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)	36 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 17 hours	Albertatiran (t)	1 days, 2 hours
Yasuke	Closed	Theozilla (t)	3 days, 10 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 15 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 15 hours
Patrick Treacy	Closed	Aareod (t)	2 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 17 hours
Ibn Battuta	New	Jihanysta (t)	8 hours	None	n/a	Jihanysta (t)	8 hours
Palm Springs Air Museum	New	BellamyBell (t)	7 hours	None	n/a	BellamyBell (t)	7 hours
Tesla Inc.	New	Emiya1980 (t)	3 hours	None	n/a	Emiya1980 (t)	3 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 05:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Electronic cigarette#Violation_of_consensus

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Mihaister on 22:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Electronic cigarette#Violation of consensus (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mihaister (talk · contribs) Zad68 (talk · contribs) QuackGuru (talk · contribs) KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · contribs) CheesyAppleFlake (talk · contribs) AlbinoFerret (talk · contribs) Alexbrn (talk · contribs) Jmh649 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Statements attributed to a reliable source [1] continue to be removed from the article. The group of editors arguing against the use of this source challenge its reliability per WP:MEDRS, while making exceptions for other sources [2], which are of clearly lesser quality. This creates the impression that a double-standard is being applied here, wherein statements in favor of a particular POV are being promoted based on marginal sources, while evidence against the preferred POV and based on higher quality sources is being suppressed. Have you tried to resolve this previously? An extensive discussion and apparent consensus had been reached previously [3], but the discussion has recently been re-opened using the same arguments as before following introduction of the text in the article [4] How do you think we can help? It has been suggested here that an outside opinion may help settle the matter. It does not look to me that the current impasse can be solved without external assistance. Summary of dispute by Zad68 The Dispute overview statement Statements attributed to a reliable source continue to be removed from the article starts by assuming the conclusion, and if that is to be focus of this DRN discussion--that the McNeill article must be assumed to be reliable and worthy of inclusion as the starting point--I am disinclined to participate here. I never suggested taking this to DRN because we already had a very thorough, lengthy discussion about McNeill here which in my evaluation came to no consensus to include. I suggested several times [5][6][7] that those who did feel that discussion resulted in a positive consensus to include should seek an outside, uninvolved experienced editor to review and close that discussion--the attempt to open up the discussion anew here seems like WP:FORUMSHOP. Zad68 00:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by QuackGuru "That was not a review and it was rejected."[8] The current discussion on the talk page is at Talk:Electronic cigarette#Violation of consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC) User:Mdann52, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine can determine whether the source meets WP:MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by KimDabelsteinPetersen I find it strange that an single attributed statement concerning a peer-reviewed response, in a respected journal (Addiction), from experts on the topic, to what is a grey literature report, that cites these experts, cannot be used. The source is a WP:MEDRS by all measures that apply, and the arguments against its usage seem to be either in the "i don't like it category" or non arguments such as "there is no consensus" (which works just as well in reverse: "there is no consensus against") or "it is not a review" (which is baffling since reviews aren't required per MEDRS or practice in the article). So all in all in baffled about the resistence to this source. --Kim D. Petersen 13:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by CheesyAppleFlake Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by AlbinoFerret McNiel is a critique the Grana report by some of the authors of the studies used in Grana. It reviews those statements and conclusions of Grana pointing out errors in how their work was used and the faulty conclusions reached because of this. A normal part of a review process is when something is published, articles are published pointing out the errors it makes. McNeil is WP: MEDRS, it was published in a peer reviewed journal, and reviews the conclusions Grana reached. An agreement on use was made.diff1diff2diff3 But reasons, including that it hasn't appeared by analog publishing has been used to keep it out. The review has now been printed, but the use of McNeil is still reverted. The article suffers from a negative POV and there is a lot of resistance for including anything that isn't a negative statement, but almost any marginal source can be used to make negative claims. Even going to far as to place and argue ASHRAE or the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers and allowing the American Industrial Hygiene Association to be used as citations to make negative health claims. Summary of dispute by Alexbrn I must say this filing deserves some kind of prize for non-neutral wording! Anyway, when this was raised in Talk I proposed some wording that could be used and which is close to the text that's been added/reverted. I remain unpersuaded however that inclusion would be WP:DUE; the problem is that we would be using a weaker source to contaminate a stronger one, and that goes against the grain of WP:MEDRS and of our general requirements for neutrality. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Jmh649 It is a journal club not a review article. Thus not a high quality source per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC) Talk:Electronic cigarette#Violation_of_consensus discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Hi all, I am Mdann52, a volenteer at the noticeboard, however this gives me no special standing in the dispute. Looking at the source and comments above, the main issues appear to be over the reliability of the source being used, ignoring the content of the edits at this time. May I suggest, as this dispute hinges on one source, that it is discussed over at WP:RS, where it is likely to recieve wider input from people who are generally fairly good at this? Looking at the content of the edit in question, there appears to be some question over WP:UNDUE. Reading through the article, there seems to be an overall negetive tone; Will including this really violate NPOV if the source turns out to be fine? Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 15:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Hi Mdann52 and thanks for taking a look at this dispute. Let me comment on the issue of WP:WEIGHT first. The authors of the McNeill article felt so strongly about the misuse, misrepresentation, and misinterpretation of their research that they wrote a letter to WHO to explain the evidence [9]. If this does not deserve weight, I don't know what does. Then they summarized their arguments and published this peer-reviewed secondary article addressing the same issues: the misinterpretations of their own work (and others'). As far as WP:RS, the article is a secondary source published in the top journal appropriate for the topic. The authors are respected experts and research leaders in public health. Ann McNeill, the lead author, even served on WHO advisory committees regarding tobacco topics. Since much of the current article on e-cigarettes is build on these misrepresentations of the evidence by Grana, many of which are addressed by the McNeill article, the only way to restore NPOV is to qualify all statements attributed to Grana with the corresponding critique and interpretation from McNeill et al. This is not a MEDRS issue, rather plain old common sense. Mihaister (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Mdann if you're reframing this discussion to be around whether McNeill meets WP:MEDRS and how much weight it should be given, that's appreciated. Regarding your comment Reading through the article, there seems to be an overall negetive tone; Will including this really violate NPOV if the source turns out to be fine? -- Please keep in mind that per WP:NPOV an article is required to reflect the emphasis found in the reliable sourcing. If the prevailing viewpoint found in the reliable sourcing regarding a topic is generally negative, the article must reflect that, and not undermine the sourcing or have a problem with WP:GEVAL. Before we move forward Mdann52 would you please review the discussion we already had regarding that topic here and evaluate the result? Thanks... Zad68 22:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the background reading there; That kinda of makes consensus clear, and once again, the NPOV vs neutral issue has come up. I've also done my own background reading, and consensus not to include seems to be fairly clear to me. Just beacause a source meets MEDRS (let's say) doesn't mean it should be included. Therefore, I thinks as the same arguements are being discussed here as in the previous discussions, and as my reading of consensus from the discussion is not to include it (both by numbers and arguements), I think that unless significant new arguement comes to light, then the current form should be retained. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Can you please point to me the agreement of the editors of the article not to include it. I see that some have agreed to not include it, and perhaps a few more disagree with its inclusion, but consensus inst a vote WP:CON. The only reason it isnt in the article is because of reverts and the desire to stay out of edit wars. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC) AlbinoFerret, as an outside editor and DRN volunteer, Mdann evaluated the previous discussion and closed it as "no consensus to include". If you really believe that the only reason McNeill isn't in the article right now is "because of reverts" (and by that you appear to mean you still believe positive consensus exists to include it but nobody's reverted it back in yet), that's a problem. But, do what you will at this point. Zad68 13:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Enough editors believe that it should be included that the opinion to exclude is not broad and the reasons for exclusion seem to be shifted each time the goalposts are reached. If anything, that Grana relies on the work of the authors of McNeil to come to conclusions should give it enough weight for McNeil to be included as rebuttal to how their work was used. Only one editor at the time that reasoning was made disagreed with it, and only adding it should be the final published version. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC) You must be talking about Alexbrn, who commented already in this DRN discussion about exactly this item you're describing? If you're talking about individual editors and action, it'd be helpful if you'd specify. The actual editing history does not agree with your assessment. Again, at this point, do what you will. Zad68 13:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC) @Mdann52: Thank you again for taking a look at this discussion and providing your input. I would like to point out that, whereas the previous discussion did not appear to converge on a "consensus to include" the McNeill source, there was substantive and well-argued dissenting opinion challenging the view that statements by WHO carry so much weight that they are de facto beyond contest. As I wrote in that older discussion [10], I think the weight of McNeill cannot be evaluated separately as a one-to-one standoff against WHO, but, rather, has to be considered in the context of all the existing evidence in the field as informed by other MEDRS publications, some of which contain language that is very similar to McNeill. For example, this study states "The existing literature tends to overestimate the exposures and exaggerate their implications. This is partially due to rhetoric [...] There is also clear bias in previous reports in favor of isolated instances of highest level of chemicals detected" and this study states "EC [e-cigarette] reduces cigarette use by facilitating smoking reduction and cessation on individual level" both of which add to the weight of the arguments made by McNeill. I don't think that it is good encyclopedic practice to uncritically default to the opinion of recognized organizations and overlook a growing body of evidence that is contrary to that opinion. Editors cannot summarize such evidence in the article, as it would constitute WP:SYN, however I don't think the weight of this evidence can be summarily dismissed when considering whether McNeill is WP:DUE. We're not talking fringe views here, but rather views held by a significant proportion of the reliable sources in scientific literature. Mihaister (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC) @Zad68: any views on this point? --Mdann52talk to me! 14:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Mdann52, sure. As discussed above, the scope of this DRN discussion is around whether McNeill meets WP:MEDRS and how much weight it should be given. Per your review of the previous discussion there was no consensus to include McNeill. Mihaister agreed with you that there was no consensus to include McNeill. I agree as well. I believe that this concludes this DRN discussion as resolved. Discussion regarding the use of other sources like those from the WHO, Burstyn and Hajek have happened elsewhere, and in fact all three of those sources--the WHO, Burstyn, and Hajek--are used in the article already, but their use wasn't the subject of this DRN discussion. Zad68 15:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:2014 Russian Grand Prix

– New discussion.

Filed by Prisonermonkeys on 08:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:2014 Russian Grand Prix (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs)
• Haken arizona (talk · contribs)
• Jirka.h23 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue concerns the inclusion of crowd attendance figures for the race. Haken arizona believes that the attendance figures should be included. I, on the other hand, have objected on the grounds that the sources he has provided have been flawed - they variously fail WP:SPS, WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABLE, have proven to be imprecise and contradictory, especially for a piece of information that is ultimately of little to no importance in the article. Despite repeated attempts to point this out, Haken arizona has refused to find alternate sources. The article has recently been locked following an edit war, but the moment the lock was lifted, Haken arizona immediately started editing his preferred content into the article, and the debate on the talk page has started getting personal.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried explaining what makes a source useable and what a better source would look like. I have demonstrated this to other users, who I think have been persuaded by my argument.

How do you think we can help?

Demonstrate the importance of SPS, RS, VERIFIABLE and the need for accuracy to Haken arizona. Also establish the notability of individual pieces of information to the article, and highlight the need for precision in sources and articles and show why close enough is not good enough.

Summary of dispute by Haken arizona

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

Tass Russia is recognized news agency. It is their event and they will have the correct data on event's success. They report 65,000 spectators attended the event, indicating fully sold out event. This is important to add to the page. It indicates how successful was the event. It improves the quality of encyclopedia, in future people will be able to see if the event did good or did it flop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talk • contribs) 16:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jirka.h23

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

Talk:2014 Russian Grand Prix discussion

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

A list of the sources used, and the problems with them:

• The first, from ABC.net.au referred to crowd figures on the Saturday of the event. However, the field in the infobox specifically refers to the attendance on the Sunday.
• The second and third sources, from CNN and a Russian news service, gave the crowd figures as 55,000 and 65,000.
  • The CNN article also referred to "near to capacity", but gave no indication of how near to capacity "near capacity" is.
• The latest source, introduced today, is one I have never heard of. I'm a long-time editor of Formula 1 articles, and I have never seen it used, and I cannot verify it.

I have repeatedly explained both these problems and how to overcome them on the article talk page, but to no avail. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Tass Russia is recognized news agency. It is their event and they will have the correct data on event's success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talk • contribs) 16:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor's note.First a technical announcement. Prisonermonkeys has been blocked from editing for 72 hours for edit-warring on this subject. Haken arizona has been blocked for the same offense as well for 48 hours. So neither of them is going to be able to contribute to this discussion within the next 48 hours. Prisonermonkeys will not be able to contribute for another 24 hours after that.

On the matter, In my humble opinion I think it would be helpful if we had the links to the various sources that have been used to justify the information here, so that one can explore them and compare them. I must admit that, having thought about it long and hard now, I too think that PM's concerns regarding some of the sources seem to be justified. Tvx1 (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here (and the current Coordinator), I am neither "taking" this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but wanted to make some administrative comments. I've taken the liberty of adding Tvx1 as a party and moving his initial comments to a summary section, above, to clarify that he's not here as a DRN volunteer. As of this writing two editors are still blocked. If they resume editing after their blocks expire, this case will be ready for a volunteer to open it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@TransporterMan; Drop in comment from Interwiki Wikiprojects. The two editors share the principle among many Grand Prix followers of not backing down one inch in disputes. If the two editors agree to suspend edit dispute on the article page and agree to follow Dispute Resolution process here then I have read both the German version and the Russian version of the page and might be able to moderate. @TransporterMan, It may be worth your posting a note to the two editors that they have opened a Dispute section here and that normally they are assumed to await the results of the resolution process before making further edits on the article itself. FelixRosch (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor's note. Rather than someone needing to sift through yards of article and talk page drama, a Volunteer could perhaps resolve this by visiting this latest version of the article and deciding whether this updated info about attendance in the intro is encyclopedic, and whether its two references actually support it. Moriori (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

After reviewing the edit, I personally feel that the information is encyclopedic and that it is properly supported by the reference. (TASS is a major Russian news agency, so I think it would be safe to say that it's a reliable source.) --Biblioworm 00:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

As I have outlined on my talk page, the attendance figures should not be included in the article lead. They were never an issue during the race weekend, and including them in the lead overstates their importance. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Quite. While I have no problem with the figures being the article providing people are satisfied as to their reliability, they certainly do not belong in the lead paragraph. Infobox and/or article text, background info or somesuch. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I still have reservations about the TASS source. It says "over 65,000", and while it might be reliable, it's way too vague for my liking. Everything else is accurately recorded; we say that Hamilton's pole time was 1:38.513, not 1:38.5 and just round it off. So when the TASS source says "over 65,000", how far over 65,000 are we talking about? And it's contradicted by the CNN source, which says a "near capacity crowd of 55,000". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You make some good points, @Prisonermonkeys. I'd say that CNN and TASS can both be trusted, but if trusted sources conflict, it's a little difficult to figure out which one to trust. We could always say something along the lines of "Attendance estimates range from 55,000 to over 65,000 people", but that is probably a bit too vague to be helpful. --Biblioworm 21:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That is probably too vague, @Biblioworm. We have always aimed for precision in the articles, and giving a range of 15,000 is far too broad for inclusion. Attendance data might be nice if it is available, but it is not so important that we can or should forget our standards in order to include it. If it is worth including, it is worth being precise about. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If two reliable sources conflict, then it's very difficult to say which one is correct. I'd be a bit more inclined to trust TASS over CNN, because TASS is native to the nation of the race and probably provided more detailed coverage. Because of the contradiction within sources, however, I'm beginning to lean towards omitting the attendance figures from the article. I'd would like to hear more from @Haken arizona concerning these contradictions, though. --Biblioworm 02:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Attendance figures are also being inconsistently applied—the 2014 United States Grand Prix article says over 230,000 people attended, but as the venue cannot hold that many people, it's evidently the sum across the three days. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: Drop-in comment from InterWiki Wikiprojects. As a neutral comment from both the Russian version and the German version of this page, neither one mentions the attendance stats as relevant to those language versions of this article. It also appears that only one of the dispute editors is participating here even though both have edit rights restored. If both editors agree to continue the discussion then both need to be heard from soon. @Haken Arizona needs to participate for this discussion to re-commence. If @TransporterMan could ping both editors to see if they wish to continue the resolution process then that's fine. Otherwise, no response in 24hrs from both of the disputing editors seems to indicate this matter is no longer being pursued and it is a candidate for being closed as stale. FelixRosch (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch: I'm here and I want to participate further, but I feel that there is little more that I can contribute without further input from @Haken arizona. If he does not, we could possibly resolve the dispute by removing the attendance data on the grounds that the TASS source is a) vague and b) possibly contradicted by the CNN source, and that attendance data is being inconsistently applied both across English-language articles and across multiple Wikis. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys; Since I am neutral on this question at this time, I can confirm my comment from earlier today. There is no reason that you could not contact @TransporterMan and ask him for his view and possibly for him to ping @Haken arizona. If there is no response in 24hrs from @Haken then this matter could be assessed as stale and it could be closed by @TransporterMan. If @Haken wishes to continue then he can reply here, and I have read both the Russian version and the German version of this page and can still offer a neutral assessment. FelixRosch TALK 21:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I just messaged @Haken arizona on his talk page and asked him to participate here. @FelixRosch: While I do think that we should close this as stale if Haken does not reply, I don't 24 hours is enough time. Perhaps we should wait until the end of the weekend? --Biblioworm 22:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Biblioworm; Yes, the end of the week-end or Monday morning sounds about right. If @Haken arizona wishes to continue he may reply, otherwise you are justified to assess the matter as stale and you can close it on the time frame you indicate. FelixRosch TALK 22:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Khorasan (Islamist_group)#Sourced_information_being_removed_from_article

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 67.188.230.128 on 21:29, 3 November 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 Talk:Khorasan (Islamist group)#Sourced information being removed from article (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved LightandDark2000 (talk · contribs) David O. Johnson (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A couple of users have been repeatedly removing reliably sourced content from the article, apparently for ideological reasons (they disagree with the source). The disputed content concerns criticisms against the use of the term "Khorasan Group" in media. The mentioned users wish to remove these criticisms from the article. I believe these criticisms represent a significant minority viewpoint and should be included. The disputed content approximately corresponds to this diff. Have you tried to resolve this previously? This material (among other things) was initially discussed here, where discussion concluded around October 10th. At that point the disputed content was present in the article. The content was removed on October 20th as part of a series of changes, primarily [11], [12], and [13]. In response, I created a new talk page section here on October 24. How do you think we can help? This has become a sort of slow-moving edit war. Please advise on the best course of action to move forward with this dispute. Summary of dispute by LightandDark2000 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by David O. Johnson Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The person who opened the dispute resolution insists on adding information that is contradicted by other sources. Specifically, he continues to use this source [14], that questions whether the group as "even exists in any meaningful or identifiable manner." However, this is contradicted by a fighter from the Al Nusra Front [15]. Furthermore, info in the same section of the article contradicts the disputed claim by stating that the group is "a network-within-the-network, assigned to deal with specific tasks" [16]. To say that the group never existed is clearly untrue. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Talk:Khorasan (Islamist_group)#Sourced_information_being_removed_from_article discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer's note: I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN (and the current Coordinator), but I'm not either "taking" this filing or opening it for discussion at this time. Some clarification is needed, however: I'm not sure if the dispute here is over (a) the repeated removal of sourced material, which is a conduct issue not within the purview of this noticeboard, or (b) particular material which has been removed and which is in dispute, which is a content issue and acceptable here. Would the filing editor please clarify that issue in the "Dispute Overview" section above, and if it is (b) also clarify (1) whether the material being discussed in the "Sourced information being removed from article" section is or is not the same material being discussed in the "questions about right hand talk" section and (2) provide diffs to whatever particular material is in dispute. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC) @TransporterMan: The purpose of this posting is to get assistance resolving the content dispute itself, not any issues of editorial conduct. I have added a diff of the core disputed content, as well as a more detailed description of the dispute. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC) We're waiting to see if LightandDark2000 is going to participate. Since he was a primary participant in the discussion, there's no point in going forward if he chooses not to do so. (As is his prerogative; participation in dispute resolution is never mandatory.) If he doesn't join in a couple of days, this listing will probably be closed as futile. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC) It seems like he/she is unwilling to participate based on this edit on his/her talk page (removing the DRN notification with the edit summary "This is pointless. It really isn't going to get anywhere."). What is the next step to resolve the dispute in this case? 67.188.230.128 (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Eric Diesel#Wikipedia:Third_opinion

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Lampuser on 10:39, 4 November 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 Talk:Eric Diesel#Wikipedia:Third opinion (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Lampuser (talk · contribs) FloraWilde (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Most of the sources in the Eric Diesel article appear to be unreliable. Any attempts to edit the article are undone user FloraWilde/50.247.76.51, who also deletes sourced additions. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I got a third opinion, who agreed with me. I tried to put this on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but it was not answered and eventually disappeared. How do you think we can help? I would like to clean up this article but I can't without getting in an edit war and I don't know what to do. Summary of dispute by FloraWilde NUTSHELL SUMMARY Lampuser is a SPA account canvassing here again pushing a POV for support of his wikilawyering that "According to Wikipedia's rules, almost everything in the Article should immediately be removed".[17]to delete I added the source Lampuser asked for.[18] Lampuser objects to all RS sources whose content he does not like or cannot access because it is pay-to-view or hard copy publiication, including USA Today, San Jose Mercury News, Santa Cruz Metro, etc. Lampuser keeps deleting these with an edit summary that they were "unverifiable".[19]. When I restored them, Lampuser canvassed here, complaining I am undoing his edits. Lampuser is an admitted WP:COI and WP:SPA editor trying to delete all sources from the article except for two that he POV cherry-picks from. Lampuser writes "The only real sources on this page seem to be the SFGate and SF Weekly articles.". Lampuser then concocted a preposterous wikilawyer argument that "According to Wikipedia's rules, almost everything in the Article should immediately be removed".[20] He used this to delete these sources again.[21] This went on and on. It turned out (today) that Lampuser never even bothered to read the article body, or look at the sources in it. The only "dispute" is about Lampuser's SPA and COI behavior. The way to deal with the behavior is that this DRN should be ignored, like editors did with the previous ones Lampuser brought up. Responding will only encourage more disruptive conduct by SPA COI Lampuser, by giving him attention. FloraWilde (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC) End NUTSHELL SUMMARY SUMMARY OF "DISPUTE" (with diffs) - This was my only addition of content to the article, and I reverted it, trying to accommodate Lampuser with WP:AGF. All of the rest of my edits on the article were moving references around in AGF deference to Lampuser's talk page complaints, or removing references because of Lampuser's objections. On the talk page and in edit summaries, editor Lampuser admits his only purpose for editing at Wikipedia is as a WP:SPA account editing because "almost everything in the Article should immediately be removed", arguing that USA Today, San Jose Mercury News, Santa Cruz Metro are "not verifiable" (edit summary) and not "real" (talk page) RS sources, but instead have content that was "fabricated" by the news reporters, and that "the only real sources on this page seem to be the SFGate and SF Weekly articles". 1. Lampuser wrote, "The only real sources on this page seem to be the SFGate and SF Weekly articles."[22] 2. Lampuser objects to the other RS sources whose content he does not like, including USA Today, San Jose Mercury News, Santa Cruz Metro, etc., deleting them by calling them "unverifiable" in edit summaries[23]. 3. Writing as an IP, then (wp:sp) commenting as a named editor agreeing with himself as an IP, Lampuser wrote that the content of USA Today, San Jose Mercury News, Santa Cruz Metro, etc., is a "fabrication", as the justification for repeatedly deleting them - "Everything about Eric Diesel here is completely fabricated", citing the same two sources as the only "real" sources.[24] 4. Having failed to delete USA Today, San Jose Mercury News, Santa Cruz Metro, etc. on grounds they are not RS or V, when they clearly are, Lampuser then tried to delete these sources with a preposterous (and disruoptive) wp:wikilawyering arguent. He argued that "by the rules", if a single editor (himself) objects to any source such as USA Today, San Jose Mercury News, Santa Cruz Metro, etc., they thereby become "contentious", and should therefore be "immediately" deleted, - "According to Wikipedia's rules, almost everything in the Article should immediately be removed".[25] This is wp:wikilawyering at its very worst. 5. Using this wikilawyering argument, he deleted the same sources again, this time with no edit summary at all, and without responding to the talk page discussion that his wikilawyering argument to delete the entire article was nonsense and disruptive.[26]. 6. Lampuser then tried another angle to delete these sources, by objecting to the entire Wikipedia policy of having inline sources at the end of sentences, in this case the lead first sentence, calling it confusing "clustering".[27] These "clustered" references at the and of the lead first sentence, are the same sources that Lampuser tried to delete as just cited with the above diffs. If this is not enough to establish what is going on here, I supply more details below this nutshell. I have bent over backwards trying to WP:AGF accommodate Lampuser (see details below), spending volumes of time responding to inane talk page discussions, and responding to Lam;puser's disruptive wikilawyering. The above diffs, plus this contribution history, clearly establish that Lampuser is a disruptive WP:SPA and WP:COI editor with a POV that is inappropriate at Wikipedia. I hope other editors will agree. FloraWilde (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC) END of SUMMARY FloraWilde (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Additional comment on the new talk page "source question" by Lampuser - Lampuser’s most recent talk page “question” indicates he has not yet even bothered to read the content of article body, or looked at what sources are already in the article body.[28] This is despite his filling an entire talk page with “objections”. This DRN should be ignored - doing otherwise will only encourage more of the same disruptive wasting of the time of editors like me, who naively continue to AGF and respond. Given that Lampuser has edited with two user accounts and multiple wildly varying IPs, a ban would be useless. Ignoring him is the best recourse. If the above is not dispositive, then read on. FloraWilde (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Specific responses to Lampuser's statements above: Lampuser supplied no diffs. I will supply the relevant diffs then reply in detail. This expands on the nutshell description above. Re "Most of the sources in the Eric Diesel article appear to be unreliable" - Lampuser states, "The only real sources on this page seem to be the SFGate and SF Weekly articles." Editing as an IP, Lampuser falsely states "everything about Eric Diesel here is completely fabricated", citing the same two sources as the only "real" sources. Ignoring the discussion on the talk page, Lampuser then deleted all other sources, starting with USA Today, San Jose Mercury News, Santa Cruz Metro, etc. Lampuser deleted all of these sources (and deleted the entire lead first paragraph they supported, replacing the content with WP:NPOV violating, WP:BLP violating, WP:SPA, WP:COI violating, WP:UNDUE content, to push a strange pov entirely inconsistent with the article body). USA Today, San Jose Mercury News, etc., are "real", are not "fabircations", and Lampuser knows this. Lampuser is disruptively wasting the time of editors. When the RS sources and content was restored, Lampuser deleted these sources and the content again, this time without any edit summary, again ignoring discussions at talk. Yet Lampuser starts this DRN section saying the opposite - "Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already". Lampuser then started a disruptive edit war repeatedly deleting these sources. Re: "I would like to clean up this article but I can't without getting in an edit war". What Lampuser means by "clean up" is to delete all of the RS sources, except for the two he wants to cherry-pick from to push a misleading POV that is entirely inconsistent with the rest of the article. As cited, this "cleaning up", then this "clening up", were followed by an edit war with the same kinds of "clean ups". Deleting reliable sources and the content they support is not "cleaning up" the article. It is disruptive editing. It has no place at Wikipedia. Re "Any attempts to edit the article are undone user FloraWilde/50.247.76.51, who also deletes sourced additions" This is false. Lampuser knows it is false. I added (not deleted) the only source Lampuser claimed was "real".[29] Lampuser knows what he said is false , because we explicitly discussed it at the talk page, with my edit summary comment being "source added".[30] Knowingly making false statements at a DNR is a disruptive waste of the time of the editors responding to it. If what Lampuser means by "attempt to edit the article" means his deletions of RS and long standing, then Lampuser's "attempts to edit" are in reality attempts to disrupt wikipedia, by removing RS and content the RS supports. Re "third opinion agreed with me". This is false. Using an IP so I would not know about a DRN discussion (a wp:sp violation), and without notifying me, Lampuser got a third The third opinion on a section (having nothing to do with Lampuser's current complaints) that I was editing, that was in construction with a construction hat on the section. Without my knowing of or participating in the DRN discussion, the third opinion (correctly) found that I had made edits in that section without putting inline citations (because it was in construction). In exasperation, I undid my edits and reverted the entire section back to the a very old stable version by an admin (which also did not have inline citations), then I added inline citations to that older version. This was fully discussed at talk. Lampuser then did a complete reversal, and started new talk page section making the opposite complaint to his complaint about the lack of inline citations in that section. Lampuser went from complaining about the lack of inline citations in the section under construction, to complaining that there were inline citations at the end of the lead first sentence (citations for the same sources Lampuser previously tried to delete, as just discussed above - USA Today, San Jose Mercury, etc. Lampuser then wrote,“The clustering of sources in this article makes it impossible to verify which information is coming from which source… I'm talking about this type of thing – ‘Eric John Diesel (b. 12-19-1957) is an American mathematician, real estate developer, producer, and social activist.’[1][2][3][4][5][6]" That is not how sourcing is supposed to work. It's (probably deliberately) confusing to the point of being useless.”[31] Lampuser then adds to on this page that “Most of the sources in the Eric Diesel article appear to be unreliable”. Lampuser then comes here to this DNR, again failing to notify me of the discussion until being told to do so by the volunteer, and ambiguously mislead that a third opinion "agreed with him" as to the issues of this new DRN, to delete the RS citations at the end of the lead first sentence, when in fact the "agreement" was the opposite. This intentional abuse of the DRN process with ambiguities is disruptive WP:Wikilawyering at its worst, and the wp:spa and wp:coi Lampuser should not be encouraged by being given still more attention. There are many more examples of Lampuser making such disruptive edits, but I am already far over the 2000 character limit for my response. The diffs above should be more than adequate for other editors to see what is really going on here - Lampuser is a very disruptive WP:COI and WP:SPA account who wastes the time of other editors by frivolously deleting content and RS sources, then complains that when an editor restores the sources and content, it is “edit warring”. Lampuser overtly stated his purpose in editing is to disruptively edit and reduce the article to two sources and two sentences. Lampuser is not editing to improve wikipedia, but is a wp:spa editor with a wp:coi who is pushing blp violating pov deletions of content to harm wikipedia. I hope other editors will agree. FloraWilde (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC) Note: Lampuser also made repeated WP:Privacy violations, including on this page. I deleted them. The first time Lampuser made wp:privacy violations, I made the error of responding, by citing proof that his allegations were false, thereby revealing the location of myself and another living person. Each time Lampuser's wp:privacy violations were deleted, he complained about the deletion, trying to provoke another response. Lampuser made the same wp:privacy violations on this page, trying to trigger a response like as he got from the other pages. As wp:privacy says, these WP:Privacy violations should not be responded to in any way, and lampuser should be permanently banned. The first time, I had not carefully read that WP:OUT says, "Do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason." I made the mistake of disproving the incorrect outing attempt by disproving it, citing information about locations of living persons that was available on the web, exactly what wp:out says not to do. This revealed locations of me and another living person to Lampuser. But WP:OUT does not say how to report privacy violations, who to report them to, only that they should not be responded to. Lampuser should have been banned after the first and second such wp:privacy violation. Instead, Lampuser got away with private information on locations of two living persons because I disproved his assertion on identity. Lampuser then tried the same thing again on this DRN page. Please do not respond, even if he again complains that his violations were deleted. Lampuser should have been banned after his first wp:privacy violation, instead of being allowed to repeat the same violations on other pages, which allowed him to continue disruptively wasting time of editors with inane canvassing like this section he created. FloraWilde (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC) Talk:Eric Diesel#Wikipedia:Third_opinion discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Just a reminder: It is the requesting party's obligation to make certain that all parties who have taken part in the talk page discussion are listed as parties, above, and are immediately notified of this filing. The notice must be placed on each party's user talk page and must include a link to this section. The easiest way to do that is add {{subst:drn-notice|Eric Diesel} - ~~~~ on their user talk page. If the other parties have not been notified within a few days — usually 3-5 — after this case has been filed it will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) I've made an appeal on the DRN talk page for a volunteer. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC) @FloraWilde: I would advise you cut down your statement; This will likely attract volunteer attention quicker. --Mdann52talk to me! 09:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC) This appears to be a conduct dispute to me. However, I will leave this open for another volunteer to review. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:16, 7 November 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.

Asian American

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by RightCowLeftCoast on 19:31, 6 November 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 Asian American (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs) 115ash (talk · contribs) Wtmitchell (talk · contribs) Palmeira (talk · contribs) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) Tlqkfshadk12345anjtlqkf (talk · contribs) Dispute overview An editor has since October 2014, attempted to make bold changes to the lead section and infobox of the article Asian Americans, without first achieving consensus/support for these changes. This has lead to an editing conflict involving multiple editors, including one potential single purpose editor. A consensus for the current state of the lead section and infobox was created with a large number of participants in 2012. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have repeatedly asked the editor in question to stop repeatedly re-adding the bold changes to the sections in question, as cataloged by Wtmitchell on 115ash's talk page, and have requested other previously involved editors to comment and edit the article, asking them in an appropriate manner per WP:CANVASS. How do you think we can help? Have 115ash stop editing the lead and infobox sections of the article, and reach a consensus for changes to the article, if any, prior to making additional edits. Summary of dispute by 115ash Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Wtmitchell Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I'll keep it brief by not recapping my involvement here step by step. See this and this for details. On 4 Nov, User RightCowlLeftCoast contaccted me here requesting assistance regarding what he described as "a potentially disruptive editor at the article Asian American". I reviewed edit histories and concluded that this appeared to be tendentious editing by user 115ash. As an admin, I could have blocked user 115ash to "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms" (see WP:BLOCKDETERRENT), but I decided not to do that because user 115ash had a substantial edit count (accumulated quickly in a short editing history), no prior blocks, and no obvious indication of past disruptive editing. Instead, I summarized the situation here in a section which had earlier been added to the talk page of user 115ash by user RightCowLeftCoast, reiterated an earlier request there by user RightCowLeftCoast that user 115ash build a consensus for his desired changes by discussion on the article talk pagee, and asked both editors involved to review Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Characteristics of problem editors. On 5 Nov, User RightCowlLeftCoast contacted me here, saying essentially that user 115ash had continued his disruptive behavior and asking me to re-involve myself. I still was still not moved to block user 115ash and, as dispute resolution counseling is not something I do well, I suggested that user RightCowlLeftCoast seek assistance elsewhere. Later, I saw that user TheRedPenOfDoom had added his voice to mine and others in the talk page of user 115ash urging him to discuss his desired changes on the article talk page, along with a good brief explanation of why. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Palmeira Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. A look at the page's history supports my only involvement: "Bingo!" in response to a suggestion Wikipedia:Tendentious editing—Characteristics of problem editors should be considered while gazing in a mirror. There seems some ethnic driven "passion/special pleading" going on there that is gone into disruption. The argument that previous consensus distributed featured photos by percent ethnicity in the U.S. Census report seems a sound basis to have some factual hook other than a simple "pack it with my favorites" basis. Perhaps a lock on the page at the consensus stage until this can be resolved. Other than that I am not an expert on the subject, have no particular interest in the page—certainly nearly none in Wiki disputes—and can only say that when "encyclopedia" gets away from fairly solid fact into opinion and culture this is going to happen. Palmeira (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by TheRedPenOfDoom A couple of years ago a good number of editors participated in an extensive process to come up with a consensus on the images in the info box. A prime basis for the process was to apply NPOV/UNDUE by having the info box content reflect the subject of the article - Asian Americans - by representing the major ethnicities that make up the Asian American population as per demographic figures. Recently 115ash came in and made changes to the photos (which is fine, BOLD and everything and they likely didnt know about the process that had been used to reach consensus.) However, even when reverted multiple times by multiple editors and told about the consensus that had been established, 115ash continued to insert their selection of images. Their participation on the talk page after being reverted and notified about the existing consensus, has been minimal 1 line sentences and then a revert to their preferred version without any indication at all that a new consensus for their version has come into place. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Tlqkfshadk12345anjtlqkf Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Asian American discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Just a reminder: It is the requesting party's obligation to make certain that all parties who have taken part in the talk page discussion are listed as parties, above, and are immediately notified of this filing. The notice must be placed on each party's user talk page and must include a link to this section. The easiest way to do that is add {{subst:drn-notice|Asian American} - ~~~~ on their user talk page. If the other parties have not been notified within a few days — usually 3-5 — after this case has been filed it will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC) I have, I can, here are the diffs: talk page, 115ash, Wtmitchell, Palmeira, TheRedPenOfDoom, Tlqkfshadk12345anjtlqkf.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC) Thank you, but unless someone can point me to a place that 115ash has discussed this more than his three edits on the article talk page so far, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to close this request for lack of "extensive" discussion about the issue in dispute, which is required as a prerequisite to filing a case here (and also at 3O and MEDCOM). I recognize that it's that very lack of discussion that's the primary problem here, but continuing to edit in the face of talk page objections is a conduct matter, not a content matter, and we don't handle conduct matters here at DRN. I fully agree with the idea that, since the article was in a stable state (at least in this regard) for several months, that changes must gain a consensus if other editors object to them, as they have. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

India Against Corruption

– New discussion.

Filed by SimplonSimon on 08:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• India Against Corruption (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SimplonSimon (talk · contribs)
• Vigyani (talk · contribs)
• BullRangifer (talk · contribs)
• NeilN (talk · contribs)
• Johnuniq (talk · contribs)
• Grayfell (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am giving good article sources by edits. Many people are removing them and not replying to my talk questions I put to them. When I go to article talk page it say VIEW SOURCE. I have already viewed all my sources, they are all OK and from high quality India newspapers only. My issue nobody is talking to me about my edit but only shouting me on my talkpage. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vigyani&diff=prev&oldid=632920270 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BullRangifer&diff=prev&oldid=632922091 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NeilN&diff=prev&oldid=632927160 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnuniq&diff=prev&oldid=632927452 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnuniq&diff=prev&oldid=632927627

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I leave message on the other person talk page. but they do not reply. each time only some new person is removing my edits. My issue nobody is talking to me about my edit but only shouting me on my talkpage. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vigyani&diff=prev&oldid=632920270 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BullRangifer&diff=prev&oldid=632922091 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NeilN&diff=prev&oldid=632927160

How do you think we can help?

I want you to check my contributions for correctness and source is good or not.

Summary of dispute by Vigyani

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

Summary of dispute by BullRangifer

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

Summary of dispute by NeilN

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

Summary of dispute by Johnuniq

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

Summary of dispute by Grayfell

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

Summary of dispute by

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

User talk:SimplonSimon discussion

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

• Filer blocked by Salvio giuliano as a sock/meat. - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Aye, just one more sock/meat. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This is still a content dispute process - where policy does not oblige the complainant to participate further. Its a serious content dispute because a leading Indian newspaper has published a retraction of its previous report which the complainant had inserted, fully cited, viz.

"On 27 March 2014, the English national daily The Hindu clarified a previous report of 01 March 2014 upon rejoinder to say "Anna Hazare was never a part of it (IAC) ... and referring to Anna Hazare in the context of India Against Corruption is misleading"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.200.78 (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Note The above IP account has been blocked for 6 months as a proxy. KJ ^Discuss? 13:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This case was discussed at Wikimedia India Editors forum, and see here. Editors are being harassed off-wiki, and editors from non-English (Indic) language projects are involved. Juhimukherjee (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)