking that issue to administrators. I would like to request the administrators to look into this issue and decide whether those destinations can be added in the article or not.

    Have you tried to resolve this previously?

    I have tried to contact the user in his talk page and also opened a discussion in article's talk page. They never bothered to reply. I also seek help of one admin Vensatry in his talk page but, he seems to be busy right now.

    How do you think we can help?

    Its upto the adminstrators to decide whether those destinations can be added in the article according to the schedule page of Indigo airlines or not

    Summary of dispute by User:Anandprakash1999

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

    Summary of dispute by 2.50.98.205

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

    Madurai Airport 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:Dan Wagner#Intro

    – New discussion.


    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    The disagreement concerns the the statement from the article intro 'the founder of British eCommerce'. Editors claiming it should be left in there provide links to various recent publications relating to a recent commercial agreement involving the subject. I have noticed that 5 of the 6 citied articles are word for word the same, suggesting a press release/pr material was used. The sixth although not exactly the same, follows the same content and structure of the other articles and does not claim the subject is 'the founder of British eCommerce'. Agreement cannot be reached on the validity of the sources. Also, another editor has flagged it as WP:PEACOCK.

    Have you tried to resolve this previously?

    Discussion on the talk page but this article has a history of edit warring. Previously intervention and edits by senior editors has resolved this and been accepted by all other editors involved.

    How do you think we can help?

    Input from an editor not involved in the article is normally accepted by other editors on the page.

    Summary of dispute by User: 5.226.137.179

    As specified in the overview. I do not agreed with the reliability of the cited sources as they appear to be a press release. There's no evidence given to back the claim. I believe the sources are WP:QUESTIONABLE & falls under the press release section of WP:INDEPENDENT. Given the doubt of the sources and the fact the article is WP:BLP, any doubtful sources should be removed.

    92.233.78.117 (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC) The sources I provided are not press releases. Either you are discrediting the sources to back up your own WP:OR or you dont know how to evaluate sources. Therefore, I will request that independent volunteers review these. Note that other language sources, if credible, are just as acceptable as English sources. Volunteers can translate using google translate for your own knowledge. The two sources I have provided are major news papers from Taiwan and China.[reply]

    You say sources but it's the same content republished on 5 sites. I suggest you read the press release section of WP:INDEPENDENT in order to understand my position. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    92.233.78.117 (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC) You say that the reliable sources provided are contradicted in other articles, but so far you have only provided twitter and claims of individuals. Those are not at all reliable and shall be discarded for any Wikipedia purposes.[reply]

    You are misrepresenting my statements. I said the claim was mocked on twitter, and I also said twitter was not a reliable source. Regarding the contradicting articles you mention, I actually said there are no other articles which verify this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.226.137.179 (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    09:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC) I have read the PR section but the sources I mentioned are not PR. I have already said that. Repeatedly saying the same thing does not make your argument right. The sources are mainstream media. Since what you are arguing on the basis of is only twitter (glad that you recognize it is not reliable), your objections are invalid. Popular views on social media have nothing to do with wikipedia. Whereas, I have presented sources. You have failed to present a reliable source contradicting it and therefore, the content stays. It is a simple matter of WP:V which has been accomplished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.78.117 (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    'Many less reputable news sources will write an article based almost exclusively on a press release, making only minor modifications. When using news sources whose editorial integrity you are uncertain of, and an article reads like a press release, it is crucial to check to see that the source is not simply recycling a press release.' Reads like a press release to me. You claim the replication in content is because it came from a new agency, except no news agency is credited in any of the articles. WP:SOURCES states 'When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources'. A third party opinion will be welcome. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    92.233.78.117 (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC) Disputing the editorial integrity of China Post and Taiwan News - two highly respected newspapers in Taiwan - is just naive and inaccurate. Both articles are materially different in editorial coverage and both refer the the subject as the 'founder of British eCommerce'. There is no PR announcement anywhere to be found. Why are you insisting on there being one without any justification? Again either you are discrediting the sources to back up your own WP:OR or you dont know how to evaluate sources. The two sources I have provided are major news papers from Taiwan and China.[reply]

    Actually, the China Post article you supplied in the talk page, http://m.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/2017/06/21/498936/UK-entrepreneur.htm, does not say that. Naive? No. I can read and it reads like a press release. Let's leave it to an independent editor to review. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by User: 91.102.25.125

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

    Summary of dispute by User: 92.233.78.117

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

    Summary of dispute by User: Ol king col

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

    I commented on this exact issue 27th June under the heading edits 26th June 2017, before the specific sub heading of intro was created. What I said at the time was "My view, for what it's worth, is that the line about Mr Wagner being 'the founder of British eCommerce' is that as it is sourced probably can be quoted, but as it is from one source, it does not deserve it's placing so high in the article. The introduction should be his most notable achievements which in this case must surely be the creation of MAID / Dialog, it's subsequent sale & the circumstances around it, and his recent escapades with Powa and it's administration it is what he is best known for. "the founder of British ecommerce" claim may be suitable for containment in the general body of the text, perhaps under Dialog as it's what it refers to." And that's what I still think. So broadly agree with the filing party. Ol king col (talk) 20:53, 05 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Dan Wagner#Intro discussion

    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
    • Volunteer note - There have been lengthy comments at the article talk page by the filing unregistered editor. The other editors have commented briefly. The filing party has failed to list or notify a registered editor. Waiting to see if there are any responses from the other editors, since discussion is voluntary. The filing party is asked to consider the significant benefits of creating a user account. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I missed the fourth user. I have added and notified. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Volunteer note: are the two IPs who've not yet added a summary interested in the discussion? Also, before a volunteer opens the case, I'd like to request all IP users to consider the benefit of registering an account. If your IP address is changed mid-dicussion and is used by a vandal to create problems here or reply innapropriately, it'll be assumed that you are responsible for that and this could result negatively in this dispute resolution. Make sure you've a static IP that won't change during the course of this DRN (if it's opened). Yashovardhan (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo

    – 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.


    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    The introduction of the article states Often considered the best player in the world and regarded by many as the greatest of all time. This statement is first of all POV and secondly simply not true. The majority on the discussion page is not in favor of this sentence and I've tried to change it into a much more neutral and factual version: 'Often considered one of the best players in the world and regarded by many as one of the greatest of all time.' However, some users - especially Shady59 - don't agree with that and insist on stating that C. Ronaldo is viewed by many to be the greatest footballer of all time. To me this seems ridiculous.

    Have you tried to resolve this previously?

    I tried to ask for comments, this resulted in the fact that there's a majority against making a statement like 'regarded by many as the greatest of all time', but it's hard to make a final decision since I'm part of the discussion. Otherwise (another) edit war will definitely break out.

    How do you think we can help?

    A neutral (objective) moderator to make a decision based on the arguments that were given by several users.

    Summary of dispute by Shady59

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

    Summary of dispute by O'Flannery

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

    Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo 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.

    User talk:Jpbrenna#Penteocst

    – New discussion.


    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    There is unsourced biblical exegesis in this article. It has been discussed ad nauseum on talk already, but I can't seem to get the point across to Jpbrenna, who has now stepped in for another editor. I left a message on talk that unsourced exegesis needed to be removed, but the response I received doesn't address the issue, which is similar to the extensive discussion I had with Andreas Philopater some time ago Talk:Pentecost#Wikipedia_basics. There is also the issue that most modern translations of the Bible do not use the wording that Jpbreanna is reverting to (which is from the KJV)—his last comment on talk indicates that his position is that this is an WP:OR issue. Since this translation is sourced to both NABre and the NRSV, which are major updated translations, I don't understand why he thinks this is WP:OR and because of past experience, I don't think more one on one discussion is likely to be productive.

    Have you tried to resolve this previously?

    I have tried talk with both editors (extensively), we have had to go to RS/n before over use of superseded sources (which was resolved there)—there have been numerous sourcing issues like this—El_C told me to try dispute resolution instead of edit warring next time, so that is what I am doing.

    How do you think we can help?

    I am hoping moderated discussion can keep the discussion on topic so the issue can be resolved, and the exegesis can either be adequately sourced or removed.

    Summary of dispute by Andreas Philopater

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

    Summary of dispute by Jpbrenna

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

    User talk:Jpbrenna#Penteocst 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 extended discussion at Talk:Pentecost, but none of it within the past week. Discuss further at the article talk page. I am neither accepting nor declining this thread at this time, but am waiting for further discussion, and for any possible comments by the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Lahore#Page cleanup

    – New discussion.


    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    User Capitals00 is repeatedly reverting edits while asserting that consensus has been reached regarding the title of a subheader on the Lahore page. This is patently untrue - one editor asked Capitals00 whether he would agree to a certain change. Capitals00 agreed, and is now using that to justify his stance that consensus has been reached when I think it in fact has not been. I request dispute resolution to help out to establish whether there is consensus or not.

    Have you tried to resolve this previously?

    Discussion on talk page; yet he keeps making reversions.

    How do you think we can help?

    Establish whether consensus has been reached, so that the other user can clearly see whether or not this is the case since the basis for his reversions is that consensus has been reached.

    Summary of dispute by Capitals00

    Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
    I am seeing this more as WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE of Willard84, who is unwilling to follow the consensus on talk page and WP:STATUSQUO, that no one needs his consensus for removing his controversial edits, but he needs to follow WP:BRD. And his WP:STONEWALLING of talk page makes it harder for others to reply his every single message, as they are largely repetitive. Capitals00 (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Lahore#Page cleanup discussion

    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=789312976"