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:GamerGate ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Retartist ( talk · contribs)
• PseudoSomething ( talk · contribs)
• Masem ( talk · contribs)
• Ryulong ( talk · contribs)
• NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk · contribs)
• TheRedPenOfDoom ( talk · contribs)
• Diego Moya ( talk · contribs)
• Kaldari ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The central issue in this dispute revolves around WP:BLP, and WP:RS when one side of a dispute (The media) is attacking the other side; who is claiming that the media is corrupt. One side of the issue (the media and some notable people) are claiming that the WHOLE issue is mysogony and harassment while the other is claiming that this is about journalism ethics. On the talk page several users are insisting that little to no mention of ethics should be included and that per the sources the whole thing should be about mysogony and sexual harassment etc. The other side is claiming that, while harassment has happened; the issue is about the reliability and COI of the sources used. The talk page is littered with threads discussing the issue with SOME editors becoming very uncivil (claims of mysogony on the part of editors) when neutrality is brought up.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have discussed the issue on the talk page and then attempted to start a RFC (which was quickly shut down before any non-involved editor could comment)

How do you think we can help?

Bringing the discussion to a board to make sure people keep a level head, preventing the talk page from being clogged up and also preventing users from dis-engaging from the discussion because they disagree

I think the big problem with this article is the common voice vs the media. It is a very weird problem, where there is no head of the GamerGate movement, but we can see the targets of the 'Media corruption' writing articles that label this as Misogyny. Sadly, some of the articles used are biased (which isn't a bad thing), but some of them also have authors who have thrown extreme insults at the Pro-GG side (The Time Author), or have funded someone in the middle of the controversy (The New Yorker Author), and a few other problematic articles. While the Pro-GG side also will have biased articles, there are plenty of sources(Forbes, Slate, and many other sites) that I and others have rounded up and presented that fully show what caused the movement, what the movement is looking for (or at least the main points, since there is no head of the movement), and what has happened. We also have tangible results, such as ethics policy changes with Defy Media (The Escapist Magazine Owners), Destructoid, and Kotaku, as well as TFYC (a game jam for women) getting fully funded, while many of the anti_GG articles focus on the narrative of one person, many times over. Yet, all of these sources are being ignored, as you can tell.

While many sources presented show the movement is about Journalism ethics and other things, many people on the talk page still push the Misogyny side. By this I mean people saying "We are playing right into their narrative", people who are passionate and say things like "The massive quantity of libel and rage that this movement has generated. GamerGate got a few minor sites to try pacify them, and screwed up a whole lot of women's lives for absolutely no reason. That's the effect of your movement", and others just telling anyone trying to present evidence and articles for the Pro-GG side to "Shut Up". I honestly believe that the article currently is portraying wrong information over GamerGate, and it will be an issue that will persist because of the amount of people pushing the 'Hatred of Women' position. I honestly don't know a good remedy, since the sources have been brought and nothing has changed. PseudoSomething ( talk) 00:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I need to add onto this after a few days of mainly watching. There has been a major movement of people who are clearly Anti-GG who are doing whatever they can to stop changes that may be positive to GG that come from RS'es. Many RS'es are being ignored on the claim of 'Whitewashing' the article, while these sources come from sites like Forbes. Those people have also been doing everything they can to revert any change that they do not like (not because it does not fit), as to tailor the article to their side. While Titanium Dragon has been topic banned, his post shows exactly the people who are doing it. This is causing the article to become stagnant, even with new RS'es being found. To also add onto that, WP:CONTROVERSY relates to this article, and it does not follow "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant." PseudoSomething ( talk) 20:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not an issue WP can deal with. When you have one side (the proGG side) that is fragmented without a clear voice, and where a few have opted to harass and attack other people, no reputable media is going to find sympathy in that. As such, all reliably-sourced articles on GamerGate (such as the New Yorker, the Washington Post, the Telegraph) all have to start that GG arose from what appears to be a misogyny-driven attack on specific game devs. That said, several also try to get into the more rational side of the proGG side, explaining their position of wanting journalistic integrity and other reasonable points of discussion. So the article should (and does, presently) go into the idea about these other reasons, that they've been boiling in the game fandom for years, and with the combination of the attacks on the game devs and the media response, is trying to be pushed out with a louder voice. The media just have not fully seen that voice, again due to the fractured nature of the proGG aspect and the fact that there are still people harassing the various targets of this. We can cover it, we cannot take the position that GG is 100% about misogynist harassment, but we also cannot hide that fact or bury it in the weaker claims about the other facets the proGG side want to cover. I beliee the article in its present lock-downed position attempts to make this argument properly without trying to skew what actually happen, irregardless how ugly it was. -- MASEM ( t) 06:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

To add one bit here: there's two core aspects of what GG is about: the misogyny of a portion of the gaming community that turned to harassment (few question this), and the questions of journalism ethics based on the initial accusation that Quinn had a relationship with a journalist as to gain positive reviews. What the problem that we have is whether that question of journalism ethics started in earnest before the massive media attention on the subject, or as a result. Not to say that the supposed logs that Quinn has are true or valid, but they raise the question that some in the media consider that the ethics arguments arose to cover up for the mess that those engaging in harassing were doing; unfortunately the documentation of the events from the point of the first accusation against Quinn to where the media gained significant interest is mostly undocumented (outside of going to unusable source). It's clear the journalism ethics part is now a part of GG, but what a number of editors want is to put that first and foremost when there is no clear evidence that was the reason GG expanded as much as it did, while the misogyny and harassment side (and fallout from that) certainly did contribute. The best we can do is avoid getting into all specific allegations and discussing the analysis of why we got here sooner than later (in which the concerns of gamers can be brought up in a favorable debate light). -- MASEM ( t) 14:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Masem hits the nail on the head. It is not the fault of the users reported here that the sources for the subject only tell what Retartist (and other pro-GamerGate editors that have been disrupting the talk page) define as one side of the debate because that's all that's out there for the topic and the other point of view desired in the article cannot be found in what Wikipedia deems as reliable sources.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 06:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Response to Titanium Dragon: because it's a non-issue and NPOV was not brought up in this discussion. Now stop forum shopping because you have a hearing problem. Now as per Red Pen of Doom, I refuse to participate in this any urther.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 11:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This is quite simply an issue where the reliable sources are effectively unanimous in saying something. Given that fact, we are required by policy to present that as the predominant viewpoint in the encyclopedia. The above user, and others, have complained that literally every mainstream media source from Time to the Washington Post to NPR's Marketplace is somehow "biased" and unusable, and would have us use YouTube videos, dubious gaming blogs and Photoshopped screenshots instead. This we cannot do, obviously. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 08:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The below statement by TitaniumDragon is a perfect example of the crux of the issue; users are refusing to accept reliable sources and claiming that we must ignore what the reliable sources say because they are somehow "biased."

I have no interest in rehashing claims that sources are "biased" for the 15th time, and I decline to further participate. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 21:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution by the named parties will be useless as the flood of new SPAs will continue to come in who, like the filer, are oblivious (and hostile) to the understanding of WP:UNDUE that we need to present the subject as the mainstream reliable sources see it, not as gamergaters wish it to be perceived. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

And I am not going to waste my time beating the dead horse on this page as well as the main page. Decline to participate in a pointless exercise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

user:NorthBySouthBaranof, user:Ryulong, and user:Tarc have been involved in a long campaign of intimidation and POV pushing on this article and Zoe Quinn. user:TheRedPenOfDoom is a more recent entrant.

Unfortunately, Masem is simply incorrect; I have repeatedly cited reliable sources which state otherwise. The Bright Side of News, Forbes, Digitimes, The Telegraph, and others which note that claims that the whole dispute about misogyny is, in fact, a straw man argument set forth by Zoe Quinn and her supporters, and that the actual issues are many and varied, but primarily have to do with gamers feeling bullied and insulted, and feeling that the gaming media is corrupt, and that they are being censored. Indeed, there is presently a DDOS attack going on against one of the participants, as well as an organized campaign of censorship by some of the journalists involved, including at Kotaku. One of the major mainstream articles written on the subject matter, in Time magazine, was written by someone who worked for Kotaku and had a conflict of interest, and indeed was targeted by the campaign because she was involved in both video games journalism and PR for video game developers, which is a conflict of interest for obvious reasons. The article in The New Yorker shows no signs of fact checking, and seems to be entirely reliant on a single, involved source - Zoe Quinn - for its information. And indeed, this is a common issue; there are articles which take a more detached view of it and there are articles which are advocating very strongly for Zoe Quinn and don't show much, if any, sign of fact checking, frequently repeating false or erroneous claims sourced to Quinn herself. Given the entire scandal started because of Zoe Quinn's press contacts, obviously there are some WP:RS issues here, as well as some issues with systemic bias; even still, though, there are plenty of articles which note the GamerGate supporters' point of view.

Zoe Quinn's point of view - and the harassment - are indeed major issues, and need to be discussed in the article. However, as-is, it does not present "the other side" (or really, sides) at all. It is unacceptably biased and gives a massive amount of space to Zoe Quinn's point of view and issues of harassment of Zoe Quinn and her supporters, when she and her supporters have been involved in the same, as noted in RSs, as well as the censorship and attempted censorship of the issue, which has again been noted in RSs. As there are a number of RSs which present a much more neutral point of view on the issue, we should be using those, and we need to avoid giving WP:UNDUE notice to Zoe Quinn - contrary to her claims, it isn't all about her, and several sites have actually changed their ethics policies as a result of the scandal.

Several of the users involved have referred to anyone who disagrees with them in a derogatory fashion, with Ryulong describing them as virgins, Tarc calling them misogynists, and TRPOD repeatedly closing discussions and claiming consensus and insulting other users with claims that they are POV pushing, as well as threatening users with bans in order to intimidate them, something they have been called on before by @ Tom991:. This behavior is habitual in some cases. I just became aware of this because I was going through and looking for instances of past behavior for a potential ANI; I found this because, ironically, the notice had been deleted.

user:Ryulong and user:Masem both deleted my attempts at adding the NPOV tag to the article, despite having already commented here. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 06:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It is undeniable that the majority of the reliable sources have linked the attacks to misogyny, and the totality of them have covered the harassment angle. Still, we are not doing our best in the way we're using them to write the article, and the outcome is nothing to be proud of - certainly not the best we can achieve. There is lots of work to do to create an article that can be read by a reasonable reader from either side of the conflict and conclude that it's written in a fair way, but it will need the collaboration from everybody involved without constantly second-guessing the motives of editors at the other side.

Defenders of the Reliable Sources (that's DRS'ers for you) need to stop treating them as Gospel and recognize that they're written by fallible human beings, and thus everything written in them must be subject to scrutiny before -or even after- accepting them in the article; this means you must stop criticizing editors who want to put the references through such scrutiny. Those defending the GamerGate (GG'ers) side while trying in good faith to improve the article, must understand that Wikipedia is primarily a record of information available in mainstream sources which have been producing reliable content before the incident started, so it's natural that some angles and points of view get excluded, until people whose criteria we can trust adopt those points of view; this means that some aspects of the incident will be excluded because of our editorial line. (Those in bad faith can go read Encyclopedia Dramatica, where they will find a version covering all the "silenced facts" so it should be much more to their liking - or not?).

The idea that "we can't help having a biased article if all the reliable sources are biased" is, pardon me, bullshit. The problem is not merely for lack of sources, but how they're used to imply that what is included in the sources is WP:THE TRUTH. There's too much Truth-pushing at both sides, though fortunately there's also a few voices calling for keeping a level head. We know we shouldn't represent the views of external sources as ours, yet that's how many try to present them - and I mean people from both sides. We must all perform an exercise in self assessment and reflect whether we're engaging in constructive debate with proper mood and tone, including myself.

We proud ourselves that Wikipedia content represents the view from reliable sources have written without engaging in the controversies themselves. So let's write an article that represents the view from reliable sources but doesn't adopt them as Wikipedia's voice, but as the documentary record of what those sources have said, registered in a clinically detached tone. Diego ( talk) 14:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Now that the GamerGate hordes have been kicked off of Reddit, 4chan, and everywhere else, they have descended on the one place that will take 6 months to decide to get rid of them: Wikipedia. Right now, there is a strong push by several tendentious SPAs and numerous anon IPs to completely whitewash the GamerGate article. They would like the harassment aspects to be downplayed or removed and the original (though discredited) ethics accusations put front and center. Unfortunately, the reliable sources do not support their POV, so instead they are claiming that the media itself is biased and should be largely ignored. Titanium Dragon and Retardist have been especially tendentious, opening thread after thread on the talk page with the same essential arguments. Titanium Dragon was one of the main original authors of the article and its main defender at AfD. At the time, the article was basically a Zoe Quinn assassination-piece. When the media started debunking the claims against Zoe Quinn and focusing on the harassment campaign, Titanium Dragon suddenly decided that recentism was an important policy and argued against including mention of harassment in the lead. Now that it is clear that the controversy is primarily about harassment, Titanium Dragon, Retartist, and others are determined to whitewash the article through exhaustive arguing, since the policies don't support their POV-pushing. Kaldari ( talk) 18:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, User:PseudoSomething, User:Masem, User:Ryulong, User:NorthBySouthBaranof, User:TheRedPenOfDoom, User:Diego Moya, and User:Kaldari. I am a volunteer here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I have read the talk page discussion and the individual summaries of dispute; since all users have made their comments, I will be opening this case. Before beginning the discussion, there are a couple of things to note. Firstly, volunteers here have no special powers and abilities to enforce a particular course of action. We are aiming to establish an agreeable consensus. Secondly, please respect all parties involved and assume good faith. Thirdly, the DR/N is not a place to discuss user conduct. Issues concerning user conduct, including accusations of pushing a particular POV, should be taken elsewhere. Please also be noted that User:Titanium Dragon has been indefinitely banned from the topic, and will not be able to participate in this discussion.

With this noted, let us move onto the discussion. I think there are two crux to this debate, the reliability of sources and due weight for the viewpoints. Feel free to point it out if I'm mistaken. Since due weight can only be judged after determining reliable sources, I wish to start with the first point. I am under the impression that the sources are being questioned about the second and third criterion of WP:SOURCE (Second being the reliability of the creator, the third being about the publisher of the work). Whether the sources themselves are WP:BIASED or not seems to be outside the scope of this discussion, as that will fall under due weight; the only question is whether the facts attributed to the sources are reliable and can be used. Please discuss below. KJ ^Discuss? 04:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

As I state above, I am not participating in this sham perpetuated by the gamer diaspora from 4chan and Reddit. The claims of unreliability are not founded and are simply attempts to get the article to push a fringe view that does not appear in reliable sources because of the nature of the holders of that view point not being centralized. Good day.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 04:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

On the one hand we have the obviously biased corporate media who are circling the wagons in a cowardly last-ditch effort to keep the thin veil of secrecy over their shameful traditions of back-scratching, nepotism, extortion, cronyism, bribery, and sexual favors. Sources like: The Washington Post, The Week, The Boston Globe, NPR Marketplace, The Telegraph, The Los Angeles Times, Business Insider, Wired, The Indian Express, The Independent, On the Media, Vox Media, Asian Age, The Herald Sun, Pacific Standard, PC Magazine, Time Magazine, and The New York Times.

On the other hand, we have the maverick grassroots media that are trying against all odds to get The Truth heard by the masses, and to shatter the wall of censorship and propaganda that has propped up the crumbling edifice of old-style journalism for too long. Sources like: Viral Global News, APGNation, whatculture.com, and MetalEater, along with countless blogs and discussion groups.

Hopefully this makes the situation more clear. Kaldari ( talk) 05:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

First of all, the approach followed to assessing the reliability of sources has been questionable. So far, only sources from the traditional press have been used to establish the relative importance of points of views, but using only those is not strictly a requirement of WP:RS policy. In particular, the requirement that sources keep a good record of fact-checking has been misapplied when it comes to opinions; all sources are reliable for statements about their own opinions, and several editors above have acknowledged that excluding those opinions creates a biased result. The solution should be easy - include prominent opinions pertaining to the pro-GamerGate side that can be deemed as reliably documenting that point of view, and attributed to their authors under WP:RSOPINION. This is not a call to remove the coverage of harassment and misogyny from their current prominent place in the article, but to expand the article in other directions that we know are also highly pertinent, using those sources that have covered it and we can verify ourselves as accurate. Diego ( talk) 05:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The question under discussion is what sources can be considered reliable. Please be noted that the inclusion of material on Wikipedia should be based on Verifiability, not truth. Following the definition of source per WP:SOURCE, the type, creator, and publisher all affects reliability. User:Kaldari, be noted that the intentions of the news sources appear to be irrelevant to this discussion; Wikipedia should be 'representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic ( WP:NPOV).' My question right now is, are the so-called 'traditional sources' reliable? If not, why not? Not biased, or having other intentions, but just reliable. KJ ^Discuss? 05:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I see generalist news sources as reliable for establishing the point of view of people from gaming journalism and game developers. They are also reliable for identifying relevant actors from both sides of the divide, whose opinions are thus significant to be heard. So far, only the opinions from the anti-GamerGate people have been included under WP:RSOPINION; I'm proposing that we use the news sources to identify significant people from the pro-GamerGate side, to include the opinion of those vocal people as one of the points of view that must be covered under WP:NPOV. Don't forget that the nature of the statements in the article also affects the reliability of the sources used to support them. Opinions from people from the Pro side can and should included as reliable and significant for statements in the article that document their respective POVs. Diego ( talk) 06:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

As a neutral voice who wants to see this topic fairly covered from both sides, can I ask every editors to refrain from employing genetic fallacy to back up their points like this? Kindly consider. 14.201.66.221 ( talk) 08:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi KJ. Basically what we have going on is a common voice vs a media controversy. The controversy started with a hashtag called #gamergate that has differing stories of how it came about. On the Gamergate side, we have sources such as Forbes, Slate, digitimes (A pure outsider source), Vox, Townhall, and Aljazeera, to name a few since I would want to site them all, who say that gamergate is about gamers wanting higher ethics and less corruption in gaming journalism, as well as a few stating they want less political push. Most of these sources are currently being shoved aside. The other side of the coin is the media saying that gamergate is a harrassment campaign focused on sexism and misogyny, mostly taking the work of one currently high profile person. For the side of the coin that is fighting for ethics, we can see actual results that are being brushed aside in in sentence, which is that the sites Polygon and Kotaku changed their ethics policies, as well as Defy Media (owners of the Espcaist) and Destructoid also reviewing and changing their policies.

Now, to focus on your statement of "whether the facts attributed to the sources are reliable and can be used", I believe many of the harassment/misogyny ones fall under the problem of taking the word of one currently high profile person with very little backing up her statements, instead of look at the results drive ethics and corruption side. To back up the extremely unreliable sources though, is to look at the Times article and the New Yorker Article. The Times writer wrote an article also on Gamasutra, and spit out a very nasty, curse filled insult at anyone who supported #gamergate. The New Yorker writer had been funding someone who was a journalist in the thick of the mess, and as soon as the article was published, he immediately hid his Patreon, to hide the fact. To add to this (and it is much more speculative than concrete), is that many gaming journalism sites would not cover the ethics and corruption story, only to focus on harassment, which was shown in some leaked emails from a gaming journalism email list. Then we have what companies own what, but that is all up in the air.

Now to add onto fact checking, which is what Diego touched on, is that again, many sources rely on one person's word for the whole issue. They do not take into account what is happening on twitter, prominent discussion forums, or results from the movement such as policy changes. These are all -easily- looked at, yet are not reported on to keep the issue skewed to one side. That is the big problem with this article, is that it is ignoring any pro-gamergate articles and only focusing on negative gamergate articles (look at the last edits, any negative ones are allowed, positive are always reverted), and the article in no way follows the very well written essay at WP:CONTROVERSY. (Forgive me if I reference anything I shouldn't, still learning some of the guidelines. Also, my sources a few days old, and I have not looked for newer sources, since I have tried to stay away until the DNR because of anxiety and work). PseudoSomething ( talk) 05:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue is, quite simply, your claim that there is something called "the common voice" and that this "common voice" is uniformly in favor of Gamergate is not supported by reliable sources. In fact, the reliable sources repeatedly note that this is an issue which has hotly divided people on both sides. You cannot make the claim that everyone who is not in mainstream media supports Gamergate. That's simply not credible and not sourced.

Twitter and discussion forums are not reliable sources and they are specifically and most clearly unacceptable for claims about living people. It is prohibited, by policy, to use them in Wikipedia articles relating to living people. Thusly, you may as well stop discussing them here because we cannot and will not use them. Dispute-resolution discussion cannot override black-letter policy.

Please immediately stop suggesting that Quinn is misrepresenting the harassment she has been subjected — it is indisputable, based on the overwhelming weight of reliable sources, that she has been the target of a major harassment campaign described variously in these reliable sources as "a cavalcade of threats," a "flood of threats," "reams of appalling threats and abuse online," "unprecedented levels of death threats and harassment," "nothing short of an online form of terrorism," "poisonous abuse," "a torrent of unfathomable outrage," "a horrible rain of rape threats," "a vicious and ugly online backlash," "a wave of rape and death threats," etc. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 07:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Below is a list of indisputably reliable secondary sources — not a single one of which is a video-games-only publishing outlet — that address this controversy in the context of harassment, culture wars and trolling:

The only retort to this list of sources has been that all of these reliable sources are unusably biased. Which is effectively a conspiracy theory, has no grounding in anything resembling Wikipedia policy and must be discarded outright as any sort of point of rational debate. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 07:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dispute-resolution discussion cannot override black-letter policy. I don't want to address anything else in your comment right now, but I feel it appropriate to remind everybody that this is strictly *not true*, and we have abundant policy establishing the contrary. If there's a place where policy can be bent, interpreted or, yes, plainly ignored is at dispute resolution. Rather than trying to push policy as it's written and trying to enforce it as given law, we'd better off using this forum to assess how each particular policy instructions are good ideas that may or may not apply here in order to improve the article, in a way that all may agree with even if they don't like it in full - i.e., to *build* consensus. Diego ( talk) 09:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC) (And please don't bring up Wikipedia:LOCALCONSENSUS, because it's about something else entirely - Wikiprojects overriding style guidelines for large areas, and it couldn't invalidate WP:Ignore All Rules anyway). Diego ( talk) 09:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't really see a controversy here about the reliability of the sources. User:PseudoSomething, you stated that the mainstream news sources did not do fact-checking, but that's impossible to know. The news sites could be intentionally skewing the issue or considering that the twitter and discussion on the blogs are not worth reporting on. Unless a reliable source actively assert this, the accusations are unfortunately WP:OR. In any case, I think that everyone could agree that mainstream news have reported both sides of the debate, even if this was to endorse a particular side. Consequently, is it agreeable that the article should mention both sides of the debate? Arguments on both sides can be incorporated into the article by attributing it to particular spokesperson (or group) for each respective side. (Putting aside due weight for now) Is this agreeable? KJ ^Discuss? 10:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No, there are effectively undisputed facts that are and should be presented in Wikipedia's voice — for example, the statement that the controversy centers around sexism and misogyny in video games. The list of sources I posted is for that exact reason — it demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources discuss the issue in the context of sexism and misogyny, and we cannot "set aside" due weight because due weight is the very center of this issue.

There is no one arguing that reliably-sourced arguments from the other side should be completely excluded. However, those arguments are a distinct minority in reliable sources, and due weight demands that we treat them as a minority viewpoint. The dispute stems from the claim that we should exclude or discount a large number of those reliable sources based on the nebulous and groundless claims of "bias," and that we should be required to accept a number of borderline or outright-unusable sources, many of which are being proposed to support derogatory claims about living people, which obviously violates the biographies of living persons policy.

And that is a baseline beyond which I will simply not go — if your idea here, Diego, is that this dispute resolution discussion is going to propose that we use unreliable sources to source claims about living people, then I will withdraw from this dispute resolution and it can be closed as moot, because that is quite literally unacceptable and I will have nothing further to do with such a proposal. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 11:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The whole point of the dispute is that what is "reliable" and "unreliable" should be open to debate, because there are reasoned arguments to be made about the reliability of available sources, but the edit-warriors have been enforcing a particular interpretation mostly without engaging in such debate. For instance, there are points made by the less established but professional sources that are *not* affected by BLP, because they describe behaviors found in the gaming press as a whole. Are you going to engage in conversation about the core of the dispute as presented, or are you going to reinstate your position without ever listening to the arguments brought by the other side? Because if the latter, there's certainly no point in this exercise. Diego ( talk) 12:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but is reliability an attribute that, once given to a particular news outlet, applies with blanket range to every articles that are published by said outlet? Because I'm pretty sure WP:IRS says otherwise. Regarding news organizations, WP:IRS states: "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis". WP:IRS also states: "Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press. Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source, which has simply appeared in multiple venues.", so I think the sources given here should be put under scrutiny to assess reliability and detect republished content. 14.201.66.221 ( talk) 14:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead and read each and every one of the sources presented above if you wish. Literally none of them are republished stories. Go for it. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 17:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I wonder what qualifies for republished stories by Wikipedia definition. Word-for-word duplication of a previous source or presenting the same viewpoint with different wording? I see the former leaves room for a lot of outlets to circumvent reliability criteria if the sources echo the same viewpoint with partial sources that have been deemed unreliable, simply by writing them with different words (gaming the system, in a way). This is a known exploitation in political news reporting. Also considering that republished stories is only 1 factor in assessing reliability, and news stories are assessed on a case-by-case basis, there are a lot to scrutinize here. It's never a bad thing to be skeptical of your sources and refrain from jumping to conclusion. 14.201.66.221 ( talk) 00:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure you understand how we work. Multiple reliable sources that "present the same viewpoint with different wording" is another way of saying "those reliable sources agree." Our policy specifically calls for us to represent the mainstream viewpoint as expressed in the majority of reliable sources. The more reliable sources that adhere to a viewpoint about an issue, the more we consider that viewpoint to be the mainstream and predominant viewpoint about the issue. That is not "gaming the system," that's how Wikipedia works. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 04:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The IP user raises a good point, though. The prevalence of a viewpoint in reliable sources is not determined merely by volume but by how many of those sources provide additional insight. That's why the WP:EVENT policy doesn't automatically accept as notable events that are covered by lots of newspapers; mere repetition of the same facts does not add weight to their preponderance. Now this is not strictly the case here, as various aspects of the incident have indeed been analyzed separately by the diverse sources, but that means it's quite likely that we over-emphasize some of the commonly repeated points and give them more weight that they deserve. I suspect a lot of that is going on in the article and talk page.

Also, WP:DUE is not the only content of the Neutrality policy regarding viewpoints. If a point is mainstream it means that it will be given more space within the article, but that doesn't imply that we should adopt that viewpoint as our own and report it in Wikipedia voice; in fact, in controversial topics we're expected to do exactly the opposite. This was much worse in the early days and has somewhat receded, but we still have to keep an eye on it. Diego ( talk) 14:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

More in clarification on NBSB's point: we have one side of the GG debate that may be held by thousands of gamers, but they lack any type of coherence that makes it clear what their position really is. (This is looking past the sources for the moment). There seems to be a cry for more journalism ethics, but what specifically? No one really has a good feel for the shape of what the gamers want in this debate, and that makes it very difficult for the media to report on this. Add in that some of this came from 4chan, which most mainstream press will shrug off as a group with any type of valid point. Add in that a small portion of that group turned to hostile tactics to try to make their point. There's a good reason why the mainstream press (not gaming sources) have failed to really cover that side of issue. I am aware that certain individuals have tried to step forward to explain what the gamers want but the initial problems with that side being tainted for media coverage may be preventing that side from being covered in any legitimate depth, in contrast to the gaming journalism side that have well documented what issues they've seen. Mainstream media has tried to reiterate some of the basic things that gamers seem to be concerned about, but they haven't given the same care as they have to the journalism side. -- MASEM ( t) 11:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There are actually a few RS'es who state that the skew in media is fabricated. / Slate states "These articles share some traits in common besides their theses: They are unconvincing, lacking in hard evidence, and big on wishful thinking.", Techraptor had an interview with an indie developer that said "Trying to argue that gamers are generally misogynists or don’t want women playing games was so over the top, so absurd and so contrary to reality that people started to recognize them for what they are: Garden variety bullies." (There are a few more interviews with different people in the industry who state that), Digitimes states "However, this attempt to paint the angry gamers as a bunch of sexist, homophobic, racist males who were raging at being forced to "become politically correct" was rapidly rebuked by females, homosexuals, transsexuals and other minorities who all consider themselves gamers in the thousands using the Twitter hashtag #notyourshield.". While there isn't an article over it specifically, it has been stated and hinted at that much of those claims are false, or at least majorly overblown to create an enemy. To your point though, yes, we have more than enough RS'es explaining the Pro-GG side, we have enough to follow WP:CONTROVERSY, that writes to let the group explain themselves. At the moment, if you look at the article, much of it is 'Claims', 'He said she said', and other non-sourced assertions that reads more like an opinion piece than a wikipedia article. PseudoSomething ( talk) 14:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What those three articles seem to be arguing is that the "gamers are dead" argument is wrong; the "gamers are dead" argument isn't the focus of our article, so I'm not sure what you mean it refutes.

Also not sure what you mean by "non-sourced assertion," because effectively everything in the article is sourced, and scrupulously so. We're even inline-sourcing everything in the lede even though The Devil's Advocate's rewrite omitted them per WP:LEDE. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 17:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I've just come back from a break- there seems to be a lot happening and ill need to catch up. But why in the article is there an excessively long section on "the misogyny"? seems a little excessive... Retartist ( talk) 12:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I was going to suggest a change in style that would make it easier on the eyes without affecting its weight. I'll posit it in the article's talk page later to see if the idea gets traction. Diego ( talk) 12:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's important to look at what has been removed because of BLP reasons. Most of them have been appropriate, but remember that it's possible to game this - using "removed per WP:BLP" as a trump card in a content dispute to remove information inconvenient to your point-of-view. I was surprised to see so many deletions even from the talk page, maybe I just don't know enough about the topic but not all of them seemed controversial or like serious allegations. The BLP bar should be lower on the talk page - so it's possible to discuss different sources and whether they comply with policies. Let's keep the bad sources at bay, but remember that we are detailing a controversy - not everything on the other side of the controversy can be thought as BLP-removable allegations. -- Pudeo ' 22:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Before continuing, let's talk about the reliability of the sources being used. There appears to be a consensus that published sources in the 'mainstream' media can be used to describe all the facts in this case. Unreliable sources are, well, unreliable and cannot be used to attribute assertions. Both sides have been described in the mainstream media, albeit with different due weight. Is this agreeable? If there is a consensus about the reliability of the sources, we will move on to discuss due weight in the article. Please answer in the scope of this question. KJ ^Discuss? 22:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

only source i have an issue with is the Time one as that was written by a Leigh Alexander who has a close personal connection to Kotaku Retartist ( talk) 02:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

And that doesn't make it an unreliable or unusable source. Many people have worked for different companies within the same industry during their careers. You have no reliable sources to support the notion that this tenuous connection makes her work biased in the first place.

Even if, for the sake of argument, she is biased, that does not render the source unusable in the least. Per the Reliable Sources guideline: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. ... When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. The piece in question is published in Time, an indisputably-reliable and longstanding newsmagazine with significant editorial controls and fact-checking in place. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 04:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you have skipped the entire reliability assessment process outlined under WP:NEWSORG by jumping straight to the conclusion that those sources are immediately reliable. Past reputation of the outlet it's published on doesn't exempt a particular article from going through reliability assessment, once again, WP:NEWSORG states "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis". WP:NEWSORG also warns us that "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content" and "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors", both are something to keep in mind when assessing these sources, especially considering none of them put a disclaimer to distinguish the writer's opinions from the rest of the articles. These articles need to be assessed first to be deemed reliable. 14.201.66.221 ( talk) 05:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

However, the bulk of the sources here are reliable (they have not misreported anything), though they may be biased in the coverage in giving more weight against the GG side than for it. That doesn't invalidate them. But per Kkj, the next hurdle is to ask what to do if they have somewhat weighted coverage. -- MASEM ( t) 14:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we really be blindly sure these sources are reliable without some assessment though? I went through several of these sources, most of them raise some eyebrows in one way or another. The first one, the LA Times article showed some negligence to fact-check on the writer's side when referencing the open letter by Andreas Zecher [1]. Many of these names on that letter can be verified through a quick search that they are just interns, have no game credited in their resume, or are actually journalists like Chris Thursten (PC Gamer), Edwin Evans-Thirlwell (Official Xbox Magazine), etc... which disqualify them for "those who work for game powerhouses", as LA Times writer claimed. WP:NEWSORG states "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections", no correction has been made to the article as of this moment. The Week article made some wild, unsourced claims such as "The gamer Taliban are typical online trolls who organize themselves on anonymous message boards like 4chan and Reddit", which contains a factual incorrectness on first glance (Reddit requires a username to post, it's not an anonymous board), no correction to this has been made, which shows the writer's negligence to fact-check once again. Also, genetic fallacy holds no water. The writer went on to tie the same people into the abuse that Carolyn Petit received. I traced the source of that claim to a petition to fire Carolyn Petit that only has 69 signatures [2] and compared it to the actual response from Reddit community (referenced as the same people who made this abuse), which turned out to be very sympathetic to Carolyn Petit [3]. The top voted comment had 392 points (compared to 69 signatures) which shows overwhelming sympathy to this writer, contrary to the writer's claim. There were threads that presented more extreme and conflicting viewpoints on the subject matter [4] [5] [6] [7], but were less populated, thus represented a minority voice. All of these showed the writer's negligence to fact-check his claims, and also shows why these sources should be put under scrutiny for reliability assessment.

I also took a quick glance at the Marketplace's piece. It's actually an interview, which by nature is opinionated and should be treated similarly to a written op-ed. WP:NEWSORG states "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication ( editorials) or outside authors ( op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.". These are only surface-level assessment, but I think this shows how necessary it is to be skeptical of your sources regardless of past reputation. 14.201.66.221 ( talk) 03:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't disqualify all the sources, even some of those mentioned. The way we've been approaching the article is to keep it at a high, broad level in regards to the actual claims and accusations made after the fact (with the only highly specified part being the accusation about Quinn alledged professional improprity with Grayson, since that is both central to the whole thing, and discussed as a false claim by many sources). So they may have specifics off, but they aren't "wrong" about the overall thing at the level of detail we are interested at reporting at. -- MASEM ( t) 15:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If only because we haven't gone through all sources, yes. The fact that these sources neglected to fact-check their story does discredit them on reliability scale, so to say we should be undoubtful of other details despite the proven negligence to fact-check from the writers that covered the story is irresponsible and reckless. In fact, negligence on fact-checking should have been the most alarming sign that indicates the sources' reliability. If we were to start at ground zero and build up a story from these articles, all we have would be some shaky allegations (the most common pattern being tying certain actions to a group of people, as we have seen with the Carolyn Petit example) and the writer's own interpretation of those allegations. And the tendency of editors to take these interpretations as facts is disturbing. They deserve a WP:INTEXT treatment at best. Per WP:CONTROVERSY, I just want fair coverage from both sides with accuracy, and the articles presented here have served little purpose in a WP:CONTROVERSY situation so far. 14.201.66.221 ( talk) 02:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's the problem: there is no way to cover both sides with the degree of accuracy you are looking for because no sources that are even remotely reliable have attempted to make any type of detailed evaluation of all the actions and the like; and us as Wikipedia editors that would be original research to make any attempt to assess what happened using forums, twitter posts, and the like. Reliable sources have struck hard at the initial allegation and then have glossed over much of everything else, and yes, that has left one side without as much in-depth coverage, but that is something we simply cannot fix. You have a media that, due to the actions of a few, are going to bias against that side even if they try to give both sides equal weight. So for all purposes, arguing about the reliability isn't going to make new sources appear, and we ourselves have opted to stay at a high enough level to not get into the nit-picky details where the facts may be off from those sources, so that any actual issues on reliability do not matter. To the point of the dispute, the question is when you have the mainstream media taking, even if inadvertently, a bias against one side of a POV argument, can you do anything about it? We've tried to incorporate as many statement about proGG that are buried in the least-biased articles to give that side its fair share, but we can't make up any more. -- MASEM ( t) 06:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We've used mainstream sources (specifically, those outside the VG realm) to frame what the situation is and what went down as to minimize the bias from the vg press about how the events actually played out, but to try to go into what the proGG side wants or their complaints as to balance what coverage the other side gets, we have to use vg sources that take the time to explore that side. Keep in mind that many of the mainstream sources themselves have a bit of bias (either we are talking articles from the video game entertainment desk/contributors, or that as fellow press people, they aren't going to take harassment lightly), but I am pretty confident that in terms of framing what the basic situation that happened in GG was, we have appropriately done it from mainstream sources. -- MASEM ( t) 14:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

How do we define a "mainstream" source? I'm not exactly sure what we're going for there. Moreover, the number of "mainstream" sources which have gone into real depth about it is pretty small; Forbes, The Telegraph, The Washington Post, Slate, Time (which we probably can't use as the one which goes into depth about it was written by Leigh Alexander, who has a conflict of interest), Business Insider (which was mostly about the letter about harassment rather than the incident as a whole), The New Yorker (I have concerns about the reliability of the article, as well as its independence from Zoe Quinn), and... I'm not sure. I'm too tired right now, brain fried. But what would constitute a mainstream source? Is Vox a mainstream source? Digitimes, which is a newspaper from Taiwan which is supposedly pretty respectable? Some of these sources, such as Asian Age, I know nothing about, and then there's stuff like Bright Side of News and various other internet sites which aren't about video games, but aren't The New York Times, either.

I'm not sure how much we actually have to rely on video game sites here for reliable information, but I'm not sure how we define what is a "mainstream source". Titanium Dragon ( talk) 13:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I'm sorry I wasn't able to be involved in this prior to this point in time. I have had my topic ban revoked, or, more accurately, it never existed in the first place, because it wasn't applied using the proper procedure and therefore shouldn't have been applied. The admin who noted this also went around making note on everyone's page of the discretionary ban policy as relates to BLP articles, so everyone should be on the same page as far as that goes now.

A few of the sources contain factual errors. This is a major issue, because when sources are making factually inaccurate claims about stuff we can verify, it indicates a lack of reliability in the article in general, and a lack of care in preparing the article. This is hardly confined to one source; a number of sources fail to check information, possibly out of laziness or possibly because they’re entirely reliant on a single source for their information. I suspect that the latter is the primary cause; a few articles seem to be entirely dependent on talking to a single source or a couple sources, which they then publish, which kind of makes them questionable as secondary sources in some cases as well - how much of The New Yorker's article on Zoe Quinn is sourced to Zoe Quinn? Hard to say.

Lack of attribution is another common issue in the news articles. I’ve seen a few articles which talk about the claims of conflict of interest re: Grayson being dismissed, but which fail to source it to Kotaku. The problem here is that if you end up with a company accused of having lax ethical standards saying "everything is fine, don't worry" obviously is something that people are going to want to know the source on. Failing to cite this properly is lazy at best.

I made some notes and classified some of the sources. I haven’t gone through all of them yet; I left off at the Wired article on the list. I’ll update this note as I come back, or if other folks go through and characterize them.

I’ll also note that North’s list omits a large number of non-video game sources, including Forbes, Bright Side of News, and Digitimes, though I suppose that’s because they didn’t agree with the characterization that it was about harassment/culture wars, which is what that list (supposedly) was. Incidentally, I think that’s really at least two different things, possibly more, given even in the “culture war” perspective we’ve got everything from people comparing gamers to the Taliban to comparing Anita Sarkeesian to Jack Thompson.

Anyway… on to the notes about sources. I tried to break them out by their stance; I stuck the two which I feel have the most issues (The New Yorker article and the one by Leigh Alexander) out in front, as well as noting a past issue of reliability as relates to Zoe Quinn. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 13:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Background Note: Past issues of reliability and Zoe Quinn

Something of a background note for the unaware, which is pertinent as it is part of the origins of this whole debacle as well as some past issues with reliability and single source stories.

The Escapist

In late 2013, The Escapist ran an article which repeated Zoe Quinn's claims that she had been harassed by members of WizardChan, an imageboard for depressed people.

The Escapist ended up altering the story a bit and adding a disclaimer to it after they revised their ethics standards as a direct result of the article; previously, they had simply repeated the claims of anyone who claimed to have been harassed, but now they require that any such article be better researched. As a result of the original article, the folks on WizardChan were themselves subjected to harassment by Zoe Quinn's supporters, and they were given no opportunity to defend themselves in the article, while the sole source of the claims was Zoe Quinn herself. The Escapist apologized for the article. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 13:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate, Ethics, and Hate by Bruce Gorton is another opinion column.

As has been noted repeatedly in a variety of venues, the claim that a source is "biased" does not preclude it from inclusion, nor do 3rd-degree conspiracy chains constitute a meaningful "conflict of interest." I decline to yet again rehash these claims in yet another venue. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 21:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

When the bias is about the specific topic being covered, that is a major issue, and indeed, RS policy notes that it is important to take care when using biased sources and to avoid letting their bias contaminate Wikipedia. We generally avoid citing sources like Breitbart and similarly highly biased sources about factual information because they're much more likely to engage in selective omission, creative interpretation to suit their point of view, or simply outright lie in some cases.

As for the idea that Leigh Alexander's conflict of interest is a 3rd degree conspiracy chain - if you work for someone, and you are reporting on a controversy your employer is directly involved in, that is a direct conflict of interest. As Leigh Alexander writes for Kotaku, that's a direct conflict of interest - she is writing about (one of her) employers, as well as writing about her coworkers, and defending their activities (as well as her own, for that matter). I'm sorry, but that's a very direct conflict of interest, as has been pointed out to you several times. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 09:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Weren't you banned from this topic?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 10:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No, a second administrator has assessed that TD's topic ban was not issued through the proper procedure and thus officially never happened. Diego ( talk) 10:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That's kind of a cop out.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 16:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Reading through the claims made above, there's a lot of twisting the truth to try to claim a source is bad. Take the New Yorker piece; Quinn was obviously talking about Grayson who recieved no harassment (key word). The fact Kotaku was asked several times to clarify what happened, and the lack of any social media outrage at Grayson compared to Quinn, is what the New Yorker article is talking about. Of course, other males down the road got harassed (Fish for example) but that's not the point of the statement of the New Yorker. It is factually true: Grayson "escaped" from this scrutiny that Quinn got. So you're twisting the truth to get a result you want. (Mind you, others on the opposite side of the fence are doing the same to try to justify some inclusion). There is a proper middle ground here, all these sources are completely usable as long as we are aware that we should not be writing their biases into our article unless we are 100% clear it is an opinion. -- MASEM ( t) 21:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that Time is usable per the conflict of interest noted; we can use it to cite Leigh Alexander's point of view, but we shouldn't be using it to source factual information because, again, conflict of interest.

As regards The New Yorker - the idea that Grayson was not the target of social media outrage is actually demonstrably false. A number of sources, including Kotaku itself, noted that Grayson had been targeted by complaints about conflict of interest and lack of professionality; a number of the earliest articles on the subject matter specifically note people complaining about Grayson. The complaints against Grayson subsided after Kotaku's official response on the matter, which was that there was no evidence of a conflict of interest from the material which was publicly available, and Grayson and Quinn both denied that any such issues existed. Quinn remained a target because of a number of issues - her involvement with The Fine Young Capitalists, ect.

This indicates a lack of fact checking. The New Yorker article seems to almost entirely rely on Zoe Quinn herself about the issue, and given that it makes several factual errors (and soley in Quinn's benefit), that seems all the more likely, which raises the question of whether it is actually really a secondary source at all, or merely mirroring Quinn's own opinions.

When an article makes multiple factual errors, especially about central facts on the issue (which the Grayson thing is, as their relationship was what sparked the whole conflagration, and was noted far more than the others both by RSs and on social media), that's generally a sign of poor fact checking, which means that it isn't a reliable source per WP:RS . Titanium Dragon ( talk) 02:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The passage in question:

• "In the past few weeks, a debate about journalistic ethics in video-game coverage has spilled onto social media. Tens of thousands of tweets were written, most of them accompanied by the hashtag #gamergate. Many Twitter users involved in the discussion called for more clarity and disclosure by writers about the relationships they have with independent creators. They want critics to abide by John Updike’s sound rule to never “accept for review a book you are … committed by friendship to like.” In Quinn’s case, the fact that she was the subject of the attacks rather than the friend who wrote about her game reveals the true nature of much of the criticism: a pretense to make further harassment of women in the industry permissible."

Now, in context this is about attacks on journalistic integrity. Given that Kotaku directly replied to accusations that their reporter, Grayson, had had a conflict of interest, this is just outright wrong; in this paragraph, it is talking about journalistic ethics, and attacks on the ethics of journalists. It claims that Quinn, not Grayson, was the target of the attacks. Both were targeted by accusations of improper behavior. That would mean that it is outright false. Given that Kotaku directly addressed attacks on Grayson's integrity, there's no way that they can claim that he wasn't attacked; that is factually incorrect, and was very easy to confirm. Indeed, a large number of RSs note the questioning of Grayson's integrity - many of them make direct note of it, and note that his employer found no evidence that he had violated their ethical standards at the time. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 02:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Kotaku on this issue:

• "The allegations have been extreme. Nathan has been accused of in some way trading positive coverage of a developer for the opportunity to sleep with her, of failing to disclose that he was in a romantic relationship with a developer he had written about, and that he'd given said developer's game a favorable review."

Given that the Kotaku thing was posted well over two weeks prior to the article in The New Yorker, and that it is noted by a number of secondary sources, there's no way to claim that wasn't a factual error on the part of The New Yorker - a factual error which directly influenced their conclusion in the article, as they noted it as proof of it being an excuse to attack women. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 02:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm back from a wiki/irl break, going to get up to speed (been away from internet) Retartist ( talk) 11:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, looking through the talk page, this thing seems like it is going to end up at ArbCom at some point Retartist ( talk) 11:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

DRN is self described as "an informal place to resolve small content disputes" [bold added]. This case was filed 19 days ago and was opened 14 days ago. During this period there has been approx. 15,000 words of summary and discussion. That does not seem to align with the stated purpose and parameters of this forum. In addition the case moderator User:Kkj11210 has not participated in 8 days. Unless the moderator returns, I will close this case within 24 to 48 hrs as unresolved and refer it to WP:MEDIATION. Before I do that are there any conclusions or partial resolutions that can be summarized and formalized before then, so that this extensive discussion will not have been in vain?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been participating here but I've been tracking the discussion, and I also agree that moderation of this case seems to be out of the scope of this forum. It's getting to a point in which every single source would be presented, analyzed, and decided on whether to be used or not. If participants wish to continue here, I am willing to continue mediation. KJ ^Discuss? 22:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi KJ and thanks for all your great work. I don't want to interfere, so if you feel you are making progress then please proceed or close the case, as you see fit. If I can be of any assistance please let me know. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@ KJ: @ Keithbob: So this needs to be addressed in mediation? I think it is pretty clear that there is a major dispute going on here, seeing as people are saying vastly different things about the subject matter; it isn't just a matter of differences in opinion, but it is a difference in perception of reality. We have people like me, who thinks that we aren't following the guidance of the RSs; we have people who are saying that the RSs are biased; we have people that are saying that the RSs are on their side, we're having edit wars over the addition of the NPOV/UNDUE tag to the article... I dunno. It is pretty clear that this is a problem, and it is equally clear that attempts at discussing this on the talk page have failed. We have people getting very angry. We've had folks from outside of Wikipedia doxx editors and other people yell at others on Twitter. People on both sides are yelling about conspiracies to censor them/whitewash things. It seems to me that this is the sort of thing that really needs to have some sort of formal process to deal with the whole mess, because it is clear at this point that the folks on the page don't even agree about what is happening in real life, much less where the article needs to go. The article is presently locked - again - due to editing disputes. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 02:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, anti-GG are being hostile while pro-gg is unfortunaty having issues with policy Retartist ( talk) 03:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that this case would need to be moderated in a more official setting that deals with a bigger scope. In 24 hours, I will close this discussion if there are no objections. User:PseudoSomething, User:Masem, User:Ryulong, User:NorthBySouthBaranof, User:TheRedPenOfDoom, User:Diego Moya, User:Kaldari, and User:Titanium Dragon, you are free to raise objections and make final statements on this issue. KJ ^Discuss? 04:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I hope that mediation will resolve this conflict once and for all so that the edit warring on the article stops and we can move forward with improving Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 04:34, 9 October 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.

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, We have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:War of the Pacific#RfC: Which are the relevant facts for the LEDE regarding the 14 February 1879? ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Keysanger ( talk · contribs)
• Darkness Shines ( talk · contribs)
• Eduardo Eddy Ramirez ( talk · contribs)
• 210.50.245.62 ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Was the 14 February 1879 the beginning of the War of the Pacific or another date in a chain of pivotal dates in the road to war?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A RfC failed to find a solution: Talk:War of the Pacific#RfC: Which are the relevant facts for the LEDE regarding the 14 February 1879?

How do you think we can help?

To find an adequate wording for the lede

The closer of the RfC states: There are WP:RS on both sides here, and people working in good faith can come to the opposite conclusion as to which the the right answer is. The Context matters bit is important however, and some of the sources are certainly less reliable for historical analysis than others. [8]

Therefore I think that Darkness Shines's sentence The War of the Pacific started on February 14, 1879 doesn't meet the WP rules for neutrality. I proposed:

1. The crisis sharpened on February 14, 1879 when Chilean armed forces occupied the port city of Antofagasta, [9]
2. Some authors set the beginning of the war with the first naval battles, others on February 14, 1879 when Chilean armed forces, enthusiastic welcomed by the population, occupied the port city of Antofagasta (83% Chilean population), as the Bolivian authorities pretended to auction the confiscated property of Chilean CSFA, although the first battle occurred in Topater on 23 March 1879, after the Bolivian Declaration of War and before the Chilean Declaration of War. [10] [11]

Both proposals have been reverted by DS, those only proposal has been The War of the Pacific started on February 14, 1879. There is no mention of any other dates or sources.

I ask DS to make a proposal considering the other sources that have analysed the significance of the 14 February (Sater, Farcau, and Pike). --Keysanger ( Talk) 09:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been very busy the last few weeks, and I am currently very ill. I will try and make a statement within a few days. Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, the RFC did have a solution, and that was the edits I had made were fine. And the arguing over the sources was plain old wiki lawyering. However I am happy to change the current content to "the war began on February 14, 1879 with the Chilean landing of troops and capture of the port city of Antofagasta, ^{[1] [2]} On 20 February Daza learned that Chilean forces had occupied Antofagasta, and requested aid from Peru based on the secret alliance between the two nations, following this on 1 March Bolivia issued a formal declaration of war against Chile" ^[3]

This seems a reasonable compromise to me. Darkness Shines ( talk) 11:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrative note: I've notified User:Darkness Shines about this case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC) I've also added and notified two other users who were involved in the dispute on the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC) PS I'm not opening this case, just trying to help get it ready for another volunteer to take and moderate.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This case is now open. [Let's discuss one sentence at a time] One proposal is to change current content to:

• the war began on February 14, 1879 with the Chilean landing of troops and capture of the port city of Antofagasta, ^{[1] [2]}

• Is this acceptable to both parties?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

That is not much different to what is already in the article, hence my suggestion above. But I am fine with it, the other guy won`t be though Darkness Shines ( talk) 17:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Another proposal is to change the current content to this:

• The crisis sharpened on February 14, 1879 when Chilean armed forces occupied the port city of Antofagasta

Can we find some common ground between the two?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can`t go with that proposal, shall we wait on KS to respond on the proposal I gave in my opening statement? Darkness Shines ( talk) 00:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Nay. I can't go with that proposal. @DS: why don't you consider the other sources, for example, Willian Sater, emeritus professor of history at California State University-Long Beach?. He has written the probably most detailed book about the war. Please, take a look to Andean Tragedy. He states in page 28: Only on 5 April did Santiago reciprocate, plunging South America's west coast into what became known as the War of the Pacific, a conflict that lasted until 1884. If you unconditionally insist to say that some authors set the begin on 14/F, I would accept it under the condition that the same sentence states that other authors set it to different dates. -- Keysanger ( talk) 07:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Gods no, Given you are cherry picking a part from that source and misrepresenting it. The bit you missed out was "two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed “a state of war” on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March. Only on 5 April did Santiago reciprocate, plunging South America’s west coast into what became known as the War of the Pacific, a conflict that lasted until 1884." Did you not notice that war had already been declared? Darkness Shines ( talk) 10:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia distinguishes between primary and secondary sources. The passage you present is a primary source: The author, William Sater, states that "Daza declared that Chile imposed ...he announced ...". Take a look to "he declared" and "he announced". It is HE, Daza, the Bolivian dictator and not Sater, the historian. Wikipedia doesn't accept primary sources because they can reflect the interest of the author at that time to influence the events.

The part of the sentence I transcribed is a secondary source. The author, William Sater, states that in his own opinion the war started "only" on 5 April. Wikipedia demands the use of only secondary sources.

Regarding your question that war had already been declared, you are confusing the 14 February with 18 March, the day Bolivia declared war on Chile. We are talking here about the 14. February. So, on 14 February and much more later there was no war according to your cite. Please, let me know if you don't understand my rationale. -- Keysanger ( talk) 15:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

First, stop addressing and referencing each other and personalizing the discussion. We are here to discuss text and sources only not people and their alleged deeds or motives. Now.....Let's see if we can find some common ground here. The two sentences are not that far apart:

• The war began --on February 14, 1879 with the Chilean-- landing of troops and capture of-- the port city of Antofagasta
• The crisis sharpened --on February 14, 1879 when Chilean-- armed forces occupied--the port city of Antofagasta

The "landing of troops and capture of" is the same thing as "armed forces occupied". So the dispute seems to be over the first three words:

• The war began
• The crisis sharpened

So the core of the dispute for this sentence is over the characterization of the occupation/capture as a either a war or a crisis. Correct?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, KS insists the war did not begin in the 14 of Feb, even though we have RS which says this. My position is to follow what those RS say, which is when the war started, when war was declared and so on. Darkness Shines ( talk) 15:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

DS, did you hear what I just said? Stop personalizing the discussion. Comment on the content, not the other editor, and stop pretending to know what other editors are thinking or doing or what their position is. Speak for your self only and speak only about the content.

The difference between the two sentences is the characterization of Feb 14 military capture of Antofagasta. Whether it was the day the war began or just an event that led up to the war. Isn't that the core of the dispute in this sentence? Once we've established that as the core issue, we can begin to examine and evaluate the sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You are right Keith, the core of the question is the 14 February. Was it the start of the war or only one pivotal date in the road to the war?. That is the central question in dispute. -- Keysanger ( talk) 15:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue about "Declaration of War" is beyond controversy in this article. Bolivia declared war on Chile on 28 March 1879, Chile declared war on Peru and Bolivia on 5 April 1879 and Peru responded by acknowledging the casus foederis on 6 April 1879. All this data is present in the article and it is unquestioned. -- Keysanger ( talk) 13:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, good, let's compile the sources and see what they say. Could the two of you please list the sources that you feel pertain to the issue of whether or not the occupation of Antofagasta was the start of the war or a precursor to it. Please list the source, a URL if possible, and a quote from the source. If you have already given them above then could you please copy and paste them here so we can see them all together side by side. Then we can examine and discuss the language of each source and see if some agreeable wording is possible based on what the sources say. Thanks! :-)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

===Sources stating that the war started on another day or situation than the 14 February 1879===

• [12] La guerra se desarrolló en varias etapas, siendo la primera la campaña marítima, en la que se produjo el famoso Combate Naval de Iquique. (Transl.: "The war had several phases, the first one was the naval campaign, when occurred the Naval Battle of Iquique ...")
• [13] La primera etapa de la contienda se extendió hasta el 8 de octubre de 1879 y se caracterizó por la lucha por el dominio del mar entre las escuadras de Perú y Chile (Transl.: "The first phase of the war lasted until 8.Oct.1879 and was characterised by a fight for the control of the sea ...")
• [14] The war began at sea, when Chilean warships blockaded Peruvian and Bolivian ports.
• [15], En torno a los Orígenes de La Guerra del Pacífico, Luis Ortega, El 5 de abril de 1879 se inició oficialmente una guerra que por cinco años enfrentó a Bolivia y Perú, por un lado, y a Chile, por otro. (Transl.: "On 5 April started oficially a war that for 5 years ...")
• [16] Más tarde, el 5 de abril de ese mismo año, cuando Perú reconoció la existencia de un tratado secreto con Bolivia, Chile decidió declarar la guerra a ambos países. Así, comienza la Guerra del Pacífico. (Transl.: "Later, on 5 April of that year, when Peru accepted the existence of a secret treaty with Bolivia, Chile decided to declare the war on both countries. So began the War of the Pacific ...")
• [17] Chile no quería ir a la guerra, pero cuando quedó al descubierto que en 1873 Bolivia había firmado con el Perú un pacto secreto que los obligaba a respaldarse mutuamente ante "toda agresión del exterior", el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores chileno declaró que "la guerra es el único camino que nos queda". (Transl.: "Chile didn't want to wage the war but when it became generally known that in 1873 Bolivia had signed a secret treaty with Peru ... the Chilean Foreign Minister declared that "the war is the only way ...")
• [18] The "Saltpetre War," referring to the desert’s nitrate deposits, officially began in February 1879 when Bolivia threatened to tax a Chilean mining operation in the port city of Antofagasta and in doing so broke a recently agreed treaty
• es:Nelson Manrique, "La guerra del pacífico: una revisión crítica." in a comment by Mariano Chiappe in [19] states that:

El acto de fuerza de chile en Antofagasta provocó una febril actividad diplomática. El gobierno peruano trató por todos los medios de conseguir que el conflicto se solucionara por medio de un arbitraje, pues sabía que de desencadenarse la guerra se veía inevitablemente implicado.

(transl.: The Chilean act of force started a frantic diplomatic activity. The Peruvian government tried by any means to resolve the conflict by mediation, for they know that if the war started, Peru would be inescapable envolved)

• Alejandro Reyes Flores, "Relaciones internacionales en el Pacifico Sur", en "La Guerra del Pacifico", published by Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, 1979 page 120-123:

El Peru opto por las negociaciones, que no gusta a Bolivia. Tambien Chile esperaba o alentaba un golpe militar en Bolivia, que al parecer, le iba a favorecer. Todo ello inclino a Chile a aceptar la mediacion, pero esta, no podia prolongarse por mucho tiempo, puesto que favorecia al Peru en sus apresto militares de ultima hora. Ademas, Chile necesitaba un poco de tiempo para presentar al Peru como "perfido" y preparar psicologicamente a su pueblo sobre la guerra que ya era inevitable (transl.:Peru chose to mediate ..., Chile needed time to ...)

El presidente chileno el 24 de marzo de 1879 manifestaba a Lavalle [the Peruvian mediatior] lo siguiente: ... pero que no existiendo realmente ningun motivo de guerra entre Peru y Chile, cuyos comunes intereses exigian el siempre ir de acuerdo, no veia por que se debia llegar a tan dolorosa extremidad y que todo podia evitarse con la simple declaracion de neutralidad por parte del Peru (transl.: "On 24 March ... the Chilean President said: there are no reasons to make a war ... all what we need is a Peruvian declaration of neutrality ...")(*)

Lavalle en entrevista con Pinto [Chilean President] le manifestaba: "Pero asegurandole nuevamente por mi parte que esa declaracion de neutralidad que solicita del Peru, el Peru no debia, no podia, ni queria hacerla, y que veia con profundo pesar que las cosas se acercaban a un doloroso y sangriento termino. (transl.: "Lavalle said that Peru couldn't, shouldn't, and won't declare the neutrality and that he saw sadly that the situation came nearer to a painful and sanguinary end") [the interviews Pinto-Lavalle were end of March, beginnig of April)(*)

Y la guerra se hizo presente en el Pacifico Sur. ( Transl.: And the war came to the South Pacific)

• Farcau's "Ten Cents War", page 42, regarding the options after the 14 February 1879:

Only once piece remained to fall into place to determine whether a real war would now occur or whether some sort of deal might yet be struck. This was the question of whether or not Peru would honor the 1873 “secret” treaty and come to Bolivia’s aid.

… After all, no blood had yet been shed, and there would still be a substantial swath of B. territory separating Peru from Chile…. And was it not likely that, without Peru’s support, Bolivia would simply see the wisdom in acceding to Chilean demands and avoiding the war altogether?.

...Lavalle [Peruvian Mediatior] departed Lima on 22 February, well before the Bolivian declaration of war, but nothing irreversible was to occur for some time, so he did have some freedom of manoever in Santiago. (Bold by Wikipedia)

• W. Sater "Andean Tragedy", regarding the events after the 14 February 1879:

page 28: Only on 5 April did Santiago reciprocate, plunging South America's west coast into what became known as the War of the Pacific, a conflict that lasted until 1884.

• Fredrick B. Pike, "The United States and the Andean Republics: Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador", we read (p. 128) that the occupation of Antofagasta was the "triggering" of the WotP. But in the next page he wrote "Mariano Ignacio Prado ... dispatched a mission to Santiago to seek a formula for preserving peace."
• Jorge Basadre, "La Guerra con Chile":

page 28 Chapter "La mediacion del Peru: La mision Lavalle": Es cierta, seguramente, la angustia del gobierno peruano para ganar tiempo; pero no sólo para que el país se preparara para la guerra, sino también, si era posible para aplazarla. (transl.: For sure, the efforts of the Peruvian government, not only to prepare the war but also to postpone it if possible)

page 45: Ambos convinieron en que la guerra era inminente. (transl.: both [Chilean Foreign Affairs Minister Domingo Santa Maria and Peruvian Mediatior Lavalle] agreed that the war was imminent)(*)

(*=cites of primary sources deleted -- Keysanger ( talk) 14:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC))

-- Keysanger ( talk) 14:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines you had previously cited these two sources (see below) to support your contention that the war actually began on Feb 14, 1879. Are there any additional sources you would like us to consider?

• Pike Pike, Fredrick B. (1977). The United States and the Andean Republics: Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador. Harvard University Press. p. 128. ISBN  978-0674923003. Chile broke off diplomatic relations and on February 14, 1879, landed troops that took possession of Antofagasta, thus triggering the War of the Pacific</ref
• Henderson et al. Henderson, James D.; Delpar, Helen; Brungardt, Maurice Philip; Weldon, Richard N. (1999). A Reference Guide to Latin American History. M.E. Sharpe. p. 155. ISBN  978-1563247446.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see that there are RS for the 14. and for other dates and situations. @Darkness Shines, do you agree that there are also RS for other dates or situations?. -- Keysanger ( talk) 17:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Unless we have input from other editors soon. I may need to close this thread.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Look, I have given a compromise edit, that compromise was based on comments made during the RFC, and as current consensus is that my edit stands I would recommend KS either accept my compromise, or add a bit to it. Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Compromise is good. The RFC was closed as no consensus for either side of the dispute that includes existing and proposed content and sources. This is likely because there is also no clear consensus amongst the sources as to the exact beginning date of the war. Therefore I'd like to suggest the participants consider adding something like: "some sources identify the occupation of Antofagasta on Feb 14 1879 as the date the war began while other historians (accounts/sources/scholars etc--take your pick on wording) attribute the start of the war to later dates". Could something like this work?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That would be acceptable for me. -- Keysanger ( talk) 20:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines would this suggested compromise be amenable to you? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

24 hour closing notice -- If I don't seem some further participation soon I'm going to close this case. It was filed 26 days ago and discussion has been open for 20 days. The participation has been largely one sided for the past 10 days and if it doesn't change soon I'm closing this case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to close it out, I gave my compromise, and that i as far as I am going. Darkness Shines ( talk) 16:18, 9 October 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.

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

• Dave Cortese ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• JGriffithSV ( talk · contribs)
• Writerjf ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is a biographical page for a politician currently engaged in a November election. Edits have been done seemingly on behalf of the campaign that clearly repeatedly violate WP:BLPSPS. I've reverted them as such and made some other changes to make it adhere to Wikipedia policies. I'm apparently being accused of bias because I'm also an elected official (not involved in that race, although I've endorsed the other guy). Having someone neutral review the edits would be a good thing.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've added an explanation of my edits to the Talk page

How do you think we can help?

Have someone neutral weigh in before this gets blown up.

My concern for the edits involve both the content and the cites. Standard Wikipedia policy is that the subject of a living biography cannot be the reference for material that exists on the page. The edits that were being added, and which the author clearly feels are still valid, included the verbatim text from two of the subject's election ballot statements, and cites consisting of the subject's campaign website and the subject's LinkedIn page. All of those are, at least ostensibly, self-written. I whacked the verbatim ballot statements. I changed the linkedIn and campaign reference cites to a news article on the subject. I also reworded some of the family history because it echoed material on another page, and that page is already linked to. Ballot statements are clearly self-serving in nature and probably inappropriate. The rest of the facts appear to be accurate, just cited with invalid sources.

I'm still concerned that some of the material that remains may be inappropriate. But it's close enough to being appropriate that I'm not comfortable addressing it myself, and I'd prefer someone more neutral to weigh in. This is a hotly-contested election, and while it doesn't directly involve me, and I'm not in the election's jurisdiction, the original author clearly doesn't believe my contributions are neutral. Note that I don't think we're anywhere near the point of having the page be locked down. I think neutral input is all that's needed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGriffithSV ( talk • contribs) 01:00, 11 October 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.

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:Osgoode Hall Law School ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Alcoxnow ( talk · contribs)
• Meters ( talk · contribs)
• TheRedPenOfDoom ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Large segments of this page have been removed by claiming there is inadequate citation. If I add a citation then another reason is brought up to remove something. Additionally, there are claims that additions are not notable and for this reason continue to be removed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried adding citations in the said articles I was linking to the page and voiced my opinion that some justifications were subjective. I had long ago proposed a neutral 3rd party resolution so as not to keep going back and forth with reversions.

How do you think we can help?

If someone who is neutral can address whether or not the pairing down of this page and consistent removal of three of the entries is warranted or not then at least we can proceed in the process toward achieving consensus. I am also curious as to why some things had been removed but their removal had not shown up in the page's history.

this can probably be closed as the filer has been blocked indeff for sockpuppetry. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:04, 14 October 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.

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

• Zone 5 Military Museum, Danang ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mztourist ( talk · contribs)
• HCPUNXKID ( talk · contribs)
• NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk · contribs)
• Cannolis ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am having a dispute with User:HCPUNXKID on the categorisation of Zone 5 Military Museum, Danang as Communist Propaganda. I have listed out numerous examples of the museum's POV captions on the Talk Page, however User:HCPUNXKID argues that the terminology on captions means nothing and that I have to give "serious proof" to justify the category.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None

How do you think we can help?

Provide a view on the necessary proof/threshold for categorisation

First I would like to thank User:Mztourist for taking the issue here. While he claims that the captions used in the museum (captions wich cannot be verified, as they arent visible in the photos he uploaded) use terminology like "mercenaries" or "puppet", that clearly aint a proof of "Communist propaganda", "Nationalist propaganda" or any other type, not compared with the other articles included in that category. Most if not all military museums in the world try to depreciate the enemy, via claims, terminology, etc...I'm still looking for a military museum in wich the own forces and their enemies are presented at the same level. Above all, I consider that its exaggerate to label a whole museum (or even all the museums in Vietnam, as he claimed in the article's talk page) as "Communist propaganda", moreover (as User:NorthBySouthBaranof points) when there is no external reliable source supporting that claim. Regards,-- HC PUNXKID 15:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

As a previously-uninvolved editor, I think this is a pretty simple issue. If we don't have a reliable source for the contentious and indisputably-negative statement that something is "Communist propaganda," we can't label something with that statement. WP:V is pretty clear, and without a source, the label is textbook original research. Moreover, even if one source calls it "Communist propaganda," that does not necessarily constitute a consensus of sources that it is "Communist propaganda." Before we label something in such a negative fashion, we need to take a serious look at what the reliable sources really say about the museum. A dearth of sources does not and cannot justify one editor categorizing the article based on their personal opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 18:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much agree with NorthBySouthBaranof. If the captions provided by Mztourist are real, they are pretty wonky, but it's not our place to call them or the museum anything, we go by what RS say. Cannolis ( talk) 21:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

24-hour closing notice: An additional couple of editors have joined in at the talk page discussion and will need to be listed here if this is to proceed, but it would appear to me that one of the primary parties is not going to join in here and that the discussion is moving along at the talk page. I propose to close this without prejudice to refiling unless HCPUNXKID chooses to give a summary of dispute by 15:00 UTC on 7 Oct 2014; if that occurs, then the other participants in the dispute will also need to be listed. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator) Withdrawn. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to note that this could be raised at WikiProject Vietnam for help if there is a logjam. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

TransporterMan, I wasn't even aware that other people had joined this discussion. I am more than happy to upload photos of the relevant captions as it appears that HC PUNXKID is questioning their content. It would also be useful to have a Vietnamese speaker, such as user Nguyễn Quốc Việt translate the Vietnamese captions that I also photographed. In relation to Cannolis's comments, the captions are more than "wonky" they show a persistent bias that amounts to propaganda. If the category is disallowed then this bias needs to be conveyed in the article. Mztourist ( talk) 05:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Then you need to find a reliable source which states that they are biased. Otherwise, you are inserting nothing more than your personal opinion in the encyclopedia, which is not permitted. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for editors to express their opinions about things. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I have provided quotes of the captions used in the museum on the talk page which I believe show a persistent bias that amounts to propaganda. As previously advised there are no RS on this museum, so I believe that it is appropriate that editors form a view. Mztourist ( talk) 10:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It'll be very difficult to find any credible sources on this little-known museum. Nguyễn Quốc Việt ( talk) 17:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm a regular volunteer here (and the current coordinator). I am going to render a neutral opinion — and please bear in mind that's all it is: an opinion, not a judgment or ruling — and then close this case. I do not believe that the category "Communist propaganda" should be included at this article at this time. The controlling rule for categories in articles is given in the Articles subsection of the Categorization guideline which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." (Emphasis added.) At the present time there is no verifiable information in the article establishing that this museum, or most of the information contained in it, is communist propaganda and the category should not be included for that reason. (Contrast War Remnants Museum another Vietnam museum which does have the category, but which also has a section in which sources, at least one of which is clearly a reliable source, are cited discussing the propagandist nature of the museum.) Until such verifiable information is added to the text of this Zone 5 article, inclusion of the category is inappropriate. It should be noted that, if I may try to anticipate an argument, the museum itself or the captions on exhibits in the museum cannot be used as PRIMARY sources to include such a section in the article since PRIMARY says, as policy, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." (Emphasis as in original.) The captions say what they say, but to interpret them as propaganda, much less to analyze them as a group or whole to show a systemic bias towards propaganda, would clearly violate PRIMARY. Just as in War Remnants Museum if the article is to discuss propaganda, and thus allow the inclusion of the category, a secondary reliable source must be found. I believe that this result is clearly established by guidelines and policy and that there is little room for further discussion. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:43, 14 October 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.

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:Sukkot#Another .22source.22 removed ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Theredheifer ( talk · contribs)
• Debresser ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This edit http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/high-holy-days-2014/high-holy-day-news-and-features/.premium-1.619440 has been removed on the grounds that

The article fails WP:V since it is accessible only to subscribers. The source itself is an online newspaper, known to be leftist, hardly a WP:RS for the origins of religious traditions. The article makes non-mainstream claims, admitting that they are speculative. The writer is a popularizer at most, whose credentials are unclear. As can be seen on this list of his recent articles he makes large claims, giving the impression his articles are more about sensation than academic reliability.

The first claim has now been withdrawn.

I have argued that this is an RS. The newspaper is perfectly acceptable and the writer's other articles if they are indeed relevant, do not justify the term sensational.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed on talk page.

How do you think we can help?

A simple decision is required to establish if this is an RS.

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.

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:Carl DeMaio ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Champaign_Supernova ( talk · contribs)
• MelanieN ( talk · contribs)
• trackinfo ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There's an extremely notable issue in a congressional candidate's campaign, involving what are I believe to be credible issues of sexual harassment and bribery. CFredkin has a persistent pattern of editing articles of those involved in high profile, competitive, mostly federal elections, removing negative information about mostly conservative candidates (probably exclusively Republicans) and adding positive information about them, while doing the opposite with progressive or centrist Democrats or independents. Of 3,700 or so edits in 18 months or so since first posting, well over 90% of this editor's edits have been to this end. Most of the remainder have been on high profile issues, some unfamiliar to me. This editor is thoroughly familiar with Wikipedia policy, using that familiarity to great advantage in regular disputes. I don't have similar skills. I think this is the first time I've ever referred a matter to a noticeboard. I confess that Wikipedia is a small part of my life but an extremely important asset in the fund of information necessary to the task of being a good citizen of any political persuasion in the U.S. and other countries. Millions depend on it. In addition, I think that a comprehensive and free source of information on a wide variety of topics is also an incredible resource at this time in history. A review of my edits will demonstrate that I post on a broad range of subjects. I find myself distracted from my many tasks when I encounter this editor's intensity and prodigious partisan postings, but I think it's important that neutral observers assess this situation since it has affected so many users. A large proportion of them seem to be upset with this editor's persistence in forwarding a narrow and often what I believe to be a deceptive agenda, but their conflicts, disagreements or simple differences of opinion, seem to wear them down. I'd hope an analysis can be developed, possibly using strong circumstantial evidence, to ban this user.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have provided extensive, comprehensively sourced, and what I believe are well-edited additions to the Carl DeMaio and that article's TALK page. CFredkin has done wholesale reverts to my edits which have the effect of sanitizing the recent history of the subject of the page, a candidate in November's general election in California. I have seen this behavior replicated with a substantial number of other users and the editor's additions, deletions and reverts have been discussed extensively.

How do you think we can help?

I would hope one or more dispassionate and objective observers would look, not only at the two pages in question, but at much broader, persistent behavior on the part of this editor who seems to be replicating this behavior on many similar current candidates' pages. I think a review of CFredkin's history for the past 18 months would also be productive. Two reasons disturb me. CFredkin seems to justify edits using similar arguments for or against different subjects. I suspect an extreme COI.

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.

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:Wind power#Recent edit EU garbage ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ChamithN ( talk · contribs)
• Gravuritas ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is an ongoing argument about a Wind power analysis, between me and another user who is saying that the content I added was false and inaccurate. Even though I have provided verifiable,reliable sources with my edits he doesn't even agree with the sources.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Used lots of Wikipedia policies to justify my edits.

How do you think we can help?

By providing a skilled editor who is familiar with most of Wikipedia policies.

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.

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:Teleprompter ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Vfrickey ( talk · contribs)
• Wikidemon ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the "History" section of the article Teleprompter, there's an ongoing dispute over whether or not to place material mentioning President Barack Obama's use of the teleprompter, which is documented by a neutral source article, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19663.html "The TelePrompter: Obama's Safety Net", written by politico.com's White House correspondent Carol E. Lee. Ms. Lee's article states "Obama’s reliance on the teleprompter is unusual — not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events, large and small. After the teleprompter malfunctioned a few times last summer and Obama delivered some less-than-soaring speeches, reports surfaced that he was training to wean himself off of the device while on vacation in Hawaii. But no such luck." I also referred to http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/1b43o1/obama-speaks-to-a-sixth-grade-classroom, "Obama Speaks to a Sixth Grade Classroom," a monologue by Jon Stewart, host of the The Daily Show in which actual footage of Mr. Obama reading a speech to students in a classroom from a portable teleprompter is shown behind Mr. Stewart's desk while Mr. Stewart delivers his monologue on the comic aspects of Mr. Obama's use of the teleprompter.

This documents the change during the teleprompter's history from its utility during major political speeches to its becoming a portable, indispensable aid to the current President to delivering public addresses in fora ranging from the State of the Union Address to meetings of a relatively few Administration officials, down to classroom visits. This is a noteworthy change in the utility and the actual use of the teleprompter, and that even commentators who like President Obama are amused by it - this has become a comic meme. My edits documenting this were reverted twice by Wikidemon, who accused me of edit-warring and not discussing my edits on the talk page, both false statements.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've made the statements above and others, some alluding to prior conflicts with Wikidemon in which he not only reverted my edits, but falsely accused me of making edits on Christmas Eve to avoid other editors' attention, to show a pattern of conduct on wikidemon's part. I've explained my position, that this isn't a partisan shot at the President, but documentation of the evolving role of the teleprompter. I also revised my edits for length and deleted material not strictly germane to the history of the teleprompter. This didn't do any good, he reverted my second edit as well.

How do you think we can help?

I hope that light can be thrown on this dispute to make an on-going problem more widely known to the wikipedia community. Politically-themed deletion and reversion of edits is an ongoing problem throughout wikipedia. It needs to be discussed here in the editing community and correctives for the problem developed. I am not trying to do politics here, just make the article better - it won't help the utility of wikipedia if pervasive phenomena such as Mr. Obama's teleprompter use are suppressed.

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.

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

• Natural number ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Thomas Walker Lynch ( talk · contribs)
• MjolnirPants ( talk · contribs)
• D.Lazard ( talk · contribs)
• Rick Norwood ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is in my area of study and I noticed a couple of small shortcommings to the article, no matter how small my edits were deleted. Sooo I went to the library and researched the issues to get some solid references. Indeed I did learn a lot in that exercise. Though my edits were deleted, one of the issues was addressed.

However, the second one is meeting with a storm of obfuscation. It has followed three patterns, 1) I bring up a reasoned description of the sources, I'm met with a "that's wrong" with no citations perhaps a note on my talk page saying I'm abusing the forum or some other noise, I reply perhaps explaining why it is right, and there is no more responses as though the issue is closed. 2) I make an entry in a section on topic, there is no or little response, and a new section or sections are opened on the topic with an opposite view, typically uncited, or perhaps something cited from a dictionary, nothing I said is mentioned, and I'm shunned from the new section with accusations of "hijacking". (see the bottom of my talk page).

The second issue I've raised is straightforward and in all the source material. The Peano Axioms define a successor function This is very important because arithmetic is based on it. (My field is in applied arithmetics.) You know, repeated successor is addition, etc. Often this successor function is ignored, after all not very many people go around building arithmetic. But it is there, and it is important.

Key references turned out have a discussion of mathematical philosophy from the late 19th century when all this happened. Those discussions are just being shut down.

To get an idea how much work has been put into burying these two points, look at the talk page before I arrived, and look at it now. It was about 3 pages, it is now about 25.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

1) bringing more citations to the table 2) reasoned discourse in reviewing and reconciling the citations 3) Talk page is now very long, as are individual talk pages.

How do you think we can help?

Look at the bottom of the Discussion of the Lede section for example. Only one other editor participated while others ignored. I was told my changes to the lede required consensus and were deleted. If I tried to stop changes on the section by others I was accused of an edit war (see my talk page and that of DLazard). It would be helpful if edits I make based on citations are allowed unless they are discussed with reason and counter citations of merit.

• Thomas deleting other's comments #1
• Thomas deleting other's comments #2
• Thomas deleting other's comments #3 (and admitting to it in the edit summary, after he'd been warned about this behavior twice)
• Thomas deleting other's comments #4
• Thomas deleting other's comments #5

Note that Thomas has been warned, both on his talk page, in edit summaries and on the article talk page multiple times that deleting other users' comments is absolutely unacceptable. He persisted in doing so anyways until (it seems to me) he realized that they're all preserved in the page history. I say this because in some of those diffs, you can see him also erasing some of the more inflammatory parts of his own posts.

 

• Thomas both engages in name calling and patently untrue accusations when he refers to "...b******s who keep deleting my comments."
• Thomas engages in name calling while heavily modifying comments of mine on his talk page
• Thomas' assumed ownership of the Natural number talk page with over 100 edits in 2 weeks

You might also notice in the page history the number of times Thomas has been asked to stop using the page as a forum for his thoughts on the article's subject. He has yet to stop doing so.

Finally, note his continual use of of patronizing and demeaning variations of my username. This is almost certainly intentional, due to the variety he uses and the fact that he's never had any difficulty spelling it right when he needs to. I've left the title of this section alone to illustrate that.

Regarding his edits to the actual article: I've never reverted a single one, nor tagged any claim of his. In fact, the only edit I've made to the page since Thomas started editing there has been to fix the layout of the pictures.

Frankly, he's incredibly lucky he hasn't been dragged into AN/I by now. The only reason I haven't done so is because I gave up on the Natural number article and took it off my watchlist, so I haven't been exposed to his shenanigans for some time.

So if other users are ignoring his claims, reverting his edits and arguing with him without any willingness to listen (all untrue, but let us presume for the sake of argument), then it is clear why: Thomas does not play well with others. In fact, once I've put together all of the diffs I need to evince every single misbehavior he's engaged in with respect to me or any other editor at Natural number, I think I will be bringing this to AN/I.

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The situation at Natural number and Talk: Natural number has already been the object of two notifications by Tkuvho at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Natural_number, in which he summarizes his view of the dispute.

Thomas Walker Lynch is a new editor, with a low mathematical knowledge (this is blatant from his posts on the talk page and above discussion overview), who attempts to publish in Wikipedia his own views on numbers. After being stopped to edit the lead of the article in this way, he posted numerous lengthy comments on the talk page, most of them being relevant to a forum and not to a talk page. It results that for several threads of this talk page, it is really difficult to decide what is the subject of the discussion. He proposed also several new versions of the lead, all containing personal opinions and original research, and none following MOS:LEDE guidelines. These propositions have effectively not been discussed, IMO, because it would be a waste of time, as there will never get any consensus. Moreover, although Thomas Walker Lynch is certainly a good faith editor, it appears to be a crackpot user, and the advice "do not feed the troll" applies to the relations with him.

I believe that it suffices to read above "dispute overview" to be convinced that I have correctly described the situation. D.Lazard ( talk) 12:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Walker Lynch brings a great deal of enthusiasm to the rewriting of the page Natural Numbers, and as he says he writes there a great deal. I, and other editors, have tried to praise what he does that is constructive, and to explain, with references, where he goes off track. I have provided him with quite a few references to standard mathematics books, and other editors have done the same. I think he would be a better editor if he slowed down a bit, and considered his edits more carefully. His description above of the way he has been treated on the page does not coincide with my impressions of the situation. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me add that I do not see Thomas Walker Lynch as either a crackpot or a troll. If I had to guess, my guess is that he is a sophomore, which is no crime. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

DRN coordinator's note and 72-hour closing notice: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. If I read the foregoing statements by MjolnirPants and D.Lazard correctly, they see this as a conduct matter, not a content matter. If that is correct then this request should be closed as futile since this noticeboard does not discuss conduct matters and since without those two editors — and participation here is always voluntary, never mandatory — any effort here would be futile. Unless they withdraw their conduct statements, above, and make summaries which only refer to content, not conduct, by 14:00 UTC on October 19, I or another volunteer will close this request. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I've already put in a report at AN/I about it. I'm fine with closing this request down. This was never much of a content dispute, only a dispute over the way Thomas has been dealing with content. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree this case should be closed without further delay.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:47, 17 October 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.

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

• Jesus ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• User-multi error: no username detected ( help).
• User-multi error: no username detected ( help).

Dispute overview

Jesus is not a fictional character and it is portrayed such on the page. Jesus was a real person and is mentioned in history accounts and not just the Bible.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

N/A

How do you think we can help?

Change him from not being a fictional character.

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.

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

• Person of Interest (TV series) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• AbramTerger ( talk · contribs)
• Drmargi ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Talk:Person of Interest_(TV_series)#Revamped_Recurring_characters discussion

Several issues of content have arisen. I can accept (though I don't agree with) the rejection of using the TV guidlines, I think the content ordering should be consistent within the article and that some standards need to be in place. Other "related" discussions that are also in dispute to some degree:

Talk:Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)#Regular_cast_order,

Talk:Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)#The_dog_as_a_main_character

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried several compromises, all have been reverted. Several discussions have been started on the talk page(dog as main character, main cast order, recurring cast ordering). i have also asked for a discussion on user talk. There seems (at least to me) a reluctance to discuss and explain the logic and maintain a logic in the article. I try WP:BRD, but get revert with a claim to keep the status quo until a consensus is reached, but then no attempt to explain.

How do you think we can help?

I am not sure. I am not sure it is possible to insist someone discuss and insist someone try to compromise and collaborate (or even follow article guidelines). Even in the discussion at Talk:Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)#The_dog_as_a_main_character where there does seem a local consensus to do something, Drmargi reverts it. I am hoping that some encouragement could help get Drmargi to at least explain their logic so I can work with that.

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.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• User talk:Dthomsen8#Again.2C please stop ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jakec ( talk · contribs)
• Dthomsen8 ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Multiple times over the past year and a half, I've noticed the user Dthomsen8 assessing many of the 170ish articles that I've created. While some of these assessments are correct, many, if not most, are incorrect. One example includes this, which tags the article on the Catawissa Tunnel as start class, where WP:STARTCLASS seems to imply that this is for badly written articles, with such phrases as "distinctly unencyclopedic" and "weak in many areas". While most of the articles I create are not particularly long (I think most are in the 3000-5000 character range in terms of readable prose), I strongly disagree with the implication that they are badly written. As I said above, this has been going on for a while (see this tagging of an article that looked like this at the time and this tagging of Little Nescopeck Creek). These are just the most egregious examples; several dozen articles have likely been affected. It is not just articles that I have created either; see this tagging of this article, which no reasonable person could call a stub.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to ask Dthomsen8 to fix these issues multiple times. The 1st time I got an reasonable response. The 2nd time I brought up the issue, this happened (reassessment never occurred). The 3rd time, he admitted to using an assessment method that's out-of-line with the actual rules and suggested PR: overkill for changing an incorrect rating. The 4th and 5th times, I was ignored. (no links b/c 500 char limit)

How do you think we can help?

I hope you can succeed where my talkpage requests have failed and convince Dthomsen8 to slow down when assessing articles, to take the time to read them, and to read the relevant article assessment guidelines. Thank you.

JakeC has created a great many well researched and well written articles on Pennsylvania streams, and I appreciate the great deal of work he has done.

When he creates these articles, he adds a WikiProject template for Pennsylvania and for Rivers without a class or importance.

I have tried to keep the number of unrated Pennsylvania and Philadelphia articles low, and I have been doing this for years. Currently there are 4 "Unknown-importance Pennsylvania articles" and 2 "Unassessed Pennsylvania articles."

Now I have decided to shift my main attention on Wikipedia to creating new articles. I have only created 129 new articles since my first article in May 2009, but I have some in progress. For now, this is my reply.-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 17:06, 23 October 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.

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

• Boris Pasternak ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Toreeva ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In beginning of October I wrote in Boris Pasternak (under Culture influence) that our book (where I was designer/illustrator for the "Twenty Thousand Faces of Pasternak book". It was OK about month. But yesterday I wrote also that "Washington Museum of Russian Poetry and Music" was created in Washington about 5 Russian poets of Silver Age, including Boris Pasternak. And this my input was deleted together with my prev. input in begin. of October. I tried to type again, but again they were deleted. It is the real book and real museum, so I don't understand why both now articles were deleted?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to see the talk page but no resolution there. I deleted web site but sill no result, my input was deleted again

How do you think we can help?

Both inputs should be included back in that section. It shows that the name of Boris Pasternak is going back to restoring his name in the history. I'm Russian myself, so it is very important to see his name in USA. I'm currently finished to write about Cold War, and I included Boris Pasternak who the Cold War was handle in USSR at that time. So, please restore both of my 2 inputs.

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.

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:Gilgit-Baltistan#POK and IOK ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kautilya3 ( talk · contribs)
• Delljvc ( talk · contribs)
• TopGun ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Delljvc has changed the titles of two cited articles to be different from what they were in the source diff (possibly with good intent). When I reverted the edit, another user User:TopGun has re-reverted my revert. The ensuing discussion is going nowhere.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Posted on User talk:Delljvc and User talk:TopGun.

How do you think we can help?

Please tell us the right thing to do!

Hi, this was a misunderstanding and has been resolved. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 17:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm that the issue is resolved. You can close this issue. Thanks! Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

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|Gilgit-Baltistan}} - ~~~~ 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) 16:19, 24 October 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.

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:Riccardo Patrese ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mac Dreamstate ( talk · contribs)
• Epeefleche ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Content dispute.

User:Epeefleche insists on the inclusion of a source which states that the subject of the BLP in question, Riccardo Patrese, is Jewish. User:Epeefleche maintains that the source is RS, thus automatically warranting its inclusion in the article.

I dispute its inclusion on the grounds of there being no other sources to support its claim; that the book itself has not cited its own sources; and there being no direct quotes from Patrese himself on the matter.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Have discussed extensively at the article talk page, as well as RS:N.

How do you think we can help?

I would like input from editors who are familiar with BLP practices, in order to determine whether or not the source in question is sufficient to support the claim that Riccardo Patrese is of Jewish descent.

24 hour closing notice: The filing editor has stated here that he may wish to withdraw this request. Unless he indicates otherwise here by 14:00 UTC on 28 October 2014, this listing will be closed as withdrawn. If, on the other hand, he does wish to continue, he needs to add and notify the other editors who have joined in the discussion at the article talk page and at the RSN discussion and create opening statement sections for them, above. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 13:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

I would indeed like to withdraw the request. I did not originally anticipate it, but (fortunately) four additional editors have since entered the discussion at RS:N, so it looks to be ongoing for a while longer. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 19:45, 27 October 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.