Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"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
Rafida	In Progress	Albertatiran (t)	33 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 10 hours	Albertatiran (t)	1 days, 6 hours
AT&T Corporation	Closed	Emiya1980 (t)	3 days, 13 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 18 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 18 hours
Yasuke	New	Theozilla (t)	10 hours	None	n/a	Theozilla (t)	10 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 22:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Heracletus on 01:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Heracletus (talk · contribs)
• Qwerty786 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

We disagree with User:Qwerty786 over the article of this Assembly and the article of Association of Serbian municipalities, Kosovo. The Assembly mentioned is the assembly of the association mentioned. Initially, this association was backed by Serbian and not recognised by Kosovo Albanian authorities. Then, the two governments agreed on such an association in the Brussels Agreement (2013) which would have the exact structure as the previous one. For me this means that the new envisaged association and assembly are clear continuations of the old ones. Furthermore, the Agreement mentions that Serbian-backed courts and police in North Kosovo will be integrated in the Pristina organised judicial and police structures. The exact details of implementation are still under negotiation. Although the Agreement is intended as a compromise and tries to be as neutral as possible mentioning integrations and mergings, User:Qwerty786 keeps repeating that "Serbian structures are abolished" and thus proceeded to remove referenced material from these pages about the previous institutions, association/community and assembly. Even if one agrees that the previous institutions were abolished and not integrated or merged, even though this is contrary to the language of the Agreement, this does not mean that we should vanish all information about the past institutions from wikipedia. Even though, I kept saying this and making the articles representing the new institutions while also mentioning the past ones, and even though the article is under the ArbCom's Balkans decision, the user reverted thrice the page of the Assembly, in order to make the according to him "abolished" past institutions vanish, clearly pushing a POV. It was clearly mentioned that these past institutions were supported by Serbia and not by Kosovo Albanians or UNMIK and that when negotiations are over the new ones will take over. We kept talking about this in our talk pages, but to no avail.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried talking to the user on his talk page, explaining what content I wanted to change and why. I did some changes that I think were clearly NPOV, supporting neither side. I tried explaining why his changes were POV. I made a section on the articles' talk pages. I tried asking another user who reverted to provide an opinion on ways to resolve, but he just refused. And, I also tried to get more opinions by posting on wikiprojects Serbia and Kosovo.

How do you think we can help?

Obviously, an Agreement that would dissolve something and set something almost exactly similar, would mean that one is the continuation of the other, for example the EU and the European Communities. However, this Agreement does not explicitly dissolve anything, it is formulated to integrate, merge & conciliate, being a compromise. Even if it did dissolve, this is no reason to remove again and again referenced material just because something may no longer exist. I want to reach a NPOV consensus.

Summary of dispute by Qwerty786

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

I am posting the facts of this entire situation. The Brussels deal is about abolishing all Government of Serbia institutions in Kosovo. This of course includes the Assembly of Municipalities that was formed on the basis of Serbia organized elections in 2008. Just like the police and court systems have been or in the process of being abolished so will all the structures formed from the illegal parallel elections of 2008. The new Assembly of Serbian municipalities can't have the same structure was the assembly formed in 2008 as the result of those elections. The 2013 elections will result in a new assembly that really has nothing to do with the assembly formed as a result of the elections of 2008. Just because two institutions have the word assembly attached doesn't mean they are related in any way. The assembly that will be created soon as a result of Serbs voting in Kosovo run elections doesn't cover the same territory have the same voting methods and more. They are of no relation. Heracletus is trying to push a POV that is not grounded in the reality of what is going on and seems intent on saying even what Belgrade and Serbia isn't saying! Serbia agreed to the Bruseels deal which abolished all Serbian government institutions in Kosovo which includes the now inactive assembly that will very shortly be formally abolished.

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics.php?yyyy=2008&mm=06&dd=28&nav_id=51459

This article is very important because it talks about 26 municipalities. How can the structure be the same if it is going from 26 to 5 or 6? The structure used is radically different. The municipalities used in the Serbia organized elections don't even exist now in Kosovo law.

The issues of the use of the term Metohija was abolished in Brussels! All you have to do is read the Brussels agreement. Qwerty786 (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities discussion

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

Can both of you clearly state the outcome that would satisfy you? The statements above are clear about why you each feel differently, but it's hard for me to understand what you want to occur. Homunq (࿓) 22:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like the content that was removed to be included. Even if Qwerty786 believes the two structures (old and new) are different, he removed well-sourced material and I find this NPOV and an attempt to make history vanish. By saying that I want this content to be included, I would not be against separating the articles into new and old, but as one can easily see the two articles to be produced from this would be quite short and inevitably they would be merged at some point.

Apart from this, I do not know how we could reach a settlement, however, if Qwerty786's basis of discussion is that the previous structure was illegal as he/she wrote above and so on. It is obvious that yes, indeed, the Serbian side considered the Albanian structures illegal, and still kinda does, and the Albanian side considered the Serbian structures illegal and still kinda does. I really don't understand how agreeing with a single side's view cannot be considered POV.

Therefore, starting from such a position of Qwerty786, it is really difficult to argue with him/her how something that may have changed or even ceased to exist but is highly related to something else (or may have transformed into that something else) and is quite notable, should not just vanish from the article, but stay there. My basis argument would be that the European Communities/European Community may not exist anymore, but they still can be found in the European Union article, even though they had a different structure, different legal standing (the EU now has a legal personality, being able to sign treaties on its own, which was not the case with the EC and so on) and general differences.

I had tried to formulate the articles in a NPOV way. Perhaps, it was my own POV, however, I do not know where to seek adequate and binding mediation and not escalate into an edit war. Heracletus (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I'd like to hear Qwerty786's answer before I ask further questions. (Note: I'm not an official volunteer here; just a passerby trying to help.) Homunq (࿓) 23:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried to compromise but the only thing that makes sense is a total reversion of the article "Asembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities" back to when it was "Assembly of the Community of Municipalities of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" and then when it is finally formed and put into operation have an article about the " Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities" or have that be a subset of an article about the "Community of Serbian municipalities" titled "assembly". The major problem is Heracletus believing based on only their own POV that because two entities have the title "assembly" that they are in any way related. They are not related in any way. The Community of Municipalities of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija was formed from illegal Serbia run parallel elections in 2008 and like the Serbia run police and legal system which are going to be abolished means of course anything from the 2008 elections will be abolished. You really have to have a neutral view of the Brussels deal and not see it as any kind of continuation of Serbia autonomy over Kosovo to get things right in this situation. Heracletus is completely wrong in everything they were posting in the The Community of Municipalities of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija article and I wrongly retitled the page because they were strident in their belief that the Brussels deal was continuing the "Community of Municipalities of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" when in fact it was abolishing all Serbia government institutions and creating a new assembly of Serbian municipalities based on strictly Kosovo law and election law and Municipal law. There is major confusion by Heracletus based on two totally different and unrelated institutions sharing the name "assembly." They have no relation. They basis of elections is totally different. There must be a creation of two articles or an "assembly" section of the Community of Serbian municipalities article. All Serbia government institutions in Kosovo are being abolished and there are no parallel institutions including the word "Metohija". Qwerty786 (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me put something into perspective, in the text of the Brussels Agreement (2013) the word abolish or any derivatives are simply not mentioned. The text talks about integration and merging (of the police and judicial systems). For the community of Serbian municipalities, it just says that there will be one. There already was one, it just came out of elections you define as illegal (being POV - because they were organised by the Serbians and considered illegal by the Albanians in Kosovo), and the new one is envisaged to come out of the latest elections organised by the Albanian Kosovo government and legitimised also by the Serbian government. However, most of the exact implementation is still under negotiation.

The text of the preliminary Agreement that we do have reads:

• 1. There will be an Association/Community of Serb-majority municipalities in Kosovo. Membership will be open to any other municipality provided the members are in agreement.

• 2. The Community/Association will be created by statute. Its dissolution shall only take place by a decision of the participating municipalities. Legal guarantees will be provided by applicable law and constitutional law (including the 2/3 majority rule).

• 3. The structures of the Association/Community will be established on the same basis as the existing statute of the Association of Kosovo municipalities e.g. President, vice President, Assembly, Council.

• 4. In accordance with the competences given by the European Charter of Local Self Government and Kosovo law the participating municipalities shall be entitled to cooperate in exercising their powers through the Community/Association collectively. The Association/Community will have full overview of the areas of economic development, education, health, urban and rural planning.

• 5. The Association/Community will exercise other additional competences as may be delegated by the central authorities.

• 6. The Community/Association shall have a representative role to the central authorities and will have a seat in the communities’ consultative council for this purpose. In the pursuit of this role a monitoring function is envisaged.

• 7. There shall be one police force in Kosovo called the Kosovo Police. All police in northern Kosovo shall be integrated in the Kosovo Police framework. Salaries will be only from the KP.

• 8. Members of other Serbian security structures will be offered a place in equivalent Kosovo structures.

• 9. There shall be a Police Regional Commander for the four northern Serb majority municipalities (Northern Mitrovica, Zvecan, Zubin Potok and Leposavic). The Commander of this region shall be a Kosovo Serb nominated by the Ministry of Interior from a list provided by the four mayors on behalf of the Community/Association. The composition of the KP in the north will reflect the ethnic composition of the population of the four municipalities. (There will be another Regional Commander for the municipalities of Mitrovica South, Skenderaj and Vushtrri). The regional commander of the four northern municipalities will cooperate with other regional commanders.

• 10. The judicial authorities will be integrated and operate within the Kosovo legal framework. The Appellate Court in Pristina will establish a panel composed of a majority of K/S judges to deal with all Kosovo Serb majority municipalities.

• 11. A division of this Appellate Court, composed both by administrative staff and judges will sit permanently in northern Mitrovica (Mitrovica District Court). Each panel of the above division will be composed by a majority of K/S judges. Appropriate judges will sit dependant on the nature of the case involved.

• 12. Municipal elections shall be organized in the northern municipalities in 2013 with the facilitation of the OSCE in accordance with Kosovo law and international standards.

• 13. Discussions on Energy and Telecoms will be intensified by the two sides and completed by June 15.

• 14. It is agreed that neither side will block, or encourage others to block, the other side’s progress in their respective EU path.

• 15. An implementation committee will be established by the two sides, with the facilitation of the EU.

Furthermore, you keep addressing issues such as whether the envisaged communal association will contain the term Metohija (which is contained in the Serbian (official) name of the region "Kosovo and Metohija" but not in the Albanian name of "Kosovo") which a. I did not argue for or against, b. have no basis on the Agreement or any source, and, c. only serve a particular POV.

My simple point is that the new communal association comes from the same Agreement that you claim abolishes the old one, is voted by the same people (residents of the Serb-majority municipalities in Kosovo) as the old one, has the same structure (incl. the assembly) as the old one and basically does the same thing (as in that it represents the people of these municipalities). However, the only differences are: that the new one is recognised by Albanians, too, that it come out of elections recognised by Albanians, too, and that it does not have broad legislative and executive powers as the old one, but rather has "full overview of the areas of economic development, education, health, urban and rural planning". In my eyes this is a compromise in the form that the Serbian-majority communal association was recognised by the Albanian side in return for it exercising no legislative power against the central parliament (which is controlled by the Albanians).

These points of differences and similarities were explicitly stated in the content that you removed.

I also counted two times a form of the verb "integrate" (one for the police and one for the judicial system) and no time the verb "abolish" being on the Agreement. Heracletus (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

All you are posting are from a POV that says the old assembly is a continuation of the old one. Just like there is no word abolish there is no work continuation. There is the word integrate with police and judiciary but it is explicit that it is under Kosovo law and not Serbia law and therefore the Serbia role is abolished where it existed before. Because the elections conducted by Serbia have always been considered invalid and illegitimate none of it is even mentioned! Serbia even has just erased the whole concept unlike the Judiciary and Police where they are abolishing their powers and all police and court people are being integrated under Kosovo law. You keep posting all the Brussels Agreement but the Brussels Agreement supports my neutral POV and you are trying to fit into a POV that's not even Serbia's POV. I don't even know what POV you are pushing? Qwerty786 (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You're being so neutral on insisting to call the elections organised by Serbia in 2008 "illegal", "invalid and illegimate" and drawing conclusions about the position of Serbia or anyone else which are not there, that I do consider turning myself in for WP:ARBMAC more and more as time goes by. You kept insisting that the police and justice system would just be abolished, in fact that it has already been abolished, now you finally agree that it is to be integrated. Perhaps, if I post the whole text another 15 times, you may stop coming up with your own conclusions over anyone's position and read what it says. Heracletus (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You really just fundamentally just don't understand what is going on in this situation. The Serbian police officers and legal system people are going to continue in those positions - or can if they want to- but the Serbia institution they worked for is being abolished in Kosovo and they will be integrated into the Kosovo institutions. The people are being integrated but the systems are not. THe serbia institutions are all being abolished. You don't understand what is going on. You need to stop editing the articles. You are blinded by your pov. Brussels is clear. It is crystal clear. One government in Kosovo. All Serbian institutions run by Serbia are abolished. Stop being biased. Read the brussels agreement. Read Serbia laws on foundations of police judiciary and elections in 2008. You need the right information. Qwerty786 (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I have not edited these articles since 10 April, for almost a month... Your edits were the last and I tried to avoid a real edit war. Furthermore, the Agreement explains a bit on what is to happen about police and courts and the rest is under negotiation. Moreover, about the government, the Agreement makes no comment. This Agreement tries to be neutral on such issues, by not mentioning anything about the central government and so on. I'm really not sure what exactly you think the Agreement means between the Pristina and Belgrade governments, apart from what exactly it says.Heracletus (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

24-hour closing notice

Old closing notice

If Qwerty786 doesn't respond within 24 hours, myself or another volunteer will close the case as lack of participation. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 16:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC) @MrScorch6200:, it seems Qwerty786 has responded. Do you think you're able to take this one on? Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 22:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC) @Steven Zhang: I usually stay out of disputes that involve foreign countries because they often confuse me. Along with this, the dispute is bordering on a conduct dispute. I am sure another volunteer is more capable of assisting. Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 22:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Reaper's process

Hi, I'm a volunteer at DRN that gets called in to help clean up threads that have laid for far too long on the DRN board without any forward progress. I'd like to recap to make sure that I understand the positionsHeracletus and Qwerty786...

@Heracletus: Your viewpoint is that the content you inserted in this diff should remain in the article?

@Qwerty786: Your view is that the content removed in these diffs should not be included?

Yes. Heracletus included the word "probably" so the details aren't even that clear. What is clear is that it is based on election results in 2013 and 2014 under Kosovo law not Serbia law and is not associated in any way with the government of Serbia. Qwerty786 (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

A simple Yes/No is all that is needed. I don't want to see long paragraphs of railing against each other/copy-pastes. As a reminder, the subject area is under discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBMAC), so I'm only going to say this once... Adhere to the letter and spirit of all Wiki Policies/Guidelines/Best Practices unless you want a ArbEnforcement action decide the dispute for you'. Hasteur (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and no. My viewpoint is that most of the content in that difference should remain in the article, and that the numbers of 45 deputies from 26 municipalities (in the Serbian sense of municipalities, which is second-degree local administration, under districts, and could even mean single towns or villages - the Kosovo Albanian municipalities are first-degree local administration and different) are undisputed for the previous assembly. For the new one, these numbers could be WP:Crystal, until we actually find a source.

However, I see the same issues here and here, while also I have to note that our dispute is also over this: [1], which I claim should be excluded/replaced, because it is not found in the source used. Strictly speaking, from the Agreement, the new Community "will have full overview of the areas of economic development, education, health, urban and rural planning", and it is not specified what this means. Implicitly I would agree it probably means no legislative power and very reduced executive one and only on those issues. Judicial power the Serbian Community never had, just the justice system was under the Serbian justice system and now it will be integrated in the Kosovo one. However, someone below invoked WP:Crystal, so who am I to define if broad overview means no legislative power? What should be written is what is in the agreement, then, art. 4: "In accordance with the competences given by the European Charter of Local Self Government and Kosovo law the participating municipalities shall be entitled to cooperate in exercising their powers through the Community/Association collectively. The Association/Community will have full overview of the areas of economic development, education, health, urban and rural planning." Heracletus (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm also a volunteer at DRN. I see that prior to the Brussels agreement that this article was entitled Community Assembly of Kosovo and Metohija and is now entitled Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities. I have a couple questuions"

First a yes/no question: Would having two separate articles, one historical about the 2008 based Assembly, and one about the new Assembly, be acceptable? --Bejnar (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Would delay in editing, for say eight months until the new Assembly is up and running with available reliable sources help resolve this dispute?--Bejnar (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not create an article about "Assembly of Serbian Municipalities of Kosovo" just because of this reason! I did not know about Wikipedia is not a crystal ball but because there were no concrete sources I did not create a new article. The Brussels agreement is very clear in making Kosovo the only law of Kosovo and because the 2008 elections were under Belgrade law and never recognized by Kosovo or EULEX or anyone outside Serbia it made sense that the Assembly of the Serbian Municiaplities of Kosovo and Metohija were abolished just like the Serbian police and judiciary which also operated under Serbia law. Qwerty786 (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Two articles would basically mean splitting one small article into two even smaller, which would have to be interconnected and one could move to merge, if it is agreed that they are related as I suggest, and I guess another one would move to propose for deletion on the grounds of being "abolished". So, my answer would be "perhaps", as it depends on how the split articles are connected, and such a decision would also greatly affect the Community of Serbian municipalities, Kosovo article as well... If one could only make Wikiprojects Serbia and/or Kosovo express some opinions on these issues, we could have solved this. However, the base of the dispute is not splitting, it's removing stuff, because it was "abolished".

I wouldn't think WP:Crystal applies as there is an Agreement explicitly on both the (new) Community and its Assembly, and lots of RS articles on them. Details are under negotiation, indeed. The old community and its assembly have existed, so can't call WP:Crystal on them. Actually, the way the article was formulated, apart from the details which I mention above, such as the number of deputies and municipalities of the new Assembly, I cannot see what else you may question under WP:Crystal.

I could reformulate the passage about the number of deputies and municipalities into something like this: "The old assembly had 45 deputies from 26 municipalities (as defined by the Serbian government) and the new assembly is expected to have an unknown number of representatives from the same regions, which have a Serbian majority." Heracletus (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not the same regions. I don't know where that is coming from. Under Serbia law and elections held in 2008 the regions are not the same under Kosovo law in 2013 and 2014. The same regions do not exist according to the laws of Serbia and Kosovo and how Kosovo is broken up into municipalities. You are not right in anything you are writing when it comes to that particular aspect. The government of Kosovo and government of Serbia have divided Kosovo differently. The elections under 2008 and 2013 are totally separate and have no connection. You are using the fact that the same word "assembly" is used when that word is the only thing that connects the two. The way the two are formulated are so radically different that they really can't be seen to be connected. Serbia has completely given up on viewing Kosovo as being under the Serbian division of municipalities and have accepted the way they were divided by the Kosovo government. I must suggest the people who are trying to resolve this look at the original article as it was before all the edits. It will be obvious that the assembly proposed and the one existed have no connection other than the word assembly. Qwerty786 (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That is coming from the fact that Serbians exercised control in regions with Serbian majority and they held elections there. Now, again, it is envisaged that Serbian majority regions will get a municipal community out of their elections, which yes, indeed were held under Kosovo law. I won't argue over the exact regional borders, but what I write is logical. However, again, my suggestion talked about specific numbers for the 2008 thing and for more broad terms for the new thing which is under negotiation. Furthermore, as Serbia considers Kosovo to be Serbian, it of course held elections there, much like the Albanians did. Now they had an agreement and held elections under the Kosovo law in that region. These are facts, the rest is your opinion, which I am pretty much tired of countering. To base my statement of "Now they had an agreement and held elections under the Kosovo law in that region." comes article 12: "12. Municipal elections shall be organized in the northern municipalities in 2013 with the facilitation of the OSCE in accordance with Kosovo law and international standards." from the Agreement. Without it, Serbia would probably have held its own elections again in the region of Kosovo. Heracletus (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You need to read the Brussels agreement again. Serbia agreed to abolish all of its institutions and have only one government in Kosovo. It agreed it would never run anything in Kosovo again. It would have been breaking the agreement to run election in Kosovo for Kosovo. Only Kosovo can do that. You are posting Brussels agreement but don't seem to know it at all. Qwerty786 (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

(A volunteer has removed a personal attack) I wrote: "Without it [the Brussels Agreement], Serbia would probably have held its own elections again in the region of Kosovo." and you replied as above, as if I had written that Serbia is going to hold its own elections in Kosovo soon.Heracletus (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• I withdraw as a volunteer in this case due to the objection of Heracletus, See Talk:Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities#Recent edits. --Bejnar (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• You don't actually have to withdraw Bejnar if you do not wish. I believe we decided that if someone objects to a volunteer that we begin a discussion on the DRN talk page to allow others the ability to check and insure this isn't someone just trying to win a dispute by knocking out a volunteer. However, that seems like such a messy endeavor and frankly...I don't wish to put you through the crap, I myself went through several months ago when an editor decided that since they had posted on my talk page once I was too involved with them to continue and when I didn't withdraw they nominated this entire board to be deleted. Messy, messy. And I just returned after months away to give the board a break from such drama of others. But I am requesting that Hasteur please return and decide if they feel the request should remain open and continue. I also request mediation committee member Lord Roem to see if they feel this is something for formal mediation and also request two randomly selected admin, Nyttend and Shirt58 who are uninvolved to look through this case and to keep an eye open should it move forward for behavioral issues. DRN has no authority, but administrators do have tools they can use to intervene should they feel it needed. This case has not gotten out of control yet...but seems close. Thank you.--Maleko Mela (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Mark Miller You really shouldn't have made appeals to other DR venues until this is closed. I firmly ask the sollicited outsiders (Lord Roem—Nyttend—Shirt58) to please respect DRN and not muddle with this issue until this request is resolved. I am reviewing the additions since Bejnar took over the case, but we've been here far too long already, with great scholarly dissertations written about the subject. I want to see the 2 primary disputants add replies no more than 300 bytes at a time to explicitly curtail long winded repostings. Hasteur (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixing ping to outsiders (Lord Roem—Nyttend—Shirt58)Hasteur (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Heracletus I'm going to say this once: Postings where it is clear that you are assuming bad faith on the actions of other editors is in itself a failure to follow one of Wikipedia's core guidelines. The next time you post something like those where you objected to Benjar's further involvement I will summarily close this DRN thread with the recommendation that this entire conflict is a conduct dispute and that you be issued a formal permanant warning from an administrator for the Balkans Discretionary Sanctions regime. Hasteur (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Do whatever you want, but did you even read what you wrote or where you linked? You wrote that I assumed bad faith of someone, and linked on the section which talks about avoiding to accuse someone of (assuming) bad faith. In fact, perhaps, you should read what it says there, as you accused me of bad faith. I made a point of Benjar having a clear position on the issue at hand before taking up the relevant case. I did so, as he had made this clear position public himself/herself, noting there that this could disqualify him/her from acting as a volunteer in this case, and also providing arguments for his position. I discredited these arguments, by providing relevant counter-arguments and noted that he/she should have notified us of having this position. This is not assuming bad faith, this is responding to facts. This is noted in the talk page where this thing happened.

This also has nothing to do with the content of the article. It has to do with the conduct of the volunteer, who failed to disclose he/she already had a clear opinion on the issue, when taking up this case. Then when this was noticed, he/she withdrew themselves from this case, while noting this on Mark Miller's talk page. Mark Miller went on the same article talk page to argue for the volunteer... I think this is acting as someone's solicitor. I didn't even ask Benjar to withdraw, I noted that he had written his opinion, he had argued about it, he had written this may not allow him/her to act as a volunteer in this case and then just proceeded to take up the case, without even disclosing that he had provided an opinion already. This has nothing to do with Kosovo, the Balkans, or any article. It's not optimal conduct and he withdrew. Then, there were personal accusations by Mark Miller and now by you that I somehow intimidated the volunteer, while I only commented on his opinion for the dispute and his impartiality due to this opinion.

As written on that talk page, if I argue publicly that the sun is, for example, yellow, and there's a dispute over the sun being white or yellow, I cannot, or at least should not, serve as a volunteer in the relevant dispute resolution, especially without disclosing my earlier stated opinion. I think the issue with Benjar ended after I explained why I would object after he withdrew because of the issues I already mentioned. The rest is personal accusations against me.

Apart from WP:Boomerang, how can you be considered impartial now since you have accused me of assuming bad faith and keep threatening us with a report to the Arbitration Committee? Obviously, if I think the volunteer has an opinion before taking up the case, I am entitled to express this. In this case, the volunteer had explicitly stated this opinion and presented arguments for it. Therefore, threatening me with reporting me to the Arbitration Committee over the issue of articles about the Balkans, because I noticed this explicitly stated opinion of the volunteer and wrote about it and its arguments and the volunteer then chose to withdraw himself/herself from the case, can be considered quite bad conduct. Heracletus (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Mrdthree on 09:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Southern Poverty Law Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mrdthree (talk · contribs) The_Four_Deuces (talk · contribs) Malik_Shabazz (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The SPLC monitors antigovernment patriot groups. I wanted to add a hyperlink to antigovernment because I found the term confusing. However initially antigovernment was just a redirect to anti-statism. We mostly agreed that was not the meaning SPLC had in mind. So I researched it and made antigovernment a disambiguation page. Two issues came out of this: (1) Is antigovernment a proper disambiguation page or is it a short article (does it have the right style for a disambiguation page?). (2) If it is a disambiguation page does the edit fail because WP:D (linking to a disambiguation page is bad style?). Mrdthree (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? argued. Read rules. INitially it was called an overlink but I think that might be resolved. Currently linking to antigovernment is being called WP:D. How do you think we can help? Is the antigovernment page a disambiguation page or a stub? Can I make the antigovernment page a disambiguation page? If antigovernment is a disambiguation page can I link to it from the Southern Poverty Law Center article? (does it violate WP:D) Summary of dispute by Mrdthree The SPLC monitors antigovernment patriot groups. I wanted to add a hyperlink to antigovernment because I found the term confusing. However initially antigovernment was just a redirect to anti-statism. We mostly agreed that was not the meaning SPLC had in mind. So I researched it and made antigovernment a disambiguation page. Two issues came out of this: (1) Is antigovernment a proper disambiguation page or is it a short article (does it have the right style for a disambiguation page?). (2) If it is a disambiguation page does the edit fail because WP:D (linking to a disambiguation page is bad style?). Mrdthree (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Well, a disambiguation page "lists articles associated with the same title". I'd say that it could be edited into a short article, and you should try it or at least let WP:Wikiproject Politics know about it. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 16:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC) This is a poor choice for disambiguation ... I suggest a link to Wiktionary where the term is defined. Collect (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC) I find it a poor definition. Or if it is meaningful then its a meaningless word; because it incorporates everything from opposition politics to open rebellion and anarchism (socialist libertarianism). Plus the same could be said about a great many simpler words... say green Mrdthree (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC) If we were to link it would be to "antigovernment patriot group", because that is the term they use. Similarly, we would not link "United States of America" to "United", "States" and "America." The linked article would then begin, "'Antigovernment patriot group"' is a term used by the SPLC to describe groups that...such as...." But that is unnecessary. Most readers understand what "anti" means, and that in this context the government they are anti is the U.S. government which they believe is run by traitors or even enemy foreigners and does not have legitimacy under the U.S. constitution, the supreme law of the United States. TFD (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC) I like your explanation much better than the present one. The present one doesnt actually state that. IT states that: The SPLC describes these groups as parts of an extremist Patriot Movement characterized by anti-government doctrines, conspiracy theories or opposition to the New World Order. This phrasing says it is the entire Patiot movement that is anti-government. However the Patriot Movement webpage makes no such claim. Mrdthree (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC) If this meaning of the term is principally used in this article, why link at all? Why not just define the term later in the same article? Homunq (࿓) 15:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC) This is most agreeable however it would inevitably result in edit-warring as even an attempt to hyperlink a word causes an edit war. Mrdthree (talk) Summary of dispute by The_Four_Deuces Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Malik_Shabazz Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Southern Poverty Law Center discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. (Note: I've consolidated two separate sections on this down to 1. Homunq (࿓) 15:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)) Are you still interested in pursuing this, given that the term is not currently used in the article? Homunq (࿓) 18:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Yes I want to know: is antigovernment a stub or a disambiguation page? Mrdthree (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Hi, I just checked. None of the facts have changed. The hyperlink I placed is still present (sentence 2 in the section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Anti-government_patriot_groups ). It is a hyperlink on the word anti-government you might have missed it if you searched antigovernment (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/antigovernment#Alternative_forms). Mrdthree (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC) The two questions I was hoping for senior editor input on are: (1) is the antigovernment page a Stub WP:Stub or a properly formatted disambiguation page WP:D?, (2) If it is a disambiguation page is it a violation of the most cases style rule of such pages to link a word in the Southern Poverty Law Center#Anti-government patriot groups article to it? WP:INTDABLINK. Sorry not clearer earlier. Mrdthree (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC) 48-hour closing notice This discussion appears rather stale. I am willing to help continue discussion if it would be useful; if no further activity occurs in this thread, I will close it in 48 hours. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC) I dont see any guidance offered by senior editors on two issues that appear decidable: (1) is the antigovernment page a stub or a disambiguation page. (2) if it is a disambiguation page then does WP:D override hyperlinking to anti-government from Southern Poverty Law Center#Anti-government patriot groups. Mrdthree (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Sorry about that, and thanks for reminding me of this. The comments you provided above were made in the last couple of days; the thread had seemed stale prior to that, so I offered to close it if necessary. Generally, the goal here is for an uninvolved editor to work with disputing parties to come to a resolution. I'd be happy to offer advice regarding both of your questions, but I want to make sure that the others involved in this dispute are involved in the discussion, as well. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 11:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC) OK advice welcome thanks. Mrdthree (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Personally, my feeling is that the antigovernment page is accurately classified as a disambiguation page. It provides a list of separate terms for which the phrase "antigovernment" can be substituted, rather than treating the phrase as a subject to be discussed. Given this, I would be somewhat hesitant to hyperlink from the SPLC page; nevertheless, since the SPLC uses this phrase to designate certain groups, it might be appropriate. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Sounds fair to me. Ill remove junk on antigovernment dab and let users do as they will with link. Mrdthree (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Wait please Mrdthree and Theodore!. I think that should be rethought. Per WP:INTDABLINK: "With few exceptions, creating links to disambiguation pages is erroneous. Links should instead point to a relevant article. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to give a user who has typed an ambiguous term into the search box a list of articles that are likely to be what he or she is looking for." Now, there are some exceptions but none that allow links in the body of the article to a specific word as it won't clarify anything really, as I believe is the concern of the OP (who, by the way is the only particpant from the list of involved editors). You'll simply get an automated message delivered to your talk page and is likely to be reverted and would be considered a policy/guideline based revert and would probably be considered edit warring if you were to try and keep placing it back in. I advise strongly against linking to the disambiguation page.--Maleko Mela (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC) The answer here is actually pretty simple, and one I highly suggest. One, if the term is the one which consensus holds is right for the article and you still feel a link is needed here (and i happen to strongly agree one is needed) then simply add whatever page you feel is best suited to define the usage here. Here is just an example (although it could work) It would be linked in the following manner: [[Sedition#United States#Civilian|antigovernment]], which would then just appear as this: antigovernment. There is of course the very good possibility that an actual article may need to be created boldly. That should be a lot of fun to create I think. This, of course may need to be discussed but could also be boldly added as advice from DRN, but remember we have no authority or special powers. If reverted discuss what page should be linked, if at any at all, but I believe this is something that truly needs a link.--Maleko Mela (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Having said that, I have to close this request for lack of participation. While there were several outside editors who weighed in above in the opening section commentary.....they are not the listed participants and DRN does require participation of the listed editors.....other than the OP.--Maleko Mela (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Right Sector

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Darouet on 21:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Right Sector (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Darouet (talk · contribs)
• Dervorguilla (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Right Sector is an ultranationalist and paramilitary political group that formed as a union of smaller far-right groups in Ukraine at the end of 2013. Its ideology, members or constituent groups have been described by some media and scholars as neo-fascist, an appellation not used by others, and contested by a few. The group traces its origins to the far-right Ukrainian nationalists who view themselves as inheritors of the controversial figure Stepan Bandera and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, as opposed to other, more moderate Ukrainian nationalist parties.

I've presented newspaper articles (from Die Welt, The New York Times, The Nation, Le Monde Diplomatique, Haaretz, Time (magazine)) and scholarly opinions explaining their far-right politics, but Dervorguilla maintains that the sources I present are either mischaracterized, not reliable, not notable, or otherwise a violation of WP:DUE. I contest his characterization of each source and believe that the article is beginning to look like a self-description by Right Sector.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have discussed this extensively on Talk:Right Sector, on our own talk pages, and have tried an RfC, which gave mixed results but towards the end favored exclusion of the material. We've also talked about a dispute resolution.

How do you think we can help?

I think having a neutral, experienced editor to work with us to establish: 1) what the sources actually say, 2) how notable or reliable they are, and lastly 3) what their weight should be would be greatly appreciated. I think this is possible because we've both been cordial.

Summary of dispute by Dervorguilla

1. Let’s begin with the topmost material added by Darouet: “Die Welt reports that Right Sector formed from an association of right-wing and neo-fascist Ukrainian political factions.”

The cited unsigned background analysis has been removed by the publisher from its searchable database. The newspaper does however quote a “well-known Ukrainian researcher” as calling the subject an organization of little “right-wing” groups and gangs. It calls the subject itself a “right-wing” group, a “nationalist” group, and an “ultranationalist” group. See Talk:Right Sector for a lengthier discussion.

2. Darouet started an RfC asking “Do major papers describe Right Sector as neo-Fascist?”. Collect responded “Some do and others don't. So what the Wikipedia best practice is - is to use that term or terms which cover the broad consensus of sources which would appear to be "Right Wing Nationalist".” A few days later Darouet added, in about 3½ hours, all this material:

Die Welt reports that Right Sector formed from an association of right-wing and neo-fascist Ukrainian political factions.… Journalist Alec Luhn for The Nation wrote that "ultranationalists and neo-Nazis" from Right Sector and other groups took control…. Ishchenko wrote that "previously marginal neofascists from the militant Pravy Sektor" entered into negotiations…. Le Monde Diplomatique's Emmanuel Dreyfus writes that the presence of "neo-fascist groups such as Pravy Sector" in Maidan point to a crisis…. Haaretz has written that members of Right Sector used neo-Nazi symbols…. According to TIME magazine, Right Sector's ideology borders on fascism…. Columnist Conn Hallinan has written that the United States press has "downplayed the role" of Right Sector and other far-right groups, which some media and scholars label as "fascist."… Political Scientist Cas Mudde writes that Right Sector's constituent groups include "various neo-fascists and neo-Nazis" who formed alliances…. Political science professor Alexander Motyl by contrast writes that Right Sector is … not fascist.… Political Scientist Anton Shekhovstov writes that while "Right Sector has indeed a neo-Nazi fringe … the main group behind the Right Sector … is far from neo-Nazism…."

Lvivske or I had already presented our concerns about these items at Talk.

3. I believe Lvivske (talk) should be included in this discussion. Meanwhile some of the material added by Darouet can be removed without harm to the article.

___

[Supp. A]
Addressing Darouet’s comments that he’s ‘presented sources explaining the subject’s far-right politics’ and that I’ve ‘maintained they’re violations of WP:DUE’ —
I’ve been supporting his point that the subject has far-right politics. And I’ve never maintained (or implied) that the sources are violations of WP:DUE. Rather, I’ve maintained that particular sources are violations of PUBLICFIGURE, NEWSBLOG, RSOPINION, or REDFLAG.
00:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Right Sector discussion

• I'm Theodore, a volunteer at DRN. I'd be happy to assist in discussing this issue, but will wait until Dervorguilla responds before adding further comments. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I've contacted User:Lvivske regarding this discussion. To start out with, I have one quick question for both editors: Under what circumstances would you be comfortable with references to fascism existing in this article? Any answer is fine; I just want to clarify what you're each looking to see in the article. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 12:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Theodore!; I don't see any problem with User:Lvivske participating. I think that we should include references to fascism as direct quotes or as paraphrasing from sources in the "history" section, where Right Sector's constituent groups are discussed, and in "ideology". I think that Right Sector's description as a neo-fascist organization (or the description of its ideology) should also be noted in the lead, with a qualification that some researchers, e.g. Shekhovstov, think that while some contributing groups as neo-fascist, the group as a whole is not. -Darouet (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your response! I'll ask a couple other questions and offer some ideas once Dervorguilla and Lvivske reply. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Is there still a need for further discussion on this subject? If so, I am wondering whether we can agree to discuss the "fascism" allegations in the article, while indicating that these are allegations? E.g., we could say that (Insert source) has correlated the ideology of Right Sector to that of fascist groups, but this claim has been denied by (Insert other source). Or, alternatively, we could just say "(Right Sector has frequently been identified as neo-fascist/ultranationalist/etcetera", followed by as many sources as possible. What do you think? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 14:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Darouet and I appear to be making progress on our own now, Theodore! Thanks for your help. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

There are still problems, but I need another day or two before I can get back to this, sorry! -Darouet (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Ok. Let's revisit this in 72 hours; if you've made sufficient progress by then, I'll close the discussion. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, it would be helpful if you would explain these recent changes to the article here. -Darouet (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there something in particular that′s wrong? --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Following your changes, the article went from having an ordered structure describing its formation, activities in Maidan, and then ideology, to now having a long incoherent ideology section with every statement from every source listed independently, without any flow of ideas, logic or history. -Darouet (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I've made some changes, trying to consolidate similar views, or describe related discussions, including for instance disagreement among academics/researchers, within the same paragraphs. Let me know what you think. -Darouet (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I can restore and reorganize the content in the "Ideology: Descriptions in the press" section so it’s shorter and more coherent. And we can get some other editors to contribute too.

We might as well limit the citations in the lead to what Wikipedia regards as the few truly mainstream news media (MSM).

“Mainstream media (MSM) are those media disseminated via the largest distribution channels…. Media organizations such as CBS and the New York Times set the tone for other smaller news organizations … lacking the resources to do more individual research and coverage, [the] primary method being through the Associated Press….”

--Dervorguilla (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how we should proceed on this Dervorguilla, Theodore!. Should we try to establish a framework within which we can accept sources that are mainstream, reliable enough for the lead? -Darouet (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I think the "mainstream media" idea isn't bad, but we have to look at quality over quantity of viewers/readers. Some news outlets will provide high-quality, WP:RS, WP:V information on events, but might not have the same circulation as CBS or the NYT. We should probably try to balance out information in the lead so that it reflects consistencies between multiple, "mainstream" sources. I'll offer a few more ideas on how to do this, but I'd like to hear your thoughts first, if you have some specific suggestions. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I support Darouet's idea as given. Why make it harder to reach agreement on appropriate sources? To my knowledge, neither of us would actually treat CBS as a top-quality source. Nor would either of us suggest that BBC, Time, WSJ, NYTimes, Reuters, AP, AFP, or Der Spiegel aren't top-quality sources as well as top-quantity.

Thanks to Darouet's contributions the article as a whole no longer appears to be tilted in favor of the subject group. But several passages appear to be (jarringly) tilted one way or the other. We should attack those vigorously, but let's try do it address those conservatively and piece by piece! --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 19:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

About the BBC interview I removed... I don’t regard anonymous “man on the street” interviews as being particularly encyclopedic, no matter how reliable the publisher. In this case the interviewee may well have been using loaded terminology like “clean” for shock value. The casual reader is more likely to interpret the quote as representing an incriminating admission against interest, wouldn’t you agree? It might be appropriate in a section on Right Sector’s (1) use of attention-seeking rhetoric and garb to garner publicity (and recruit more fight-ready soccer hooligans to its cause) and (2) use of grandstanding self-promotional projects (as in Odessa) to garner more publicity by appearing dramatically out of character.

It’s a marvelous quote, though, and I support your having added it to the article, as I presume you were counting on me to edit it if I perceived a problem.

If you have time, maybe you could search the scholarly literature for incriminating admissions by the various groups’ leadership or their designated representatives. Such quotations (or paraphrases) would be far more encyclopedic and useful to our readers!

In such cases the sources would most likely be low-circulation high-quality *academic* journals or books.

Before adding such material to the article, we could let each other *verify* the quality of the publication, the special expertise of the author, and the representativeness of the quoted passage.

Moving on, I’m willing to live with the article-body text as it stands now. Should either of us want to make significant additions or deletions (including paragraph reorganization), we could propose them here and then edit together before altering the text.

I also propose that we spend more time on noncontentious cleanup. I'm going to start by fixing the BBC cite. (The link doesn’t work.) I see Yobot got to it first! Yobot got it wrong... Fixed it myself.

Peace, Dervorguilla (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 19:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 22:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Idea for lead:

Right Sector (Ukrainian: Пра́вий се́ктор, Pravyi Sektor) is a Ukrainian political party and paramilitary confederation, characterized by mainstream publications as "far-right", "nationalist", or "ultranationalist". It provided logistical support and militant tactical leadership at the Euromaiden protests in Kiev.

Its leading group, Trident, had a national conservative ideology. Other founding groups included the Ukrainian National Assembly–Ukrainian National Self Defence (UNA–UNSO), White Hammer, Patriots of Ukraine, and the Social-National Assembly; the latter two groups had ultranationalist or Ukrainian neo-Nazi ideologies. The Associated Press and other international news organizations found no evidence of anti-Semitism or hate crimes by the confederation since its establishment in November 2013.

Right Sector has not attempted to compile accurate membership data. Its leader, Dmytro Yarosh, once estimated that it had at least 10,000 members.

Sounds encyclopedic to me! What do you think, Darouet? --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Struckthrough after reply by Theodore!. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with this; it's very well-written and provides a fair categorization of Right Sector's politics. I'm interested to see Darouet's response, but this sounds good so far. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Shekhovtsov is a (1) pre-eminent scholar, (2) a student, and (3) a self-professed conspiracy theorist. The (very interesting) material cited to him is going to have to be expeditiously removed from this contentious BLPGROUP. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both for your help. Dervorguilla, I would support text similar to the one you mentioned. While both Right Sector itself, and also its constituent groups, have been described as "fascist," I don't think that both of these things need to be mentioned in the lead because belaboring such a point will leave the lead unbalanced. Therefore I'd support this option:

"Right Sector (Ukrainian: Пра́вий се́ктор, Pravyi Sektor) is a Ukrainian political party and paramilitary confederation, characterized by mainstream publications as "far-right", "nationalist", or "ultra-nationalist." It provided logistical support and militant tactical leadership at the Euromaiden protests in Kiev.

Right Sector views itself within the tradition of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and their controversial leader, Stepan Bandera. The ideology of Its leading constituent group, Trident, has been described as national conservative. Other founding groups included the Ukrainian National Assembly–Ukrainian National Self Defence (UNA–UNSO), White Hammer, Patriots of Ukraine, and the Social-National Assembly; some of these are described as having ultranationalist or neo-fascist beliefs.

etc."

I wouldn't support the AP statement in the lead unless we're sure that the statement is actually representative of coverage by major papers. For instance, Haaretz has described the organization as likely handing out anti-semitic literature at events.

Lastly, where are we getting this information about Shekhovstov being a "self-professed conspiracy theorist?" I couldn't find any information in the (unreliable) links provided, and the information about Patriots of Ukraine and the Social-National Assembly was published in an academic book (besides the fact that its tacitly backed up by The New York Times and Die Welt, though they aren't as authoritative sources, despite their quality). -Darouet (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Velychenko, “The EU as Ukraine’s Lesser Evil,” Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research, March 10, 2014.

“During the past months pro-Kremlin opinion concerning events in Ukraine has been espoused by supposedly “liberal” academics …

“Some of these de facto politically pro-Kremlin leftists must be considered dishonest because they do not openly declare they are funded by the Kremlin. Anton Shekhovtsov is currently studying these groups ( … anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.ca).

“This information product is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development.”

You have explained how I’m seeking to curry favor with “liberal readers,” Darouet. I accordingly believe that there will be no need for us to make any further unsolicited remarks to or about each other on Article History, Talk, User Talk, Talk History, or elsewhere, in perpetuity. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone for your participation during the last few days. I think that both Darouet's and Dervorguilla's proposed leads are excellent; if we decide to go with Darouet's phrasing, I would imagine that the final comment about neo-fascism will need to be extensively sourced. Additionally, let's be careful about flinging around accusations about political ideologies; these are contentious topics, to be sure, but we can work around ideological differences when resolving this dispute. At this point, I would be cautious about Anton Shekhovtsov, but I am not sure it's a good idea to expunge his material from the article. If his commentary has been prominent in recent months, it may well meet the definition of a reliable source. At any rate, any article content based on his writings could be explicitly attributed to him. What do you think? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Full disclosure of interests
Dervorguilla declares that neither she nor any member of her immediate family has a significant financial interest in any product, service, or entity discussed in her edits or in any competing product, service, or entity. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi All, sorry for my slowness here. I do have a series of academic articles or book chapters, by Shekhovstov and others, that treat Ukrainian far-right nationalism. I'll see if others mention these groups. -Darouet (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Breakin' My Heart (Pretty Brown Eyes)

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Erpert on 06:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Breakin' My Heart (Pretty Brown Eyes) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Erpert (talk · contribs)
• Richhoncho (talk · contribs)
• Lil-unique1 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

One user thinks in articles about songs, the article in question should be listed in both the SONGS and SINGLES categories. Two other users disagree with this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I was going to start a thread on Richhoncho's talk page about, but upon realizing Lil-unique1 already did that, I just added to that discussion.

How do you think we can help?

I think we can try to find a consensus on whether both categories need to be listed after all in all cases (personally, I only list both categories when the song was recorded and then released in different years). In addition, Richhoncho's definition of "single" appears to be original research (it isn't defined as such in the Single (music) article).

Summary of dispute by Richhoncho

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

There are only three key points here:-

1. Epert objects to me applying the guideline WP:SONG#Categories and has been removing categories contra to that guideline and therefore against community wishes.
2. There has been a long conversation on my talkpage where I have pointed out to Erpert if he wants to change the guideline, then he should take the matter up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. and not on my talkpage as I can only give my opinion - obviously I do not own the guideline (even though I thoroughly approve of it).
3. Therefore dispute resolution was not the place to come but to WP:SONGS as already suggested and ignored by Erpert.--Richhoncho (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Lil-unique1

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

Richhoncho undid my edits when I removed the song category from articles that were about singles. Personally, I feel like there isn't a definitive guideline and there's some half-baked discussions about the whole thing. I think I under Rich's point of view but it based on his own original research about the definition of a single is. Something which editors of music articles cannot agree on themselves. Its an issue that goes beyond the problem of categories to be honest. I respect Rich's edits but I think he's wrong to assume that he has a consensus for his point of view and I think its a bigger problem than this small dispute. IMO the infobox single and infobox song merged with different types e.g. "single", "promotional song" and "song". I really think its pointless classifying something as both a single and song when it cannot be a single without being song. The two are not mutually exclusive. I'll add that I said to Rich that I didn't want to push the issue because I felt like he didn't understand my POV and it was discussion that was way beyond either of us, that needed more editors to get involved and some kind of technical opinion tbh. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 13:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Breakin' My Heart (Pretty Brown Eyes) discussion

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

SN: Rich keeps mentioning WP:SONG when I think he really means to mention WP:NSONG (WP:SONG is a WikiProject). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No I emphatically mean WP:SONG. However, if you read WP:NSONG it starts "Songs and singles are..." which is the crux of my argument - they are not the same thing. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

As suggested above in the template. I have re-opened a new discussion on my talkpage regarding this matter. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't need the same discussion going on in several different forums. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, it would probably be best if you didn't continue adding the categories in question while the dispute discussion is still active. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Which part of "Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary." don't you understand? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

ive said everything ive wanted to say and my two pennies at Rich's talk page. I dont have anything else to say and I dont want to be part of this DRN anymore. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 13:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hello! I'm Theodore, a volunteer at DRN. My apologies that it's taken so long to open this case. Lil-unique1 has indicated a desire to stop discussing this matter here. Given this, what are the other parties' stances on continuing discussion? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Theodore!, your help is most welcome. At this moment I do not think I can add anything over and above my short summary above, there are two long conversations on my talkpage which go into depth and should bring into focus what the dispute is and why. There is a shorter discussion on Erpert's page which I find illuminating. The next step must be for Erpert to respond here. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. In this case, I will close this discussion thread. If you and the other parties fail to reach a resolution at Erpert's talk page, you are welcome to return at a future date. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Theodore!, there was/is no ongoing discussion with Erpect except, possibly, here. Because I want closure on this, I have left a polite note on Erpect's talkpage asking him to comment here as he opened the DRN and I really don't want to continue avoiding categorizing articles because he is claiming ownership, as I am having to do at present. So I would ask you to give Erpect a reasonable time to respond just to close the matter out and not have to bring it back here because somebody "forgot" to comment. Again, thanks for your help. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

"Claiming ownership"? Sorry, I don't do that. Anyway, no one disputed that songs and singles are different, but the way you distinguish between the two seems to be just that: how you distinguish them, not necessary decided by any consensus (you keep stating there's a consensus but you never actually point to one; a diff would help...BTW, why do you spell my name differently every time?) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for getting your name wrong. Purely accidental and no other reason. I have repeatedly pointed to the consensus, but you refuse to accept it. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• To clarify, are you still interested in continuing this discussion? Although it's up to you, I think participating in this process could help to resolve your dispute. If you would like to continue discussion, I will add a few more questions/comments in a little bit. If not, please let me know and I will close the thread; again, I think there is a good chance that we can work things out in this forum. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Be good to close this discussion once and for all, but I guess it's Erpert's choice. My view remains the same, as the dispute is over a guideline, the discussion should have been opened there and discussed among those with a vested interest and understanding of the guideline and I did suggest this course of action to Erpert several times. If the guideline had been changed in accordance with Erpert's ideas, then I would followed the amended guideline.

The only thing I can add is that about half of all new articles now come with the same categorization that Erpert objects to, and that is by many different editors. So guideline and practice are converging as much as they are likely to at Wikipedia. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Mallexikon on 04:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Traditional Chinese medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mallexikon (talk · contribs)
• QuackGuru (talk · contribs)
• Herbxue (talk · contribs)
• Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs)
• Jim1138 (talk · contribs)
• Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs)
• 76.107.171.90 (talk · contribs)
• JzG (talk · contribs)
• Alexbrn (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is strong sentiment among several editors to include the sentence "TCM is largely pseudoscience" into the lede of the TCM article. The source used for this statement is an editorial in Nature ([2]) saying: "So if traditional Chinese medicine is so great, why hasn't the qualitative study of its outcomes opened the door to a flood of cures? The most obvious answer is that it actually has little to offer: it is largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies."
I'm against adding "TCM is pseudoscience" to the lede. "Pseudoscience" is not a verifiable attribute or fact, it's a derogatory judgement (it basically means "bad"). TCM theory is obviously superstitious bullshit, but "pseudoscience" includes the allegation that TCM is not effective - which we don't know with certainty yet, since research is ongoing. I tried to work towards including "TCM has been labeled both a protoscience and a pseudoscience" to the lede, but ran into steep opposition from the anti-quack crowd.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've argued my view in several talk page threads: Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Labels: Pseudoscience, proto-science, pre-science, Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Pseudoscience, Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Protoscience. There also was a previous thread before I stepped in: Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Inappropriate conclusion in lede of article

How do you think we can help?

Give neutral input towards a compromise

Summary of dispute by QuackGuru

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

With an eye to the Chinese market, pharmaceutical companies have explored the potential for creating new drugs from traditional remedies.[8] Successful results have however been scarce: artemisinin, for example, which is an effective treatment for malaria, was fished out of a herb traditionally used to treat fever.[8] Although advocates have argued that research had missed some key features of TCM, such as the subtle interrelationships between ingredients, it is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.[8]

The text in the WP:LEDE is a summary of Traditional Chinese medicine#Drug research in accordance with Wikipedia's WP:ASSERT. Stating "TCM has been labeled a pseudoscience" is WP:OR and does not properly summarise the body. The source for protoscience was written by the trade. WP:FRINGE demands we should use independent sources for controversial topics. QuackGuru (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Herbxue

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

The term pseudoscience is a derogatory term that relies on the premise that the subject holds itself out as a science. TCM does not - it is called "Traditional Chinese Medicine" - clearly stating that it comes from a specific tradition outside of contemporary bioscience. Protoscience is more accurate, but both are outside judgements, not clear descriptions.

Beyond that, I do not believe the case has been made that the scientific and medical communities are in unison in labeling TCM pseudoscience - only a few missionaries for science vs. superstition, people that are on a mission to make a point. That does not mean that the general medical consensus has been formed. It is more responsible for us to include this opinion/label, but state who is doing the labeling. Herbxue (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Dominus Vobisdu

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

The material in question is fully justified by the source given, which is impeccable in accordance with out policies and guidelines. Our policies also require that we clearly identify non-conventional and fringe positions, and treat them in context with prevailing scholarly opinion, which in this case is overwhelming negative.

The argument that we cannot use the word "pseudoscience" because it is derogatory is absurd. It clearly applies in this case, and if TCM practitioners are offended, that is not WP's problem.

The OP has been trying to argue from the standpoint of "cultural sensitivity", which has no basis in WP policies or guidelines.

As far as I am concerned, the matter has been resolved. There has been ample discussion on the article talk page, and there is little point to go through it here all over again. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jim1138

I agree with Adam and D.V. The matter is resolved. I would argue that the "pseudoscience" label should be in the first sentence, and not the last sentence, of the lede. BTW: there are more discussions in the archives then what is listed above in the "...resolve this previously" section. Jim1138 (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Guy

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

What Adam said. It's not Wikipedia's job to fix the fact that TCM is largely based on refuted concepts. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Adam Cuerden

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

Per WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE we have to properly contextualize Traditional Chinese Medicine, and that means that the judgement of mainstream academic medicine - a few promising treatments, but mostly pseudoscience - has to appear. This is not a discussion of a historical treatment regime, after all: We are discussing something that is being actively marketed right now, and not just in China. This is not something like the completely-abandoned treatment Theriac, or even like Trepanation, where a historically common treatment with some reasonable uses is largely abandoned outside of a very limited list of valid conditions, or by an extreme fringe, quickly dismissable. In contrast, the name Traditional Chinese Medicine is itself a marketing term, and the construct defined as TCM is a combination of many historical, modified historical, and questionably historical medical practices from China. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 76.107.171.90

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

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn

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

Traditional Chinese medicine discussion

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

This is actively being discussed on talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Labels: pseudoscience, protoscience Jim1138 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Port Jefferson, New York

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Tracield on 20:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Port Jefferson, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Tracield (talk · contribs) Iracaz (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I seeded an historical image of Port Jefferson, NY to the Port Jefferson Wikipedia page. It is a museum quality photograph from the 1870s of the downtown area. The other use took it down with the explanation that they did not like the image. It went back and forth a few times but never revealed any legitimate reason why the image did not fit within the article. It was also revealed that this user has been controlling this page and has added all the images currently there which I believe shows a conflict of interest. The Port Jefferson page does not have extensive information about the town, so a historical image adds substance to the article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have given possible vandalism warnings twice for disruptive editing and written multiple times on Iracaz's talk page. How do you think we can help? I would not like to get into an editing war. I would like an outside party to judge the image placement. One user cannot control a page to their liking with no legitimate reasoning. It appears to be to late for that statement.[3].--Maleko Mela (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Iracaz Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Inclusion of the photograph overcrowds the page, which already includes the building that is the subject of the photograph in clearer, more revealing, and more aesthetically appealing form at File:John Roe House in Port Jefferson, New York.jpg . Little is discernible in the subject photograph, especially in thumbnail view, made worse by the unnecessary tan background that surrounds the actual photograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iracaz (talk • contribs) 20:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Viewing the article will reveal that it already has an uncommonly high quality of historical material and diversity of images for a village of this size. As a village resident who wrote most of the article with no prior disputes, I hand selected these images out of hundreds of available historical images, from both local historical texts and the Port Jefferson Village archives. I supplemented these historical images with relevant photographic angles to produce a comprehensive image of this Long Island village with which I have decades of familiarity. Three pictures are below at right. The first is the subject image, with the insisted upon caption and tan background. Second is the image on the page of the same building that I already included on the page. I believe this image to be superior, and to suitably override the need for, the subject image in that the house is at the forefront with no background or caption issues, is not disrupted by vegetation overgrowth, and additionally shows the house in its important contemporary roles as Chamber of Commerce and oldest house remaining in the village. The third image is a postcard that was already on the page showing the same street intersection during the same time period as the subject photograph. This postcard, though a drawing, shows a variety of historical structures in the town and represents the active village lifestyle of the era better than the depopulated photograph. I thus believe that the disputed photograph is a positive presence on Wikipedia but that its inclusion on the Port Jefferson article would detract and unnecessarily overcrowd the page. George Bradford Brainerd. Street View, Port Jefferson, Long Island, ca. 1872-1887. Brooklyn Museum c.1682 home of John Roe, the first settler in lower Port Jefferson Hotel Square, corner of Main and East Main — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iracaz (talk • contribs) 21:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Both Talk pages discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Hello and welcome to the Dispute resolution Noticboard. I am Mark Miller (Maleko Mela) a volunteer here on the DRN. While I have no special powers or authority I do need to make a note here before we beging. First, both editors seem to be acting badly. Simply adding an image is not "un-constructive" and just removing an image is not vandalism. Please assume good faith. To be honest I am half inclined to close this filing due to the amount of edit warring that began on the 28th and seems to have run to this day non-stop. Both participants have crossed the bright line, 3 Revert Rule in a major way so, part of me feels this needs to be referred to the edit warring noticeboard. I request that both editors refrain from further editing on that page for now until this dispute is settled. I would like one of the editors to please place the thumbnail of the image in question in this discussion section. I would then like to see the editor that added the image give an explanation as to why they feel the image has context to the article or section, what, if any historic relevance it has and why you feel the argument is strong enough for the image to remain. I would then like to see an explanation from the disagreeing party as to why the image fails image use for the article per policy and guidelines. Aesthetically appealing is not an argument. That is simply what you like or do not like and has no real place in a content dispute. One last thing, as I understand it there was mention that one of the editors is an employee of a museum that the other editor feels may constitute a Conflict of Interest. Please explain this further so we can either get that out of the way quickly or discover if that is part of the problem.--Maleko Mela (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC) OK, to start the ball rolling here I will give my initial opinion. The first image with the matting needs to be cropped per image use policy: Crop the image to highlight the relevant subject. If you create an image that contains text, please also upload a version without any text. It will help Wikipedians translate your image into other languages. My opinion of uploading a black and white image in color formatting for the matting seems a waste. I also don't see that the text is really needed and its removal would not be a loss of any EV. But having both gives editors a choice. ( I think the image could use a bit of photoshopping to fix the contrasts that seem a bit extreme and dark). The caption is also a tad off as it doesn't really explain who George Bradford Brainerd is or why he is being mentioned. It is also this image page that shows that there is a claim by the uploader, Tracield, that the image was uploaded by the Museum itself, which gives the perception that the user has a COI pertaining to the image and edit warring over its use on the article. I don't see the value in using the postcard. It is blurry and does not seem to have relevance to the section. If it were a choice between the first image and the post card, I would chose the first image as it is a superior image for that reason alone. The general compromise with these types of image disputes is to move all excessive images below the body of the article in a gallery. Would editors be willing to consider this as an option?--Maleko Mela (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC) The postcard is relevant in that it showcases the atmosphere of the village in the late 19th century along with a variety of structures from the period and the sorts of characters that inhabited them. This contracts favorably to the desolation of the photograph in dispute. Bluriness is not a major issue excepting on closest inspection. A gallery section would detract from the article. Such a section previously existed in this article and I've already worked to incorporate it's contents into the article. My arguments standing, I would certainly look more favorably to the disputed photo if it were properly cropped and captioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iracaz (talk • contribs) 23:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Per image use policy, images most have relevance to the section and really, that post card has no prose or text that supports any context to the section or article other than a slight mention of the location, which isn't enough. Should the image stay, it would indeed require more contextual text. By the way...I am not seeing a major issue with COI so I hope the editor is not staying away over that. There certainly seems to be some bias about the uploaded image but I see that with the other editor as well and we need both parties to discuss the subject. While the OP has opened the case, they are required to add further input if the case is to remain open.--Maleko Mela (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC) The general rule of thumb on DRN is to give 48 hours for both parties to begin discussion. If the other editor has not returned by that time I will be closing this filing as failed. As an aside, should either party make any further reverts within the next 24hrs, I will be closing earlier and referring the case to the Edit Warring Notice board ( I don't foresee that happening however...hopefully).--Maleko Mela (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC) I agree that the postcard was not as integrated into the article as would have been ideal, and have now added the history of Hotel Square and an explanation of its importance to the appropriate section of the article. I have been expanding the history section piece by piece in the past months, and this was on my to-do list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iracaz (talk • contribs) 00:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC) I like what you added. Just my opinion of course.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 24 hour closing notice If the OP of this filing does not join the discussion there is little left to do but a general closing in another 24 hours.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC) It appears the OP has decided to decline their own DRN filing and has resumed edit warring. As I stated I will be closing this filing and referring the matter to the Edit war Notice board.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC) This is the first time this has actually happened and it dawned on me not to jump the gun and close until the outcome of the 3RR report. Both editors have been warned and if the OP can return to the discussion, we can continue.--Maleko Mela (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC) It's fine to close the DRN filing. You can take the image down. I am not available to be on Wikipedia on a constant basis to engage correctly in this conversation. Tracield (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Talteori on 07:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Talteori (talk · contribs)
• Djsasso (talk · contribs)
• Nymf (talk · contribs)
• Permafrost46 (talk · contribs)
• Archon 2488 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There seems to be great difficulty in achieving consensus on what system of measurement should be used for hockey players. Several users want to use United States customary Units (feet, inches, pounds) for all hockey players in all countries in all leagues. Other users (myself included) have proposed other methods such as players use the system in the country they are currently playing in, or players stick with the system in the country they are born in regardless of where they are currently playing since many players jump between leagues. We find it unreasonable to use inches and pounds for a Russian player playing his entire career in Russia which is a completely metric country. The opposing view is that it is easier to use one system of measurement for all players and that it should be united states customary units since most of the readers of Wikipedia are North American. This view however contradicts the wikipedia manual of style https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Units_of_measurement which says that Wikipedia should use metric for all non US specific cases. The debate started when I was editing the Swedish Olympic athletes which all use metric and other users reverted it back to united states customary units saying that all hockey players should use united states customary units.

The issue has been debated extensively without any real progress: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive60#Player height and weights

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There has been extensive debate on the talk page and messages to other users.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive60#Player height and weights

How do you think we can help?

I hope to be able to get outside help in order to set a policy on what system of measurement should be used for which player. Currently those engaged in the debate have firm beliefs and little progress has been made towards reaching consensus. Since this is a policy decision that effects thousands of articles I think it is good to get an official stance with the help of a neutral party.

Summary of dispute by Djsasso

Permafrost46 below sums it up quite nicely. Since both sets of numbers are there anyways, why would we make it harder on not only the editor but the reader (for comparison purposes) to have order changed based on the page. By changing the order based on the nationality (or any other reason) it makes it considerably harder to be maintained, as well as for readers comparing two players at a quick glance. I agree with Permafrost below that the current status quo and the state of affairs for a large number of years is where we should remain. This "dispute" only arrised because Talteori began changing tens if not hundreds of articles to his preferred format. Even when he was unable to gain consensus for his changes as linked to above he continued. The discussions linked all clearly indicated there was no consensus for his changes. The problem with least astonishment as mentioned by Archon is that most (not all) of these players play in a league (NHL) where the majority of people who are going to be reading their pages wouldn`t use metric for height and weight. So for them it would be significantly astonishing to have those numbers instead of imperial. Even then it is moot because we present both sets of numbers. So all this debate really is about is the order of them. Personally I think we should make it easier on the reader and keep the order consistent. -DJSasso (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Zzyzx11:, @Echoedmyron:, @Resolute:, @Ravenswing:, @18abruce:, @184.52.8.162:, @67.215.143.118: Pinging others who were involved in this discussion/dispute. There may be others that I missed so feel free to let them know. But it would be incorrect to exclude some of these people. -DJSasso (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Nymf

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

Summary of dispute by Permafrost46

This is a tricky situation, as both stances can be justified. Like another user wrote on Talteori 's talk page, "having a consistent format across all biographies on NHL players makes it easier for editors to maintain the articles". In the light of this, I see no reason to switch every NHL-related article from US customary to metric (regardless of the nationality of the player) since the metric info is there anyway (because of the convert template which shows both metric and US customary. The only difference is which is displayed first). I'm really just going with the established consensus here, if it is decided to switch everything to metric first I'd support it, but not a mix of metric first and US customary first. For instance, I'd say it's easier to have Henrik Lundqvist and Martin St. Louis stats both in the US customary first format since they both play for the New York Rangers of the NHL. The other parties would prefer Henrik Lundqvist to be metric first since he is an European-born player and Martin St. Louis to be US customary first since he is North American. But again, this would still be arbitrary since St. Louis is Canadian and the metric system is used there as well. To sum up, I think for NHL-related articles it is better to display everything in US customary first (since it is the current norm). The other alternative would be to switch everything metric first, but not a mix of both. Permafrost46 (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: To add more context, the dispute actually stems from Talteori beginning to change stats of Swedish players to metric first and others editors, me included, reverting said changes. Permafrost46 (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Archon 2488

In principle, WP:MOSNUM says that an article should broadly prefer metric units unless it is a non-science US-related article, in which case US customary units are used (with metric conversion in parenthesis). This implies that articles on US players should use USC units, but not articles on players from other countries. In case of disputes, the convention is to follow local consensus: an article is (primarily) US-related when talk page consensus says it is – this applies to cases of ambiguity such as players from other countries who play or have played in US sport leagues. The principle of least astonishment would imply that articles on Swedish topics, for example, should use metric units rather than US customary units. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey discussion

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

This discussion has not been opened by a volunteer. Please refrain from discussing the dispute until the filing has been opened

I would like to make a small clarification to Archon 2488's post to note that heights and weights in Canada use typically uses imperial rather than metric, and Great Britain, if I am not mistaken, tends to use imperial for height. So this is a bit wider than US vs. the world. That said, I tend to ride the fence on the issue as I (being Canadian) certainly prefer the current format, but I also recognize that this is a situation where the relevant articles cross multiple projects, each with competing standards. It is also one of those cases where there I believe some guidelines can be applied in either direction. i.e.: I think POLA could justify the status quo given the most interest in NHL players will come from North Americans who expect imperial measurements to be given as the primary. That, however, creates an issue where you'd then expect to swap everything around depending on where an athlete plays, and I find the idea of changing the formats when a player goes from North America to Europe or vice versa to be the more disruptive solution. I would generally be supportive of using the base nationality of the player to determine the primary unit of measurement. Ease of editing the infobox itself could be handled by having someone with better template coding ability than I add a parameter that defines the primary measurement, so that even if I use the "height_ft" and "height_in" parameters, it still sets the metric result as primary in the template. Further, I wonder If the {{convert}} family of templates could be modified to auto choose a primary unit based on a user's custom settings, such that all measurements using these templates render in the format preferable to the local reader. That goes well beyond the scope of this dispute, however. Resolute 16:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC) The proper format to use, for consistency throughout the ice hockey project, is imperial measurements. Although written to address concerns regarding date format, I would think that the principles of WP:STRONGNAT should also apply for this situation, that being: “Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation.” Substituting “height/weight” for “date” in the previous sentence, the only English-speaking countries which have strong-ties to numerous professional ice hockey players are Canada and the United States, both of which commonly use imperial measurements for such purpose. Editors for articles with strong ties to non-English speaking counties, each of which have their own-language Wikipedias, should not force their country-specific or preferred formatting policy upon the editors and readers of English-Wikipedia. Dolovis (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Why is the proper form united states customary units? IIHF uses metric, most countries that play hockey use metric and the players use metric. Metric across the ice hockey project would be more in line with the fans and wikipedia. Russia, Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic, Latvia and Switzerland disagree with that Hockey is mainly an English speaking sport. Some of the users seem to equate hockey and the NHL but that isn't the way hockey is viewed in many hockey playing nations. There are three countries that use united states customary units for body measures and 200 that use metric. All but two countries that participate in the World championship and the Olympics are metric. The two non metric Hockey nations shouldn't force their system of measurement on the entire hockey playing world. These arguments could be apply to nearly all Wikipedia articles and we still use primarily metric. There aren't very good Finnish/Swedish/Norwegian/Czech articles for a lot of the players so many people from Europe use the english articles.Talteori (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC) I don't think he was saying that hockey is mainly an English speaking sport. What I think he was saying is that this wiki is an English wiki and that all of the main ice hockey playing English speaking nations use imperial for body metrics so per the principle of least astonishment and per WP:STRONGNAT most readers would expect to see imperial. We should be catering to the most likely reader of articles. And for NHL players especially that is going to be people from the United States and Canada because that is where those players live and play. -DJSasso (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Instead of changing the English-Wikipedia articles to your preferred format, perhaps you could help improve the Finnish/Swedish/Norwegian/Czech articles, since you state that they are not very good. 184.52.8.162 (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC) As DJSasso has stated, this "dispute" only began when Talteori started changing multiple articles, primarily Swedish NHL ice hockey players who represented their country in international play at the Olympics, to his preferred format. Both the U.S. customary units and metric units are present in the infobox for a hockey player; the only "dispute" is which is displayed first. I think that the current format should remain in place, having a consistent format across all NHL players’ articles, regardless of a player's nationality. I agree with Dolovis, that editors for articles with strong ties to non-English speaking counties should not force their country-specific or preferred formatting policy upon the editors and readers of English-Wikipedia. 184.52.8.162 (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC) The articles should retain the existing format as it was prior to this edit war, per MOS:RETAIN and WP:DATERET, for now. The pages have evolved using predominantly one format, and there is currently no consensus to change it, including whether there a strong national tie between one's birthplace and one's current country of employment. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a note from a volunteer. I am not going to be taking on this case (others may wish to) and suggest that it may not be the proper venue for this. The WikiProjects create their own standards and style guides. This is not a content dispute. This is a project dispute. --Mark Miller (Maleko Mela)

• I understand your concerns regarding this being a WikiProject dispute. Nonetheless, it pertains to a "content" issue: whether or not to use certain measurements on regular-namespace articles. Disagreements over editing are mentioned in the parties' statements; given the broad nature of this topic, I think it's fine that it's categorized as a WikiProject-level dispute. I would be happy to commence discussion per these reasons. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem Theodore. We are open to all here. I just feel uncomfortable trying to take, what I believe is a project discussion, away from the project itself. There may be a project coordinator who should be notified, but at least the project itself should have a DRN notification in my opinion. What do you think?--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This debate is a bit meta since the players are in several categories that use conflicting measurement systems. The dispute didn't start on the hockey page it started when I was editing other categories according to their project standard. Also there seem to be very strong opinions varying from United states customary units on all hockey pages to that hockey should use the same system as soccer. I think it would be best if outsiders came and helped reach a good policy decision.Talteori (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've perused the discussion thread above, and have also looked at the thread at the WikiProject talk page. I've noticed an argument that measurements should accord to the format most commonly used for articles on each respective nation. Out of curiosity, how would you feel if we did this, but listed the equivalent non-local form in parentheses? For example, the Swedish athlete might have "X meters (Y feet)", and the American athlete might have "X feet (Y meters)." Is there anything especially objectionable about this? If so, why would you prefer to have stronger standardization? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly what I am proposing. I think it is the most reasonable solution2.71.17.135 (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good! If anyone else has thoughts on this, feel free to share. If you object to this idea, feel free to do so; my goal is not to impose a resolution, but to find common ground and work from there. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The infobox for ice hockey player's uses the convert template and already provides both the U.S. customary units and metric units. I believe there should be a consistent format across all articles on NHL players, regardless of a player's nationality, and the current format should remain in place. 184.52.8.162 (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

What 184.52.8.162 says basically sums up my thoughts. As does what I said above. What Theodore suggests is actually what the debate is about. We already list both forms with one in parenthesis. Basically the disagreement is the order of the two (ie which one should be in parenthesis). As has been argued above having them always in the same order would be more helpful than the reader than switching them back and forth based on nationality. Especially since an equally strong case can be made for the fact that the players live and play in one nation and the majority of their fans/readers will be from that nation. -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Suzannah Lipscomb

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by MdeBohun on 18:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Suzannah Lipscomb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• MdeBohun (talk · contribs)
• TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Suzannah Lipscomb is separated from her husband and getting divorced. The Red Pen of Doom consistantly adds that her book Visitors Companion to Tudor England is dedicated to her husband Drake despite being asked to desist. Prior to that he tried to show the marriage by referencing to a page that another editor said was not appropriate. No reference is made to whom her other books are dedicated, so it is clear that The Red Pen of Doom clearly has an agenda. He is now threatening that I will be blocked, using formal writing as if he is Wikipedia, when it is he who should be blocked. The subject does not wish information on her failed marriage to be public knowledge.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The Red Pen of Doom

How do you think we can help?

Stop The Red Pen of Doom from consistently entering information that is disingenuous as it implies that the subject is married, when she is not.

Summary of dispute by TRPoD TheRedPenOfDoom

The introduction by @MdeBohun: is incorrect about at least one item, in that I was the editor adamantly removing inappropriately sourced content about the marriage/divorce [4] [5] [6] . The IP eventually produced Lipscomb's own verification of the marriage in a reliably published and editorial over-sighted manner.

To the point of the dispute: Marriage is a significant non trivial aspect of a persons life that is standard for inclusion. We now have a reliably published source, by the subject herself, and so there is no valid reason not to include it.

We are not here to provide a promotional blurb reflecting (what is claimed to be) the subject's whitewashed version of history. WP:NPOV .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by

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

Suzannah Lipscomb dedicated a book to her husband. This trivium is easily verifiable and accurate. One editor, The Red Pen of Doom, wants the fact included because he believes it to be sufficiently significant. One editor, the filing party, who has no history on Wikipedia unrelated to Suzannah Lipscomb, wants the fact removed on the basis that Ms. Lipscomb now wishes to distance herself from the person to whom she unambiguously and verifiably dedicated the book.

Whatever the merits of the argument for inclusion (which I think are weak given the preference of the author), the argument for exclusion is simply not grounded in policy. This argument, grounded as it is in WP:IDONTLIKEIT not on policy or sources, has necessarily been unpersuasive and will remain so.

If Ms. Lipscomb now wishes that she had not dedicated a book to her former husband, then unfortunately she will need to avail herself of a time traveller. I can put her in touch with someone, but he's only done it once before and her safety is not guaranteed. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Suzannah Lipscomb discussion

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

Cher

– New discussion.

Filed by FraDany on 17:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• FraDany (talk · contribs)
• Boris Karloff II (talk · contribs)
• Lordelliott (talk · contribs)
• Light show (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Boris Karloff II and I proposed to replace current Cher's infobox picture with a more recent one because the current one has nothing to do with Cher's career at the moment. Lordelliot and Light show disagree with this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have discussed this extensively on Talk: Cher and on edit summary.

How do you think we can help?

I think we can try to find a consensus.

Summary of dispute by Boris Karloff II

Last year, a brief discussion of the subject ([7]) ultimately led to User:Light show placing a 1970s publicity photo (source: "Original photo from Light Show") in the lead, although far from everyone involved was completely contented. There was general consensus that we did not have a perfectly adequate picture at disposal at that moment, so the lead remained like that.

More recently, in the course of Cher's current tour, I imported a string of new photographies from Flickr, suggesting this one for the article's lead. It displays her in one of her characteristical costumes; complying with the general requirements for lead pictures. I was promptly detained from suiting the action to the word by Light show, who eagerly insists on utilizing a picture from an earlier period of her career. After briefly arguing with Light show on the talk page, User:FraDany jumped in, supporting my argument. User:Lordelliott showed his preference for the current 1970s portrait.

It must be considered that Cher had her acting breakthrough not until 1985 and her commercial peak as a musician in 1998. She is not only still active, but released her highest-charting solo album just last year and is currently touring the US; selling out arenas. Having considerably changed her public appearance multiple times throughout her career, she does not at all look like she does on the Casablanca photo anymore. In view of that, I hold that a rather recent picture is most adequate for the discussed article's lead. Besides the afore-mentioned tour photo, I suggested this image, too; although I would rather favor the first one. --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Lordelliot

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

Summary of dispute by Light show

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

Cher discussion

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

Template:Islam

– New discussion.

Filed by Peaceworld111 on 20:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Template:Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Peaceworld111 (talk · contribs)
• Wiki id2 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User Wiki id2 considers that the Ahmadiyya sect should be regarded as a non-Muslim religion/sect and therefore be removed from the Template:Islam. The Ahmadiyya sect is considered a Muslim sect world over except a few countries such as Pakistan where the Ahmadis by law are not permitted to call themselves Muslims. Essentially, Wiki id2 considers that a country and its "scholars" have some copyright over the religion of Islam and that for some reason (that I struggle to understand) their view somehow over-rides the view of the rest of the world.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tons of discussion. This discussion has cropped many different times over different pages and has been resolved various times. See for example Talk:Ahmadiyya.

How do you think we can help?

I don't think that there is much dispute in this per WP:Self-identification. The Ahmadis consider themselves to be Muslims. User Wiki id2 thinks that self-identification is a weak case.

Summary of dispute by Wiki id2

PeaceWorld111 considers the Ahmadi sect/religon to be a part of islam and therefore remain in the Template:Islam. The Ahmadiyya sect is considered a Muslim by Ahmadis. But there recognition is disputed by countries such as Pakistan (where they face discrimination) butalso countries where they do not have established population centres such as Saudi Arabia (centre of Sunni Islam) and UAE, Qatar, Egypt. While in other western countries such as UK and canada they are regarded as Muslims.

Template:Islam discussion

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

Oscar Lopez Rivera

– New discussion.

Filed by Rococo1700 on 17:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Oscar Lopez Rivera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Rococo1700 (talk · contribs)
• Mercy11 (talk · contribs)
• Jmundo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Oscar Lopez Rivera is in prison. I am trying to insert facts about his conviction, using a report from the House of Representatives citing Department of Justice documents. They initially insisted wrongly this is a primary source, and now I do not know what they claim.

I believe the article should give an inkling as to the conspiracy that the members of the FALN were convicted. That information should ultimately reflect the wording of the decision of the court of law, not only what others who disagree claim of the conviction. If you wish I can get into details: the article as it stands states that OLR was never convicted of an act of violence. First of all, that is not true. use of force to commit armed robbery is a violent crime.

But I have left that statement stand awaiting resolution by some other arbitration board. Instead, rather than make statements, I have entered information based on a US House of Representatives report that cites the sentencing reports, UPI stories on the conspiracy that served the basis of OLR's conviction. Just the facts. JMundo and Mercy11 delete this. This leads the article to read as if OLR is a nonviolent political prisoner. There are facts that contradict this, and they are not being allowed into the text.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This discussion goes on and on. Other editors have expressed similar dissatisfactions, and likely tired of the dispute. Previously there was a dispute about whether his nationality was Puerto Rican or he was a US citizen. I agreed to one resolution which avoided including either statment in the text. But here the other editors refuse to allow verifiable facts into the text. Talk page discussion does not help.

How do you think we can help?

My sense is that in controversial articles, there might be portions of the article that are restricted to certain authors, or that certain authors are restricted. For example, if this article has a section titled OLR is a political prisoner I would not be able to edit. But a section titled OLR was convicted as a violent criminal would not be open to MERCY11 and JMUNDO. If not the article becomes a battleground that individuals with an agenda can win, if they persist enough. I am not interested in making the article a screed for anything, but balance calls for the inclusion of information as to why OLR is jailed, if the other authors are going to pour in information of why others think he is a political prisoner, unjustly jailed, etc.

One obvious solution is to have an external author edit this entry. I wish that had been me, but someone had to start the process of inserting at least some of the facts, and find an irrational agenda driven focus by Mercy11, Jmundo.

I think controversy in this subject are bound to arise. I compared this article to the Mumia of Puerto Rico; and wish some of the balance found in that article would apply in this circumstance. I surmise a similar problem occurred in writing about Mumia and other politically-tinged convicts. I would like to see the same balace applied to this article.

Summary of dispute by Mercy11

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

Rococo has been pushing an American ultranationalistic POV in this BLP article with a relentless lack of interest to compromise. Rococo is trying to saturate the article with what he calls "facts" but engages in the use of WP:PRIMARY sources for his "facts". This is a WP:BLP and we follow a stricter set of rules when we edit BLP articles. He is arguing HERE that "None of the legal documents list sedition..." Again, we don't use Primary sources, he needs Secondary sources.

The infobox in THIS revision shows -with appropriate sourcing- that OLR was charged with "Seditious conspiracy,[1] weapons violations,[2] conspirancy to transport explosives[2]". However Rococo reverts that edit HERE to push his "forced robbery/violent criminal" WP:SYNTH and in his edit summary HERE accuses another editor of "using spurious logic to justify deletion of material that is appropriately sourced." Simply stated, Rococo makes no sense: accusing others (baselessly) of doing precisely what he is himself guilty of.

Now Rococo is trying to argue that OLR is not a political prisoner. Wikipedia is not the place for ADVOCACY. In Wikipedia we don't attempt to prove or disprove what a person is. Instead we report what others say the person is - and this article cites numerous reputable sources citing reputatble authorities (like Congressman Gutierrez HERE and Bishop Tutu HERE) who state he is political prisoner.

Rococo also argues that a House of Representatives report is not a Primary source. But, per WP:PRIMARY, "Primary sources are original materials that...offer an insider's view of...a political decision". An HR Report is not subject to the same level of independent editorial scrutiny that secondary sources such as published books and newspaper articles are. Such HR report does not belong in a BLP article. Rococo uses primary sources because, unlike Secondary sources, they allow him to create "novel interpretations" that work to support his personal political agenda.

Also, after a consensus buildup against his POV in the OLR article became evident, Rococo yesterday engaged in WP:Canvassing at THIS page, so that his wikibuddies would come to his support of the OLR POV. That act is more evidence that Rococo is here pushing a personal POV.

Rococo's truce proposal above (barring Mercy11 and Jmundo from editing a section on "OLR convicted as a violent criminal" in exchange for his self-imposed barring from a section on "political prisoner") shows how far he is willing to go to push his POV. In Wikipedia all editors are expected to be neutral and impartial: we don't ban any editor from editing only selected sections of an article. Each one of us is expected to follow WP:NPOV.

Finally, I am not sure why Rococo is suddenly using this DR/N to continue to push his "violent criminal" agenda. That matter was closed HERE, 14 days ago, because he was using PRIMARY sources. Typical of Rococo, he offers no secondary sources; his intent is to manipulate primary sources to accomplish his American ultranationalist agenda. Mercy11 (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jmundo

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

Oscar Lopez Rivera discussion

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

The fullest, and most important record of this entire dispute, is in a DR (dispute resolution) which Rococo1700 himself filed on April 8, 2012. The volunteer mediator gave Rococo1700 every opportunity to substantiate his failed argument. When Rococo1700 failed to do this, the discussion was Closed as stale after 12 days on April 20, 2014. Here is the archived record of the entire discussion: [8]

If you read that DR, you will see that Rococo1700’s “concerns” were completely addressed with authoritative publications, secondary sources, and direct citations. Please read the mediator Wikishagnik’s comments, and those of the closing administrators. Rococo1700 clearly had his answer; he just doesn't want to hear it.

Now on May 4, 2014, Rococo1700 has filed a “new” DR discussion, which essentially re-litigates the same issues all over again - and with the same lack of secondary sources from Rococo1700. He simply wishes to assert his version of history (without providing any secondary sources) and to override nearly every other editor who has contributed to Oscar Lopez Rivera, over a period of several years. To date, he has not addressed the following set of facts – which were fully credited by the administrators in the prior DR which he filed, and which he continues to ignore.

Facts submitted in prior DR:

Oscar Lopez Rivera was not charged with armed robbery or violence. He was charged with seditious conspiracy to overthrow the United States. The court’s decision said this, precisely and with no ambiguity. Here is the citation for this case: U.S. v. Oscar Lopez et al., No. 86 CR 513 (N.D. 111).

With respect to secondary sources, you can read this article in the Huffington Post, which states that Lopez Rivera “has already served 32 years in prison for the charge of "seditious conspiracy.” Nowhere in this article, does it state that Rivera was charged with armed robbery or personal violence. [9]

In addition, there is the book Oscar Lopez Rivera: Between Torture and Resistance, edited by Luis Nieves Falcon (Oakland, CA: PM Press, 2013). In this book, the foreword is written by Nobel Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Here is what he wrote:

“Oscar Lopez Rivera is imprisoned for the “crime” (his quotation marks) of seditious conspiracy: conspiring to free his people from the shackles of imperial justice…My Nobel Peace laureate colleagues Mairead Corrigan Maguire of Northern Ireland and Adolfo Perez Esquivel of Argentina and I expressed our deep concern about the highly irregular and tainted parole hearing that had just taken place. Testimony was permitted at that hearing regarding crimes which Lopez Rivera was never accused of committing in the first place.” See: ‘’Oscar Lopez Rivera: Between Torture and Resistance’’, p. iv.

You thus have the case itself (I provided the case citation) and two secondary sources. In one of them, a Nobel Peace Prize winner specifically refers to a "tainted parole hearing” in which Lopez Rivera was confronted with charges “regarding crimes which Lopez Rivera was never accused of committing.”

Rococo1700 continues to ignore these facts, these sources, these citations - even though they were fully credited by the DR mediator. On April 17, 2014, at 12:02, Rococo1700 made this comment on the Oscar Lopez Rivera talk page: "I need to see a consensus for your changes to be acceptable."

It is profoundly ironic for Rococvo1700 to issue this advice. If he continues ignoring other editors, ignoring facts, and ignoring the results of DRs filed by him, then at the very least...Rococo1700 should follow his own advice. The consensus of editors, and his own prior DR, have rejected his "I'm right and everyone else is a biased fool" manner of editing.

Sarason (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Angela Merkel

– New discussion.

Filed by Volunteer Marek on 18:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Angela Merkel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

The dispute concerns the inclusion of a photograph of Angela Merkel's grandfather. On right.

This image

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Help users involved work out the relevant issues, and come to a compromise solution. What makes the dispute difficult is that an inclusion of an image is essentially an "either/or" kind of situation which makes arriving at compromise difficult. You can't "include two-thirds" of the image nor can we alter the image in some way to satisfy everybody.

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 IIIraute

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

Angela Merkel discussion

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