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:Expulsion of Cham Albanians#Balkan Wars - OR .2F POV ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• DevilWearsBrioni ( talk · contribs)
• Resnjari ( talk · contribs)
• SilentResident ( talk · contribs)
• Alexikoua ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There's disagreement whether a section of the Expulsion of Cham Albanians constitutes as original research or not. The part in question is: "Muslim Chams were not keen to fight on the side of the Ottoman army, but already from autumn 1912 formed armed bands and raided the entire area as far north as Pogoni. As a result, hundreds of Greek villagers were forced to escape to nearby Corfu and Arta. Thus, the members of the Muslim community were treated as de facto enemies by the Greek state."

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've posted on the NOR noticeboard. See discussion here.

How do you think we can help?

Hopefully a neutral editor can steer the discussion in the right way.

I believe the contentious part is OR as it attempts to justify the Greek army's treatment of Muslim Chams by synthesizing two sources. Link to section: Expulsion of Cham Albanians#Balkan Wars (1912-1913). The Wikipedia entry essentially states that "Muslim Chams raided villages; they were thus treated as enemies by the Greek state", but neither of the two sources state that the Greek army treated Muslim Chams as enemies as a consequence of the raids by Muslim bands (quite the contrary, one of the sources states that Muslim Chams were reluctant to fight on the side of the Ottomans, but were nonetheless treated as enemies). Moreover, in the same section it's also stated that Athens had approached Muslim Chams as soon as the Balkan wars broke out, but the latter had already "formed irregular armed units and were burning Greek inhabited settlements". This is a distortion of the source ( see here). Intentional or not, it's clearly leads the reader to believe that the treatment of Muslim Chams was justified. At the very least, it's misrepresents one of the cited scholars, for example see section situation prior to annexation. Although the author doesn't explicitly state why the Greek army treated Muslim Chams as enemies, the situation prior to annexation certainly suggests that there were other factors at play.

Edit: I'd like to make some clarifications since there seems to be some confusion as to what the heart of the dispute is. I don't think it's helpful, especially for Guy, if we keep talking past each other. So let me be perfectly clear here: I have quoted a section of the Wikipedia article in the dispute overview. My contention is that the section is not supported by the two inlines because it "serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." I refer to OR policy: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." The grey text in the summary is secondary, and I'll gladly discuss it too, but please focus on the main issue.

Sorry for the late reply. About this matter, that section i would say that we need to have clarification about thee emergence of Cham miltias in the region. The Pitouli source says that the Muslim Albanian elite class (the beys etc) established the miltias and recruited from Muslim Albanian villages. As it stands now in the article that is mentioned in that form and instead it implies that Muslim Chams formed those groups from down below. Also a recent edit by Brioni at reversing and making the section not be one sided but take all issues that occurred into account during that time was deleted [1] based on Greek scholarship. I remind everyone to use the talpkage and take thing in good faith. Brioni has used quality sources. Also another related matter to that section is that Greece entry into the Balkans war and in the Epirus theatre needs to be cited due to Alexikoua raising issues over chronological sequences of Ottoman-Greek engagements. The sources used so far have not bothered to cite this simple fact. Some peer reviewed references would do the trick. Best. Resnjari ( talk) 21:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand why this dispute continues, and I do not intend to keep myself involved in it forever, hence I have ceased replying to this on the NOR noticeboard for a while now. The historical event in question, has already been well-sourced, quoted and dated. And, pardon me, but unless I missed something, no concrete and reliable sources opposing it have been provided, so far. No sources explicitly stating that the bands were not formed yet and the atrocities didn't happen at that time, so I can't help but find the argument for its removal unreasonable. -- SILENT RESIDENT 12:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The historical event that is questioned is well sourced with a full quote (i.e. Muslim Chams had already formed irregular armed units and were burning Greek inhabited settlements in the area of Paramythia.) , thus I can't understand what's the argument for its removal (also responded here [ [2]], and made a minor edit to clarify DWB's concern about when the attrocities exactly started[ [3]]). Alexikoua ( talk) 08:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I am Iazyges, a volunteer, as Guy Macon is involved in real life issues, I have offered to take over and he has accepted. So as of now I am the volunteer who will be working with you. @ DevilWearsBrioni:,@ Resnjari:,@ SilentResident:@ Alexikoua:. Iazyges ( talk) 18:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I am reading the statements above and going through the page and talk page history. When I am done (sometime today I hope) I will open this up for discussion and lay out a plan that I hope will allow us to resolve this content dispute. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for replying down there - I do not know where else to reply - But since the fellow user Resnjari just mentioned the edit changes in which both DevilWearsBrioni and Athenean were involved, I realized how the user Athenean was not invited here to make a statement. Couldn't this user too be given the chance to make a statement? Thanks. -- SILENT RESIDENT 02:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Athenean was not involved in the discussion, that's why he wasn't invited. He made one revert after this had been created. If he really wanted a "chance to make a statement", he could have made it on the talk page/noticeboard. With that said, I personally don't see why Athenean, or anyone else for that matter, can't join the discussion once this has been opened. DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 08:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment:Ok, ok, I wont comment about the other stuff. About this issue outright, just locate a few of those histories on the Balkans wars (there are a couple of good peer reviewed ones now out there, do a quick google search in google books etc) that gives Greece's entry into the Balkans war and in particular its entrance especially into the front in Epirus due to Alexikoua and Brioni discussing chronology. At least that should go some way to remedying this situation or at the very least giving info on how to go about this. I still stand by my earlier recommendation about making the sentence precise in this section about the irregular forces/militias (as per Pitouli) as they were formed by the Ottoman Muslim elite and not the initiative of local Muslim Cham villagers. Best. Resnjari ( talk) 11:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Please, please, please, could you just let Guy Macon decide without trying to indirectly influence his directions by suggesting, from your part, what specific sources shall he look upon and by which scholars? Because, dear Resnjari, we are in the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, where, and if I am not mistaken, once we have made our statements, the administrator is left to decide what is the best for the article in question. This means Guy Macon will have to weight on ALL the sources, (including Tsoutsoumpis's sources, among other scholars and not just only the Pitouli's sources). So, please, if we are done with our statements already (In the Summary of "Dispute by X User" section, above) where our position on the debate is made clear and well-known, then, I kindly recommend that we wait patiently and let Guy Macon decide without any of us making unnecessary suggestions on the matter that could affect decissions in the one or the other way, aside from discussion on the content itself. Thanks. -- SILENT RESIDENT 05:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I have placed an additional comment to the previous comment of mine. The statements outline the initial positions. This is a discussion too. I am not influencing anyone and am pointing out differences and issues with certain bits that led to this matter being here in the first place. I can wait. Best. Resnjari ( talk) 07:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@ DevilWearsBrioni:,@ Resnjari:,@ SilentResident:@ Alexikoua:: Ok so, having viewed the section in question, I have noticed that while there is a source for both that the Muslim chams didn't want to accept greek overlordship, and also "As a result, hundreds of Greek villagers were forced to escape to nearby Corfu and Arta.", what i take to be the OR dispute is "Muslim Chams were not keen to fight on the side of the Ottoman army, but already from autumn 1912 formed armed bands and raided the entire area as far north as Pogoni.", has no sources that I can see, now the question lies in was it always no-sourced or did the source perhaps get removed by previous edits, as such I will dive through the edit history looking for one. Or if anyone has a source for it, please send it to me. Iazyges ( talk) 18:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The source is here: Tsoutsoumpis, 2015, p. 122: "In the autumn of 1912, Muslim bands raided villages as far north as the area of Pogoni in Ioannina; resulting in hundreds of Greek peasants abandoning their homes and seeking shelter in Corfu and Arta." -- SILENT RESIDENT 20:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

That casts aside any doubts that the Muslim bands were already formed by the Autumn of the year 1912.-- SILENT RESIDENT 20:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi @ Iazyges: Have you read the discussion here (at least my post, and Alexikoua's response): Talk:Expulsion_of_Cham_Albanians#Balkan_Wars_-_OR_.2F_POV? No relevant sources have been removed. DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 20:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, @ DevilWearsBrioni:,@ SilentResident: I've read all of the summations of the dispute, and while the part about the Greek villagers escaping is sourced, and that cham didnt want to accept leadship of greeks is sourced, as you mentioned the part about them not wanting to join the ottomans but forming bands of their own. Viewing the citation of both themselves, I noticed the citation about the greek fleeing specifies only muslim raiders, not cham raiders, which while they have a correlation doesn't neccisarily mean that the cham did it, only that muslims did it. However the other source about them not wanting to accept greek overlordship does specify that the cham burned villages. "Among the Albanian beys Epirus , most Liapis and Chams , who had strongly anti-Greek feelings had already formed irregular bodies and fought against the Greek army and the Greek body , burning villages in Paramythia and Headlight areas. Some beys instead to Delvinou apartments, Gjirokastra , Torrent and Margaritiou seemed ready to accept the Greek domination , to exempt from the anarchy that resulted from a shadowy Turkish power. as early as October 17 Athens had entrusted him Spyromilios consult with their beys , to declare allegiance soon , assuring them that the Greek authorities would respect the life and property of Muslims and that the Greek government would care for their moral satisfaction , depending on the services to be offered ", p. 360: " Albanian Muslim from sancak Resadie , after the occupation of the Greek army , fled to Vlore . many of them had fought with the Turks against the Greeks , and had pyrpolisei several villages in sections Filiaton and Paramythia. There, before the final installation of the Greek authorities had made ​​against them and some reprisals from Christians, and conflicts between Albanian and Greek bodies" Unless the translation is shody, it does appear the sentence about the cham looting and burning is not original research, however their the source does contradict the "didn't want to fight on the side of the ottomans" with the "many of them had fought with the Turks against the Greeks " part of the source. Iazyges ( talk) 20:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The Chams did in fact burn villages, but if you look at the source you just quoted it states that Chams "had fought against the Greek army, burning villages in..." These events occurred during the war, when both sides were burning villages. What's OR is the synthesis of sources. Tsoutsoumpis states that Muslim bands raided villages in autumn. Baltsiotis states that Muslim Chams were reluctant to fight on the side of the Ottoman army, but were nevertheless treated as enemies. The wikipedia entry states that they were treated as enemies because Muslim bands raided villages in autumn. DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 21:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority of the muslim community in the Ioannina region were Muslim Chams, not Muslims of other ethnicities.

Here are the sources about the population data of that time period. The Muslim Chams constituted more than 95% of the muslim community's population in the whole region:

Erickson, Edward J. (2003). Defeat in detail: the Ottoman Army in the Balkans, 1912–1913. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 41. ISBN  978-0-275-97888-4. Retrieved 23 January 2011.

Sakellariou, M. V. (1997). Epirus, 4000 years of Greek history and civilization. Ekdotike Athenon. p. 480. ISBN  978-960-213-371-2.

M. V. Sakellariou. Epirus, 4000 years of Greek history and civilization. Ekdotikē Athēnōn, 1997, ISBN  9789602133712, p. 356

-- SILENT RESIDENT 21:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@ DevilWearsBrioni:,@ SilentResident: Given these sources it is not original research, however the bit about the chams not wanting to fight for the turks may need updating, as according to the source i talked about above, many of the cham raiders had fought alongside the turks against the greek. Iazyges ( talk) 21:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Please understand that I have never argued that the Chams didn't fight on the side of the Ottoman army. Evene Baltsiotis writes: "During the Balkan War, in late 1912, when Muslim Chams were fighting on the side of the Ottoman Army, and Christian Chams on that of the Greek Army, several local conflicts emerged." Before that he states "Although Muslim Chams were not eager to fight on the side of the Ottoman army during the Balkan Wars, they were nevertheless treated by the Greek army as de facto enemies". The issue here is whether it's synthesis to conclude that Muslim Chams were treated as enemies because Muslim bands raided villages in Autumn. DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 21:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, dear Iazyges. Because I always wondered why this was seen as an OR case when it clearly is not. Much appreciated. -- SILENT RESIDENT 21:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

And I agree, dear Iazyges, that the particular sentence you have mentioned, indeed needs an update. -- SILENT RESIDENT 21:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Muslim Chams constituted a fraction of the population. Have you even read Tsoutsoumpis, the very source you quoted above? DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 21:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear DevilWearsBrioni, please you need accept the facts for once... This is not OR...

And yes, like Alexikoua has explained, based on Tsoutsoumpis's sources, it's more than obvious that 'Muslims' refers to "Muslim Chams": the people of the Muslim community. In Tsoutsoumbis's scholarship, the specific section is labelled: "The land and the people" and it begins with a geopolitical analysis: "Thesprotia is located in north-western Greece, .....During the early 20th century the population was a little over 65,000 one-third of whom were Muslims". Everyone can conclude that this was the Muslims community involved in the events. -- SILENT RESIDENT 21:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@ DevilWearsBrioni: Whether the Tsoutsoumpis source is accurate is not, the Greek source i mentioned above makes it non OR. Iazyges ( talk) 21:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@ DevilWearsBrioni:, @ SilentResident: And with that conclusion I believe the case is closed, unless someone has a valid argument then I will close the case in a few hours.

Thanks. I am very glad this has been resolved in the one or the other way, because this dispute has escalated toooooo long, to the point of exhausting me. Dear @ DevilWearsBrioni:, dear @ Iazyges:, if you excuse me, now that the dispute is resolved, can I take a break from it so I can focuse on other Wikipedia articles that need more immediate attention? Being involved in a never-ending dispute like this, is very counterproductive for both the editors and the Wikipedia as whole. -- SILENT RESIDENT 21:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@ SilentResident:, Yes you may, if you would like to be the one to rephrase the ottoman issue then go for it. But the issue is over, I will now close the case. Iazyges ( talk) 21:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The source is accurate with regards to the numbers, I have not claimed it's not. You keep misunderstanding me. SilentResident claims Muslim Chams constituted 95% of the region when they in fact were a fraction of the population, all according to the source. DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 21:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

That is immaterial unless that fact (if it is incorrect) is in the article itself, the other source is in line with the disputed sentences, so even if it's based upon only one source, it is not OR. Iazyges ( talk) 21:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@ Iazyges: May I ask what you believe my position on the issue is? When you say it's not OR, what do you mean? DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 21:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@ DevilWearsBrioni: Well according to your statement the sentences are OR, as the greek source (Pitouli-Kitsou, p. 212) Is in line and supports the sentence, it cannot be considered original research. Iazyges ( talk) 21:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Iazyges is correct. Indeed, the sources provided so far, do not allow for the sentence to be considered OR. -- SILENT RESIDENT 21:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh god, dear DevilWearsBrioni, you have dragged everyone in endless disputes, endless edit wars with other users, and then you have brought the case to both the OR Noticeboard and the DR Noticeboard, and yet, in spite of the dispute being FINALLY over, you are refusing to see the facts. We have 1) the fact that the Muslim Chams constituted the vast majority of the muslim population, we have 2) the fact that the Muslim Chams did not want to accept Greek rule over the region and we have 3) the fact that Muslim Chams burned Greek villages and joined the Ottomans against the Greek side... We have indisputable facts and sources. But in spite of all that, you are now disputing what? I am losing track of your objections, dear DevilWearsBrioni. It is hard to follow your logic. Listen, I can no longer stay endlessly on this dispute with you. And if you want to dispute the "Cham Albanians burning Greek villages", then open a new Dispute Resolution procedure in the Noticeboard or something... -- SILENT RESIDENT 21:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I must admit i'm confused, you use dear as both a term of affection towards me and also passive agressively against Devilwearspada. Iazyges ( talk) 22:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The dear is more a formality in my case. Usually, with people who do not know for a long time, I tend to use the term dear more frequently than for people whom I have talked alot and know them for a long time. My apologies if it meant personal affection, as I do not know your gender, so I can't use mister or miss for your case. So I use the gender-neutral dear. -- SILENT RESIDENT 22:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@ Iazyges: You seem to think that my position is that Muslim Chams didn't burn villages. That's not the case. I'm stating that the conclusion that Muslim Chams were treated as enemies by the Greek army because Muslim bands raided villages is synthesis of the material. How could one possibly state that they were treated as enemies because Muslim bands raided villages when none of the sources make the claim? DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 21:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I am very confused @ DevilWearsBrioni:, the greek source literally says "the cham .... who had strongly anti-Greek feelings had already formed irregular bodies and fought against the Greek army and the Greek body , burning villages in Paramythia and Headlight areas." The source backs it up, I dont understand what you are arguing about or for? Iazyges ( talk) 22:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@ Iazyges: Yes, the Chams burned villages during the war. I have never denied this. But we're discussing why they were treated as enemies prior to this. For example, here's a timeline of the events from one of the source:

Although Muslim Chams were not eager to fight on the side of the Ottoman army during the Balkan Wars, they were nevertheless treated by the Greek army as de facto enemies, while local Christians were enlisted in the Greek forces. For example, a few days after the occupation of the area of Chamouria by the Greek Army, 72 or 78 Muslim notables were executed by a Greek irregular military unit in the religiously mixed town of Paramythia, evidently accused of being traitors.31 During the Balkan War, in late 1912, when Muslim Chams were fighting on the side of the Ottoman Army, and Christian Chams on that of the Greek Army, several local conflicts emerged.

DevilWearsBrioni, The Muslim Chams, hated the Greeks (they had strong anti-Greek sentiments), opposed the idea of a Greek rule in their region, and they have ALREADY FORMED irregular bands that raided the Greek villages! And if that was not enough, they joined the Ottomans in the Greek-Ottoman war! How could the Greek side treating them as enemies could be synthesizing for you? -- SILENT RESIDENT 22:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, the raids by Muslim bands in Autumn as discussed by Tsoutsoumpis are not related to the village burnings that occurred during the war in October. DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear DevilWearsBrioni, do I sense an attempt to make the irregular Muslim Cham bands simply "irregular Muslim bands"? Playing with words.... -- SILENT RESIDENT 22:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

There were about 25,000 Muslim Chams in the region. Epirus was home to more than hundred thousand Muslims during this time. You are equating Muslim bands with Muslim Chams when the source clearly doesn't. It simply states "Muslim bands". DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 22:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@ DevilWearsBrioni:, As the matter has been resolved logically, that the sentences are not OR. While the DRN cannot enforce the decisions it makes, I can as per WP:M request that you be blocked from editing an area, should you disrupt the decision made, I do not want to do this, but if you do disrupt it, I will request it, and the admin may grant it. And you are free to appeal the decision, but as @ SilentResident: has opted out of any further argument on the subject, it would be less than pointless. Of course you could try your hand at the arbitration committee or the mediation committee, but their decisions are final, and they would very likely reach the same conclusion. While it may seem that I am being unfair, as per WP:M I work with people who dispute, I work for the good of wikipedia. As such I will close this case within 10 minutes. Iazyges ( talk) 22:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@ DevilWearsBrioni:, @ SilentResident:, I have closed the case, and as mentioned Devilwearsbrioni is free to appeal the decision, but this case is over. Iazyges ( talk) 22:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Here at DRN we only allow comments on the content of the article. Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. -- Guy Macon
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
NOTE to participants: DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors here. See Focus on Content. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Indeed, this user was not involved in the dispute before, and yet, it is evident that he too has reverted your edits. I can't stop but wonder why third party users too -besides those involved in the dispute- have reverted your edits, DevilWearsBrioni. Mapping the case and getting a record of the reasons this has led even the third party users who were un-involved to the dispute, to revert your edits couldn't harm the ongoing resolution progress. But these are just my thoughts. If this goes against the resolution rules, then you have my apologies and you can ignore my comment. -- SILENT RESIDENT 09:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about not opening this for discussion right away; I had a bit of a crisis to deal with tonight.

To answer the question above, nuts and bolts case administration things like telling me that I may have missed a user who is involved or arguing that the user really wasn't involved are OK, but I really don't want arguments about who is right and wrong about the page content until I open the discussion. Remember, this is a place where we will have a structured discussion with an impartial arbitrator. If you just unload on each other you will be doing what you did on the article talk page, and we know that doing that failed to result in a resolution. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Here at DRN we only allow comments on the content of the article. Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. -- Guy Macon
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
NOTE to participants: DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors here. See Focus on Content. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Yes great idea Silent! Yes it would be good of Athenean to join the discussion and give his input on why peer reviewed material of Greek scholarship was deleted by him based on a "consensus" reason. Fantastic Silent. Should have thought of that too. I am looking forward to the discussion. Best. Resnjari ( talk) 04:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Here at DRN we only allow comments on the content of the article. Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. -- Guy Macon
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
NOTE to participants: DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors here. See Focus on Content. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Am I sensing a dose of sarcasm, my dear friend Resnjari? First of all, I am sorry I do not know exactly, nor am I aware of what is going on between you and that user, and although I have seen you tracking him on other talk pages such as the Greco-Italian War's talk page for reasons that are escaping me, it is none of my business, I do not intend to know what is going on between you two, nor I want to get involved in your relation with that person. I have recommended that person to Guy Macon just for the aforementioned simple reason on the previous comment. Nothing more, nothing less from my part. Likewise, I prefer just to wait for Guy Macon's final resolution on the DRN on this dispute, if you don't mind, so we can be done with this prolonged debate as it has become counterproductive and has exhausted me, and I am certain, the same is true for you too. I hope you understand and I wish you a good day, my friend and do not expect more comments/responses from me here on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. -- SILENT RESIDENT 09:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Here at DRN we only allow comments on the content of the article. Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. -- Guy Macon
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
NOTE to participants: DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors here. See Focus on Content. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Sarcasm??? What do mean ? I am perplexed. I simply agreed with your suggestion as i think it is fantastic. All editors should engage in the discussion that have made recent edits especially of that important type. As i said previously, it would be great to have Athenean take part and have his input about such issues (like about fake consensus he raised, it would be interesting to know what he meant by that as i am ever so curious) that i raised about peer reviewed Greek scholarship and deletions. In the end if Guy Macron thinks that Athenean should not join us then well one cannot have their cake and eat it too as the saying goes. Yet like said, i value Athenean's input want him to know that if he reads this just like i assume he does of other editors like me. All in good faith. Its why i wholeheartedly agree with your suggestion. As for discussions on this matter i have time for it. Best. Resnjari ( talk) 09:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: I have not abandoned you. I am dealing with a crisis in real life, but it shouldn't take more than a few more hours. Sorry for the delay. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about us. Take your time, it is ok. I hope everything's ok. -- SILENT RESIDENT 21:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

---

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

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

Users involved

• Richard0048 ( talk · contribs)
• Soupforone ( talk · contribs)
• Otakrem ( talk · contribs)
• AcidSnow ( talk · contribs)
• Chipmunkdavis ( talk · contribs)
• SilkTork ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue involves what term is prefered to describe the location of the country Eritrea in the lede and the geographic section of the article. I have argumented for restoring the use of the term East Africa or Eastern Africa which used by international organization such as United Nations ^{[1] [2]}, African Union ^[3] and African development bank ^{[4] [5]} to mention a few, East Africa was also recently used in the article until the other part in the dispute Soupforone ( talk · contribs) changed it to Horn of Africa. I have suggested using both since Eritrea is part of both East Africa and Horn of Africa, even though the latter being less recognized region and a less used term to describe the country's location by international organizations. At the moment it only mentions Horn of Africa. Opinions and comments in resolving this issue would be appricated.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing the matter on the talk page and provided suggestions to resolve the issue

How do you think we can help?

Comments and opinions on what term should be used and opinions why both can't be mentioned

• Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion on the article talk page, which is one of the conditions to open a case here. The filing editor has notified the main other editor. An administrator also took part in the talk page discussion and has not been notified. Although they may not be interested in participating because they were neutral, they should be notified anyway. We are waiting for the administrator to be notified, and for the other editor to reply as to whether they are willing to participate in moderated discussion. (Moderated discussion is voluntary but encouraged.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Basically, Richard0048 changed the geographical location of Eritrea from Horn of Africa to East Africa without any apparent justification [4]. While tidying up some unlicensed files, I rolled to the original toponym. He subsequently objected for the reasons above. After some fruitless discussion on the talk page, I contacted the administrator SilkTork to facilitate dialogue. SilkTork then suggested noting the three primary locations for Eritrea (Horn of Africa, Northeast Africa and Eastern Africa) [5]. However, Richard0048 objected to all geographical phrasings that gave equal weight to Northeast Africa. I pointed out that the Eritrean Ministry of Information indicates that Eritrea is situated in the Horn [6]. It also draws a geographical distinction between the latter region and East Africa [7], but apparently not with North East Africa [8], and it doesn't appear to use these toponyms interchangeably. CMD then explained that both Northeast Africa and Eastern Africa were unnecessary regional qualifiers since it is already geographically implicit that the Horn of Africa is located within these areas. Otakrem, AcidSnow and myself agreed with this reasoning; especially since the country policy stipulates that the lede should indicate the "location in the world" in the singular rather locations in the plural. However, this rough consensus was apparently not satisfactory for Richard0048. Soupforone ( talk) 18:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. AcidSnow ( talk) 18:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned Horn of Africa is used in the lead for Ethiopia, Djbouti, and Somalia,therefore either implement Richard's suggestion for all the Three countries or keep Eritrea as the same as those 3 countries. Richard only wanted to apply this to Eritrea only. I asked Why? No convincing argument was given. I agree with Soupforone and AcidSnow on keeping only Horn of Africa. Otakrem ( talk) 01:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - I see that one editor has added some other editors. The other editors should be notified of this discussion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I did even suggest to include all three geographic namings, several times. Some of the editors that have been added besides soupforone and silkTork has not been engaged in the discussion from start. I did change it in January as you mentioned but nobody objected to it at that time. Richard0048 ( talk) 18:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• I consider myself notified in that my name was linked, so I have been alerted by the system. I'd be quite happy for discussion to take place here. I have limited time on Wikipedia these days, and so am unable to monitor and respond in a timely manner; it is appropriate for others to now take over. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I did suggest and accepted the suggestion to also add for other countries in the horn of Africa. Richard0048 ( talk) 02:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I will accept this case. All parties in this case, make your statements below. After this, please discuss. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I have made my statement by opening the case. The other parties may provide their statements Richard0048 ( talk) 17:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note Richard0048 Removed an image on the grounds of incorrect licensing, but AcidSnow Reverted this. I realize this happened around 6 days ago but I haven't found any discussion of this here. Iazyges ( talk) 06:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note As I go further back in the article history, I notice that this same image has been added by Soupforone, removed by Richard0048, and his removal reverted by AcidSnow multiple times. However there has been no activity on the page within 6 or so days, and the image is currently on the page with the last edit being soupforone reverting richards0048's removal of the image. Robert McClenon has a consensus been reached in regards to the image? Iazyges ( talk) 06:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - I am not the moderator here. User:ThePlatypusofDoom is the moderator. Follow their instructions by making your statement here below. Robert McClenon ( talk) 12:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note I'm confused, I'm entirely new to the DRN, so please forgive me, but isn't only the disputing parties supposed to make a statement Robert McClenon? Iazyges ( talk) 14:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Yes. The other volunteer is correct. I was restating the instructions of the moderator, who told the disputing parties to make statements. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Richard0048 Removed an image on the grounds of incorrect licensing, but AcidSnow Reverted this. I realize this happened around 6 days ago but I haven't found any discussion of this here. As I go further back in the article history, I notice that this same image has been added by Soupforone, removed by Richard0048, and his removal reverted by AcidSnow multiple times. However there has been no activity on the page within 6 or so days, and the image is currently on the page with the last edit being reverting richards0048's removal of the image. Iazyges ( talk) 15:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Iazyges, that is not the issue in the op. Please see below. Soupforone ( talk) 03:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

As user lazyges mentions the article have not been edited for a coulple of days. My changes are being reverted by soupforone and AcidSnow as the volunteer points out. Consensus has yet to be reached regarding the naming of Eritreas location.These two have not been engaged in this discussion. They have had the chance to do so for almost two weeks, yet they have choosen not to. The behavior of these two should be viewed since they are making edits, without legitime sources and without trying to reach consensus, at the same time intefering when other users do edit.. Regarding the image, as user lazyges mention it have been removed by me and have been added serveral times by these two users. The image should not be on the article for serveral reason mentioned on the talk page of the article. Richard0048 ( talk) 07:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - As indicated in the op, this discussion is on the Horn of Africa vs. East Africa link in the intro. The image file is a separate matter (Richard tried to have the file deleted from Commons, but this was dismissed as spurious and the file's license was just cleared [9]). I, AcidSnow and Otakrem object to Richard's unjustified link change from Horn of Africa to East Africa for the reasons explained above. Soupforone ( talk) 03:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer Comment Ok, i mentioned the two below due to the amount of time it was mentioned in the article talk of eritrea, the issue of the HOA vs EA matter shouldn't be difficult to dispute, as while East africa is a fitting description, it is less specific than the Horn of africa is. Iazyges ( talk) 03:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I have opened the discussion. Please discuss below. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

If this is disputed, could you hold a RfC for this? 
ThePlatypusofDoom  
(talk) 20:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

To streamline the case, in danger of sounding lawyeristic, we have separate issues that are being debated correct? The use of a photo was the most recent dispute, with another photo also being disputed, and the primary dispute being the changing of the location from horn of africa to east africa. I think we should separate the three as if they were three different disputes. 
1st dispute: Soho women in traditional attire, the license appears to be valid, as when investigating the source itself it is marked that it may be used but must be attributed, which it is, unless the source cited on the page is incorrect, and that source has infringed upon a copyright, I see no problem here, but I may be wrong. As of a neutral POV, if it is correctly licensed, it  should stay upon the page unless there is any other issue with it.
2nd dispute: the queen of punt, it is a public domain file, and as such there is no argument over the license, but merely if the file is applicable, based upon if punt ever included the land of eritrea, most scholars agree that it was likely to cover both eritrea and ethiopia (or at least the northeast of it). 
Land of Punt. Currently due to the fact that both can claim it, I see no reason for a dispute.
3rd: The changing of horn of africa to east africa has already been much discussed but to break it down, the horn of africa is considered by popular consensus to be inside of northeast africa (
Horn of Africa), so there is no reason to change it  to east africa when horn of africa is more specific that I can tell, but again, if their is something i have missed (likely) please inform me. 
Iazyges (
talk) 
00:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC) @
Richard0048: @
Soupforone: @
AcidSnow:

As you mention lazyges there are three seperate issues. Regarding your comment on Horn of Africa being part of Northeast Africa. Horn of Africa is sometimes referred to as Northeast Africa so therefore it is not located within Northeast Africa since its sometimes referred to being Northeast Africa. Horn of Africa is located within East Africa. Therefore its not controversial to write that Eritrea is a country in Horn of Africa and that it is located in East Africa. E.g as suggested, "Eritrea is a country in Horn of Africa, located in East Africa." By this sentence the reader could get a quick understanding of the location of the country, at the same time the most common and etablished definition (East Africa) by UN, African Union, African devolopment bank etc is used. To use both is a fair compromize. The saho file is as separate issue, however the file has been subjected for dispute in the past for various of reasons, not correctly licensed, poor quality etc. This issue was also disputed more than a year ago, before soupforone decided to role back the page a year. Im still of the opinion that it should be replaced. As for the punt file, there is a level of uncertainties regarding if punt was located in what is today known as Eritrea. I have asked for caution on how punt is portrayed in relation to Eritrea. By doing that I have not questioned if the text should be on the article, but I have questioned if the image of the Queen of punt should be included in the article since it is unknown if she ruled what is today known as Eritrea. So my suggestion is to remove it from the article. Richard0048 ( talk) 07:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@ Richard0048: As I mentioned, according to the file Horn of Africa It is a location inside of east africa, but saying "it is locate in HOA a location in east africa" should be an easy solution? if both are there both sides are happy yes? As i mentioned the file i believe to be correct license, although i admit my lack of experience with the wikimedia commons, the punt issue is relatively immaterial, as almost all scholars agree that Punt contain both eritrea and north east ethiopia, so i must ask, not sarcastic but truly don't know, why is this being disputed in the eritrea article? As consensus has said that eritrea was in it. Iazyges ( talk) 16:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Iazyges. I agree with your logical conclusions. Soupforone ( talk) 17:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@ Soupforone: Have we achieved consensus consensus on your side? Do @ AcidSnow:, @ Otakrem:, and @ Chipmunkdavis: all agree to the following, 1. rather than saying that eritrea is a location in HOA or EA, say that it is a location "In the horn of africa, which is part of east africa." 2. The soho women picture, is see no issue with, unless the source cited plagiarized it, which would make the license invalid. 3. The queen of punt, i again see no apparent issue with, their is general consensus that eritrea was part of the kingdom of punt. Do all of the above parties agree on this? @ Richard0048:

TL;DR: 1. Instead of in HOA or EA, its in HOA which is part of EA, 2. Keep soho picture. 3. Keep queen of punt picture, what percentage of the involved people (5 involved that aren't volunteers/admins) agree to these compromises? Iazyges ( talk) 21:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the opinions. I can agree on your proposed suggestion for the naming of Eritreas location which you mentioned would be, "Ertrea is located in the horn of Africa, which is part of East Africa". Regarding the punt, it is still up to debate since there are many sources that point to that the location of punt is unknown. Therefore the best solution is diggin into and providing sources. Then we could see what the outcome is? If most reliable sources point to Eritrea being included in punt and that the punt Queen ruled the area today know as Eritrea then the image of punt Queen should stay, or else it should be removed.The saho image is being debated on the talk page, another image of higher quality should resolve that dispute. Richard0048 ( talk) 07:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

According to Land of Punt, at face value it says that eritrea was in punt, i believe their is a source that you may check out. " Simson Najovits, Egypt, trunk of the tree, Volume 2, (Algora Publishing: 2004), p.258." Iazyges ( talk) 12:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)@ Richard0048:

Thank you for the source. I will provide you with sources on punt. However in order to allow the original dispute to move forward the punt file and saho file should be put aside and discussed in the talk page of the article of Eritrea. Regarding the original dispute issue which was about the naming of Eritreas location I have accepted your suggestion. I would suggest that you move forward with making these changes if nobody objects. Which is changing the current naming of location to "Eritrea is located in the horn of africa, which is part of East Africa". Both in the lead and in the geographics section. You can refer to sources I have provided below. Other parties that were added by soupforone to the dispute about naming of Eritreas location have had weeks to respond and have not decided to engage. Richard0048 ( talk) 15:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Iazyges, Otakrem and Chipmunkdavis indicated on the talk page that Horn of Africa was sufficient in the lede, as it is geographically implicit in Northeast Africa and Eastern Africa (Chipmunkdavis actually pointed this out). Otakrem also repeated this above, as did I and AcidSnow. As regards the Saho file, AcidSnow and myself indicated on the Eritrea page that it was fine, and your rationale regarding the Punt file likewise seems logical. Soupforone ( talk) 16:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• @ Soupforone: @ Richard0048: Ok so: Soho files stays unless their is a higher quality picture that comes along, the punt file stays, and we compromise and have it be "In HOA which is in EA." Is that the agreement we have to end the dispute? Iazyges ( talk) 17:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

As I indicated above, all but Richard have asserted that HOA is sufficient for the lede since it is already geographically implicit in the other regions. The Saho file was already determined to be fine on Commons, including its quality. The Punt queen file is fine too, but the alternative Punt carriers file works as well. Soupforone ( talk) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@ Richard0048: As Horn of Africa indicated that HOA is inside of east africa, HOA is a better descriptor, so in effect anyone who reads the HOA or knows it already will know that it is in EA. So would you agree to keep it as HOA? Iazyges ( talk) 17:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

No its not ok. You came up with a suggestion then, I accepted it then you all of sudden changed your mind.I started this topic on the dispute resolution for a reason. It was not with the intention to only have horn of Africa in the lead for the article. Even though you tried to participate in this discussion, im getting the scense that your not impartial in your suggestions, since you seem to agree and provide the exact same arguments as (soupforone and AcidSnow).. Richard0048 ( talk) 20:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@ Richard0048: i'm following the logical progression, while I was previously for having both EA and HOA, i changed my mind due to reading the HOA article and learning that it states explicitly that it is in North east africa. The problem with what you want is it is less specific than leaving it at HOA, but the definition of HOA places it inside EA, meaning that their is no point changing it to EA when HOA is less specific. The reason that soupforone and I have reached the same conclusion is that I think that his point about HOA being inside of EA making the change or addition of EA illogical, and also I cannot really tell what you are trying to say in the last sentence, but it sounds like you're accusing me of being partial. Iazyges ( talk) 20:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The definition of Eritreas location which is East Africa According to UN, African Union, African development bank, World bank, WHO is being overlooked. For every user it is not clear what HOA is, it is not as widespread or recognized to describe Eritreas location in a global context as East Africa. For the sake of trying to compromize I have suggested in using both HOA and EA. Nobody has mentioned a good reason for leaving out "East Africa" which all of mentioned international organizations uses for defining Eritreas location. FYI Northeast Africa is by no means a recognized region, it is very difuse term which is sometimes referred to as Horn of Africa. The Horn of Africa article that you just read has been modified by the other disputing part. It feeds into the Northeast Africa article, which is a confusing article, which feeds into East Africa and North Africa articles. This is confusing for the reader, since Northeast Africa does not exist in terms of being a actual region. So therefore it should mention only East Africa or both Horn of Africa and East Africa. Regarding the last sentence, I have been notified about accusations regarding an involved user in this dispute. Im not accusing you or anyone else. You have provided your opinions, which are appreciated, im simply stating that your opinions are aligned with the other part. Richard0048 ( talk) 21:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

What organizations however large consider it is immaterial in this case, as this is a matter of which is better for the layman, which is always something specific according to a goldilocks standard. The term HOA while you pointed out is not recognized by organizations, is recognized by the common person, and thus works better than east africa. Iazyges ( talk) 22:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC) @ Richard0048:

@ Richard0048:The accusation being about AcidSnow saying that s/he is linked to Middayexpress, this tip was from Limit3skip, I read everyones talk page. Iazyges ( talk) 22:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

No the definitions of these organizations weights alot in this dispute. The specific could be East Africa in this case, since Horn of Africa is not more widespread, nor as recognized by the common person or organizations than East Africa. So it does not make sense to leave out East Africa in favour for Horn of Africa. Richard0048 ( talk) 22:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@ AcidSnow:@ Soupforone:@ Richard0048:

This constant back and forth is getting us nowhere, Richard, I dont see that we can get any farther from here, so i would recommend you take it to the arbitration or mediation committee. Iazyges ( talk) 22:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Would any of those pinged above be opposed to me closing this case and allowing richard to take it to either arbitration or mediation, as it is obvious nothing is being achieved? Iazyges ( talk) 22:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Iazyges, I must object. The insinuation that you are partial seems unjustified and therefore against board etiquette. The instructions at the top are to "refrain from discussing editorial conduct, and remember this noticeboard is for content disputes only." A volunteer's duty is also to gauge "consensus, compromise, and [give] advice about policy", which I think you've done quite fairly. It just so happens that the existing consensus on the talk page was already against Richard's position. With that noted, the apparent protocol to follow here is: "If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute." Therefore, per policy, if Richard no longer feels that you are sufficiently neutral, a replacement volunteer must step in. This shouldn't make much of a difference, though, since the existing consensus would be the same. Anyway, I think we should first wait and hear Otakrem's and AcidSnow's take on this. Soupforone ( talk) 02:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone I'm not the moderator of this case, Platypus of doom is, so if Richard0048 doesn't feel that I'm partial, I'll leave. Iazyges ( talk) 03:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC

Iazyges, if Richard is still uncomfortable with your volunteering, the FAQ indicates that a request for comment should be opened on the Eritrea talk page. Per WP:FORUMSHOPPING, that would necessarily be the last stop given the initial talk page discussion that was overseen by SilkTork and this present DRN discussion moderated by ThePlatypusofDoom. I also think that the moderator should perhaps word the RFC question to ensure neutrality. Maybe something like: "In the first sentence, is Horn of Africa sufficiently descriptive as a regional location for Eritrea, or should East Africa be appended alongside it?" Anyway, let's first wait and see Otakrem's and AcidSnow's take on this. Soupforone ( talk) 03:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Taking it to those boards might be an option. Adding another volunteer might be another option. Otakrem has not engaged in this discussion. The user however expressed that "East Africa" could be added to Eritrea and the other countries in the HOA if added to Eritrea. I would not object, therefore I think the user is positive of the idea of adding East Africa to the Eritrea. The user AcidSnow on the other part should be excluded from this discussion, given the fact I have been notified on my talk page from a user that this user is affiliated with a banned user. Also noted no so constructive behaviour from this user. An SPI would be good.Perhaps also lifting it to admin board. But back to the issue, We did not reach consensus on the Eritrea article that was the reason for starting the thread. Since the suggestion from admin was also overlooked. The opinions of experienced objective users has been absent. If this is not resolved here a option would fowarding it to another board. Would be good to get opinions from users that are not affiliated with one-another or involved in this dispute. Richard0048 ( talk) 07:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

{{U}richard0048}} That sounds exactly like you are calling me partial, as I mentioned I have been very objective, being partial gains me nothing, I would also like to point out I have no affiliation with anyone who is in this dispute, having met none of you before it, I am also not the main volunteer, so if you feel that I am partial, I will leave. Iazyges ( talk) 13:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I just stated that your'r coming up with the same arguments as the other part of the dispute.. What im asking for is to involve objective users that has not involved in the dispute on the Eritrea article and who are not affiliated with Soupforone. This disputed has lacked outside opinions from the start That Said, im not claiming that you are affiliated with soupforone just that your are making the same arguments.This dispute have overlooked sources, neutrality and relied only on one or two persons subjective opinions. Therefore more outside users needs to enagage or this issue moved forward to another board. The main volounteer should also express his/hers opinions. Richard0048 ( talk) 14:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Richard, actually, the only person I contacted was the administrator SilkTork. And that's mainly because, at the time, you were insisting on a template menu that obscured all of the prehistory and antiquity text. Otakrem, AcidSnow and Chipmunkdavis chimed in spontaneously on the Eritrea talk page, as is their right. Anyway, a rough consensus is not the same thing as perfect unanimity. Otakrem also clearly indicated above that he agrees with me and AcidSnow with linking to the Horn of Africa only. Iazyges, if you do opt to step aside, then the other two volunteers can assume your duties. Whatever you decide, your efforts here are appreciated. Soupforone ( talk) 17:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I took in user:silkTork first advice and accepted to include both HOA and EA. Then I also agreed examples to including all three namings as admin silkTork suggested. The user Otakrem stated that if we came to the conclusion that we should add it to Eritrea, we could aswell add it for the rest of the HOA countries which I agreed on. Regarding the template issue I did however agreed on changes you made. Oktarem and Chipmunkdavis did get involved in this dispute on the talkpage of the article and they have not been engaged ever since. You added them to this dispute, they are not volunteers. Opinions should come from other users, prefarably experienced outside users not involved in this dispute. lazyges your work is appreciated. Based on the situation it would be preferrable if the user who accepted this case makes a statement. Richard0048 ( talk) 18:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Richard, I added Otakrem, AcidSnow and Chimunkdavis because they were already part of the discussion on the Eritrea talk page. The two replacement volunteers I was referring to above are obviously ThePlatypusofDoom and Robert McClenon. Also, SilkTork's initial suggestion was Horn of Africa, Northeast Africa and East Africa (three regions), not just Horn of Africa and East Africa (two regions). And he wanted equal parity for these regions, which you rejected. Otakrem indicates above that he tried to compromise over the three regions but no convincing argument was given, so he has opted instead to go with Horn of Africa only. Anyway, I think we can reach an agreement quite easily if you just stay consistent with your position. Are intergovernmental organizations (like the UN, African Union, African Development Bank, and Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa) the way to go for the regional partitions or not? Because you can't assert that they are for Eritrea, and in the next moment insist that they are not for Egypt and Sudan. Soupforone ( talk) 18:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Soupforone has pretty much summed up my stance already, so there isn't much for me to say. If you guys still want my input, then please tell me what questions they are. AcidSnow ( talk) 18:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

To Everyone, I'd like to add, that my position has been expressed already. So far no logical reason has been given why a special attention to Eritrea has been given in regards to the HOA vs EA/Northeast Africa region location. I will also add if the Land of Punt is in Eritrea as well as anywhere else in the HOA, then why this specific issue with Eritrea? As for the Saho woman picture, well the fact is Saho are an Ethnic group which is Primarily in Eritrea therefore the Picture is very Relevant and infact a Great Illustration of the Ethnic Diversity of Eritrea.My apologies for run-on sentences. Otakrem ( talk) 07:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
AcidSnow your opinions are not legitime. You will be investigated for affiliation with a banned user.

soupforone, silkTork also suggested in the beginning of the dispute to add both HOA and EA, I accepted it, you objected to it. Yes the volunteers can join into the discussion. East Africa is a region, Horn of Africa is a region.. Common market for Eastern and Southern Africa is a free trade area, it is not a region! The definition of UN, African Union, African development bank defines more or less what is part of the region East Africa, and Eritrea is part of East Africa. Egypt is not per any definition by UN or African Union part of East Africa region. Egypt is part of North Africa. Stick to the topic, this is about naming of Eritreas location. I Specifically asked to discuss the punt and saho image on Eritrea article, in order for this dispute to move forward. However you must have not followed the discussion Oktarem, I have never claimed that saho should not be represented in the article nor have I claimed that Eritrea was not a part of punt, I objected to the way punt was portrayed in relation to Eritrea. Followed them discussion on the Eritrea article. But back to the original dispute of Eritreas location. There is not in any way a special treatment for Eritrea. The issue did not come out of nowehere, it is a brech of the wiki policy for neutrality of sources and neutral point of view, to not include East Africa. Since this discussion has been fruitless and its lacking the views of users that is not involved in this dispute the issue will be furthered to the mediation board as suggested before. Richard0048 ( talk) 07:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• My name is being pinged, so I will comment. There have been several minor disputes regarding the recent editing of Eritrea. Those involved have, by and large, been working through the disputes in good faith. There have been instances of edit warring and personal comments, but these have been addressed, and the editors have been focussing on the issues, and have avoided destabilising the article. I initially inhibited the two main parties Soupforone and Richard0048 from directly editing the article until they reached consensus; however, when Richard0048 proved to be uncooperative (reverting on the article, then being absent from Wikipedia for long periods, only returning when the article was edited to again revert without discussion) I allowed Soupforone to edit without seeking consensus from Richard0048, otherwise the article was being held to ransom. Since then Richard0048 has become more cooperative - as for example reaching out for assistance on this page, and it would be unfair at this stage to continue to hold him to a one-sided restriction, especially as I am no longer really involved in that dispute.

The main and continuing point of contention has been how to describe the location of Eritrea, with one side favouring Horn of Africa, and the other side favouring East Africa. When I looked into sources I found that Eritrea is sometimes described as being in the Horn of Africa, sometimes as being in East Africa (or similar wording), and sometimes as being in Northeast Africa (or similar wording). The usual approach on Wikipedia when there are several ways of describing something, is not to favour one term over another, but to include all the terms. This is neutral and informative. The reader who has read that Eritrea is in East Africa ( [10], [11], [12]) who then lands on our article to read that Eritrea is in the Horn of Africa will have a moment of uncertainty, and may well decide to adjust the article to accord with his understanding. While this policy link refers to article names, rather than topic locations, the principles still apply here, and are what we normally do, so it is worth looking at: WP:OTHERNAMES. Also see WP:PLACE. It is not uncommon for countries or places to be given more than one identifying location - Glasgow mentions West Central Lowlands. Scotland, and United Kingdom in the first paragraph; Swansea mentions Glamorgan, South West Wales, Wales and the UK in the first paragraph; Wales, England, and Scotland mention both the UK and GB.

Our guidelines on writing the lead is WP:Lead, and the expectation is that the lead will be an overview of the main points of the article. The main body will go into detail on those points. The parties should be encouraged to reach a solution that follows all our editing guidelines, is helpful and informative to our readers, prevents confusion, and avoids future disputes. I suggest that such a solution would be to provide details in the lead that can be more fully explained in the main body, such as the one mentioned above: "Eritrea is a country in the Horn of Africa, located in East Africa." Details on both East Africa and the Horn of Africa can be given in the main body. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

SilkTork, some city pages do appear to indicate various locations. The thing is, though, few if any actual countries seem to do this. Wales, England and Scotland link to their island landmass rather than to the various broader regions they are a part of. The parallel would then be something like "Wales is a country in the United Kingdom, which is located on the British Isles in Northwestern Europe." However, this would be too long-winded and geographically implicit, much like the three-regions designations for Eritrea. Soupforone ( talk) 15:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Richard -- Otakrem, AcidSnow and SilkTork have clarified their positions, and they are still essentially the same. You indicate above that the UN, African Union and African Development Bank (all intergovernmental organizations) dictate the geographical location of Eritrea. Yet, you have insisted that Egypt and Sudan are, by contrast, not geographically located in East Africa although they are members of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (another intergovernmental organization, and one with an East Africa location as an actual membership criterion). So which of the two is it? Are the geographical regions of the intergovernmental organizations legitimate or not? Also, if Egypt and Sudan were removed from East Africa, would you agree to just the original Horn of Africa link in the Eritrea lede? Soupforone ( talk) 15:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa is a free trade area. East Africa is a geographical location just as West Africa, Southern Africa or Nothern Africa. The common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa is a intergovernmental organization as soupforone mentioned, however this organization does not define what is part of the region East Africa or Southern Africa. According to UN and African Union, Egypt is part of Northern Africa. And by any means by the the public and the common user. Egypt may be include in the organization Common Market for East and Southern Africa, but this does not automatically include Egypt in the region of East Africa or Southern Africa simply because its included in a free trade agreement. So China would be a candidate for country of East, West and Southern Africa by your definition? Once again stick to the topic. The definition of East Africa by the organization such as UN and African Union I would say is legitime. Oktarem has made his statement clear, user:silkTork has not taken side with you. silkTork specifically asked us to use Wikipedia guidelines in order for us to resolve this dispute, which I think would be the most rational solution in this dispute. And once again just by having HOA does not solve this issue just as silkTork pointed out, and what I pointed out many times. If not solved this is going to the mediation board. Richard0048 ( talk) 20:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC).

@ Richard0048: I would agree that it should as its obvious nothing is being gained. Iazyges ( talk) 20:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@ Richard0048: Also if you continue to edit war, in the form of reverting my or other parties edits, I will, as per WP:M, in the control of mediation section, request that you be sanctioned however SilkTork ( talk · contribs) feels is appropriate. Iazyges ( talk) 20:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@ Richard0048: Also about the whole acidsnow being linked to Middayexpress, who you (or at least Limit3skip, your source) purports to be banned, is in fact retired, not banned. Iazyges ( talk) 20:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

lazyges, as mentioned. Your work is appreciated but you have overstepped your mandate as a volunteer several times by getting involved the dispute (and other disputes), rather than help solving it. Thank you but im still expecting the two moderate/volunteers to come with suggestions. lazyges regarding your edit war on East Africa. I would prefer if you stop. user:silkTork has not in any way expressed his/her support for your reverting on that article. You are making the same edits as AcidSnow. Please join the discussion on that article and please provide sources that Egypt is part of East Africa before you start reverting. Richard0048 ( talk) 21:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@ Richard0048: How have I overstepped? Iazyges ( talk) 20:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

What is the and other disputes supposed to mean @ Richard0048:? Iazyges ( talk) 21:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@ SilkTork: When you told @ Richard0048: to stop making disruptive edits, for clarification, was that only on the eritrea page or on all related pages? Iazyges ( talk) 21:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

lazyges, that dispute should be adressed on that talk article.. I started a thread on the East African talk page for that separate issue, please join that discussion before you revert. This dispute is about the naming of Eritreas location so please stick to the topic. Richard0048 ( talk) 22:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Richard, should this discussion not work out, the next step per the FAQ is an RFC question on the Eritrea talk page since RFCs precede formal mediation in the dispute resolution process. With that noted, please see the bottom of the United Nations, African Union, African Development Bank and Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa pages. These are all intergovernmental organizations, so your rationale should be the same for Eritrea and the other territories, like Otakrem wrote. Soupforone ( talk) 03:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

We will see how we will proceed, the main volunteers might have some comments? As I have stated before, UN and African Unions definition of the East Africa region is legitime. They have specifically define whats included in the region East Africa, Egypt is by no means included in EA or SA simply because it doing business in Eastern and Southern Africa. Common market for Eastern and Southern Africa has not defined whats included in the region for East Africa, since this is free trade agreement organization coopertating within an area and nothing else. Again, back to the main topic, as mentiond before I would not object to adding EA to the other HOA countries, even though this dispute is focused on Eritrea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard0048 ( talk • contribs) 10:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Richard, if the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa is irrelevant (despite it being an intergovernmental organization like the UN and AU), then surely so is the African Development Bank. Anyway, you indicated above that you are okay with SilkTork's suggested three-region compromise phrasing. I think that could perhaps work too and Otakrem also indicated that it may be workable. How, then, about this: "Eritrea ... is a country in the Horn of Africa, which is located in Northeast Africa and is part of the Eastern Africa subregion."? Soupforone ( talk) 18:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Common Market for Eastern and Southern cannot be compared to UN or African Union. You cannot compare a free trade agreement to UN or African Union since they serve completely different purposes. I did even come up with a three word naming, I however did not accepted your propsed suggestion which I have explained many times, still you are coming with the same suggestions. Once again, northeast Africa is a difuse term and not a recognized region (or a actual region) like East Africa/Eastern Africa or Horn of Africa. Horn of Africa is also sometimes described as being northeast Africa. Lasty NE is not used as a way of describing Eritreas regional belonging by UN, African Union and many other relevant organizations. All of this sums up that Northeast Africa is the least relevant. and that it should be left out in favour for East Africa and horn of Africa. As pointed out Eritrea actual regional belongings are East Africa and Horn of Africa. Since we are exactly where we started I suggest of moving forward this to another board. Richard0048 ( talk) 07:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

My name keeps being pinged in this. To clarify my position here. At the time I got involved in the dispute, as per common practise in such situations, I suggested to both parties that they discuss and agree before making edits on the Eritrea article. As matters developed and it appeared that Richard0048 was being uncooperative, I said to Soupforone that he could edit the article without having to wait for Richard0048's agreement. As Richard0048 is now fully engaged in the dispute, I have lifted the one-sided restriction. I have no restriction on any party to edit in the normal manner. As there is a dispute resolution process in place, advice on who can edit which article should be referred not to me, but to those who are handling the dispute. It is quite normal, when a dispute is in place, for the parties who are in dispute to cease editing until agreement in reached; and it would make sense to restrict the parties from editing all articles related to East Africa until this matter is resolved to prevent any potential conflict which may inhibit the progress of the resolution; however, it is up to those who are handling this dispute to make judgement as to which articles are related to the central one, and to apply an editing restriction or to allow editing as they feel appropriate. Please ask questions of those dealing with this dispute as to who can and cannot edit, and which articles they can edit.

I am unclear as to whether User:Iazyges is a party to this dispute or attempting to assist in the resolution. I note he is involved in a slow edit war on East Africa, which doesn't appear helpful. As there is conflict with this user, Iazyges should either be named as a party to the dispute, or should cease being involved.

As regards moving the dispute resolution to ArbCom or Mediation, as a former member of the Arbitration Committee I can say that request would be rejected because a) a dispute resolution is already in place that has not yet finished, b) all dispute resolution avenues have not been explored, and c) it is not at the level of requiring ArbCom intervention. Those handling Mediation would also prefer to see parties work through to a conclusion here rather than jumping early to Mediation, so a request at this stage would highly likely be rejected. Only if this dispute resolution broke down would Mediation be appropriate.

As regards authorities or organisations using a certain name or term, see Wikipedia:Official names for guidance. In general, we look to use common terms rather than official ones to identify a topic; though it is appropriate to mention the official name somewhere in the article. Decisions to use a term because it's the "official" one should be weighed against how widespread that usage is. See WP:COMMONTERM.

Could I ask that parties now ask questions of those handling this dispute rather than pinging me. If my attention is really needed I will turn up here, but could that be at the request only of those handling this matter, and that all parties or "helpers" only mention my name unpinged. Thanks. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

To clarify my own position, I was upholding what I thought was SilkTorks instructions, but now that it has been clarified I will follow these. Iazyges ( talk) 13:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, it has been a week, and this is going nowhere, I am closing the case. Please hold an RfC. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

---

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

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:Quantico (TV series) ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Chriswillclark ( talk · contribs)
• AlexTheWhovian ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue has been raised about the appropriate location for plot information in a distinct heading that meets the criteria for user expectation of revealing plot details in 'plot'/'ending' summaries, and the inclusion or non-deletion of already existing information in the article (as outlined in WP:Spoilers).

I have suggested moving details to a plot summary heading, rather than cast list to avoid users unwittingly finding out details as a compromise between the two guidelines. This has been refused by the editor Alex|The|Whovian rejecting compromise in order to improve the article (as outlined in WP:Ignore all rules policy).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Have addressed the issue through the Talk:Quantico page. Attempts to compromise have been rejected.

How do you think we can help?

A third party to mediate discussion, facilitate a compromise between the two viewpoints, and allow for a mutual and productive exchange.

Chriswillclark ( talk) 12:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)Also, editor previously commented this - (diff | hist) . . Talk:Quantico (TV series)‎; 11:37 . . (-8)‎ . . ‎AlexTheWhovian (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎Removing Spoilers from Cast descriptions: User doesn't get my previous request, apparently. And stick to your logged in account.) - which demonstrates a deviation from the content of the article to the individual which is against Wiki guidelines. Chriswillclark ( talk) 12:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. It has not really been sufficient to warrant opening a thread here. The filing party has notified the registered editor. There has also been discussion by an IP address. The IP is probably the filing party. If not, the filing party should notify the IP. If the IP is the filing party, then the filing party is advised to use more care to log in before editing. It is hard to discuss with an editor who edits (in good faith) both from an account and from an IP address. This thread will be left in this new pending state for 24 hours to allow further discussion on the talk page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Chriswillclark ( talk) 14:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)Could you recommend alternative means of resolution if the editor chooses to disengage from the talk page in question? For instance, they have posted to my talk page and reverted edits made to the article talk page which suggests potentially that they are unwilling to participate in the discussion further. Also, they have referred to a separate talk page for another article whereby they appear to have had the same discussion which ended in the same uncooperative manner. I'd be happy to continue discussing this using the most appropriate means, but in a way that facilitates a conversation in order to resolve this issue. Chriswillclark ( talk) 14:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - The question was asked of what to do if an editor chooses to disengage from the talk page. I don't see any evidence of disengaging from the talk page.(The comment that was made on the other editor's talk page was to remind them that they should log in before editing. Editing alternately from an account and from an IP address is a common mistake for new editors, but is very confusing, and new editors should be careful to use their account names.) However, there are at least two forms of disengaging from the talk page. The first is editing the article repeatedly without discussing the edits. That is a form of edit-warring. The other party should report the edit-warring to the edit-warring noticeboard. This may either result in a block of the edit-warrior, or in the page being locked (which forces the editors to go to the talk page). The second is withdrawing from the article and its talk page completely. In that case, of course, one may make reasonable edits without worrying about being reverted. Does that answer the question? Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

---

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

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:Family Home Entertainment ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Trivialist ( talk · contribs)
• Paine Ellsworth ( talk · contribs)
• Sro23 ( talk · contribs)
• Yellow Dingo ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Trivialist unfairly destroyed the Family Home Entertainment page and redirected it to the Artisan Entertainment page just because he thinks that FHE was a former name of the company, so I reverted it but he and the others kept adding the redirect back.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to revert the FHE page back to the way it was several times, and I even threatened them for adding the redirect back. But then they blocked me and I tried so hard to remind anyone on my talk page that FHE was a subsidiary and not a former company name.

How do you think we can help?

Family Home Entertainment was the name of the KIDS AND FAMILY SUBSIDIARY of Artisan, not just one of the parent company's former names. It's just that FHE became a LABEL of the parent company after the latter was incorporated as International Video Entertainment in 1986. Can you please remove the page's redirect to the Artisan page and add all of its content back?

---

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:Jill Stein ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Snooganssnoogans ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Jill Stein's article is lacking neutrality, with some negative explicit bias being presented in the article in which it has no place. There have been a series of slanderous edits being defended here. The most egregious of which is the "3rd party chances" section of the article.

Most of the Edits on the page have been made by user "Snooganssnoogans", and they are not exactly wikipedia quality. The entire talk section has become partisan in a way that is totally unacceptable.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I made a post in the discussion section about how the 3rd party chances section needs to be removed and has no place in this article.

How do you think we can help?

The article is high profile, it's about a presidential candidate, but it seems to have been allowed to be neglected in a way that is unacceptable. It needs a level of oversight that its not receiving.

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. However, there are at this time a few problems with this request. First, the request only lists one of several editors who have been involved at the talk page, and does not list the filing party. All of the editors should be listed, including the filing party. Second, the other editors have not been notified of this filing. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editors of a filing at this noticeboard. Third, there is a discussion underway at the neutral point of view noticeboard. We cannot accept a discussion here while a discussion is pending at another forum. If the editor who opened the thread at NPOVN is willing to transfer the discussion here, they may close the thread at NPOVN. (In my opinion, transferring the discussion here would be likely to be useful, because this noticeboard is more likely to result in resolution than NPOVN is, but that is only my opinion.) I am leaving this thread open to allow proper listing and notice of all editors and for closure of the NPOVN thread. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

---

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

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 the talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Murder of Seth Rich ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 62.178.163.64 ( talk · contribs)
• Anythingyouwant ( talk · contribs)
• Comatmebro ( talk · contribs)
• D.Creish ( talk · contribs)
• FallingGravity ( talk · contribs)
• Geogene ( talk · contribs)
• Guy Macon ( talk · contribs)
• JGabbard ( talk · contribs)
• JzG ( talk · contribs)
• PeacePeace ( talk · contribs)
• Somedifferentstuff ( talk · contribs)
• SPECIFICO ( talk · contribs)
• StAnselm ( talk · contribs)
• Steve Quinn ( talk · contribs)
• The Four Deuces ( talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A minority obstructionist group of editors has been deleting key details about this incident, particularly the well-publicized Wikileaks reward offer. They are quibbling over contributions by everyone else, attempting to sanitize the article in order to omit all facts about the manner and method of Rich's murder which might suggest a motive other than the police theory of a robbery. They have secured a lockdown on the article for the duration of the week, which the majority feels should be lifted.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have reproved the irrational approach of these editors, but have abandoned my efforts on the talk page in the face of their obstructionist tactics because I can no longer assume good faith on the part of at least two of them.

How do you think we can help?

1. Remove the article's lockdown. 2. Warn the obstructionist, self-appointed 'guardian editors' of the article (User:SPECIFICO) et al., that edit warring against the contributions of others will carry consequences. 3. Ensure that the article is allowed to develop naturally.

I am not sure that this DRN request is well-formed, and I would rather it be cancelled or at least suspended. I disagree with the opening statement that the material editors want to remove from the article would "suggest a motive other than the police theory of a robbery." Some of that material might, some wouldn't, and in any event that is no reason to include or exclude information like whether anything was stolen from the victim, or whether he was sober when last seen; these are basic facts about a murder investigation regardless of what they might suggest, and they have been highly publicized in reliable sources. Moreover, the person who started this DRN request is alleged to have been making other inappropriate remarks. I suggest we put this DRN on ice pending outcome of the matter I just linked to. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The main problem I see is an attempt to censor notable information from the article. Just adding the statement "WikiLeaks later announced a reward of $20,000 for information leading to a conviction for the killing," upsets some specific editors who claim we're promoting conspiracies that violate BLP. Is reporting a fact about WikiLeaks' actions BLP? Efforts to separate the reward money from the conspiracy, something that I think is possible, have been unsuccessful. ^Falling _Gravity 18:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The "dispute overview" is overtly partisan and full of aspersions. For that this proceeding has no credibility; I will not waste my time being insulted here under the pretense of "dispute resolution". Geogene ( talk) 19:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: although I am a dispute resolution volunteer, I have removed myself from the list of volunteers for the duration of this case, and should be treated like any other editor who is party to a dispute. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I generally like "wasting my time" but I'm gonna have to pass on this one. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 23:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what happens at AE before engaging in further discussion on this. SPECIFICO talk 22:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

SPECIFICO wrote, "Now that consensus appears to favor removal of all the WP:COATRACK nonsense, it's likely the article will be deleted soon enough." [13] I think that summarizes one side of the dispute: the topic lacks notability and they have removed a lot of information about the event: the actions of victim in the hours before his death, how the police became aware of the shooting, rewards offered for solving the case and speculation reported in the press about the motive for the killing.

The position of the other side is that the topic meets notability because it has "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It has been the ongoing subject of articles in various prominent mainstream media and what is relevant to the topic is what the media sees relevant to report, not what editors choose, per "Balancing aspects": "An article should...strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject."

While certainly not a major issue in the current U.S. presidential campaign, the topic nonetheless is relevant to the campaign because of speculation about the connection of the death with leaks of DNC emails. (Indeed had there been no speculation then there would not have been ongoing coverage and the death would have lacked notability.) So partisan politics is an issue.

TFD ( talk) 17:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Ummm.... you can see part of the problem right away from the filer's description of the problem: "A minority obstructionist group of editors ...". I don't particularly appreciate being called "obstructionists". It's going to be hard to expect much from this dispute resolution process if some editors go into it with an attitude like that. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that Geogene has already made the same point. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The claims to majority/minority made by the filer are also total bunk. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, the filer's answer to "How you think we can help?" basically amounts to "whaaaaaa!!!! Why won't let me push my POV and violate BLP in peace??? Sanction them!". It's textbook example of WP:BATTLEGROUND and bad faith. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been extensive discussion at the article talk page. It is necessary to list all of the editors in filing here. Just saying that there are many of them isn't sufficient. I am leaving this thread open to permit either the filing party or another party to list and notify the other editors. This noticeboard cannot and will not remove the protection. The purpose of the protection is to force the editors to discuss on the article talk page, or to discuss somewhere else such as here, if proper notice is given. Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Every user that has discussed this matter on the talk page has been added to the list and properly notified. This includes editors that participated in the merge discussion, but not the editor who assessed the article for WP:DEATH or the editor who closed the AfD discussion. This also includes one IP editor who has not edited since 12 August 2016. -- AntiCompositeNumber ( Leave a message) 16:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: User TradingJihadist ( talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked on 12 August 2016, and hence I've removed them from the listing. Should they get unblocked anytime soon, they are free to include their name and chime in the discussion. Regards— UY Scuti ^Talk 18:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Due to the large number of editors listed here, and because some editors have stated that they do not want to participate in dispute resolution, which is voluntary, we will follow the rule of formal mediation and will only open moderated discussion if a majority of the editors agree to moderated discussion. Waiting for replies from the remaining editors. If moderated discussion is started, the moderator will have the authority defined in the mediation policy. Comment on content only, not on contributors, both before and after a case is opened. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

---

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

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:Nikolai Gogol#Purging WP:undue ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• DionysosProteus ( talk · contribs)
• Iryna Harpy ( talk · contribs)
• 94.139.128.169 ( talk · contribs)
• Ушкуйник ( talk · contribs)
• Alex Bakharev ( talk · contribs)
• Faustian ( talk · contribs)
• BoguSlav ( talk · contribs)
• USchick ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The "ownership" of the writer Nikolai Gogol is an active cultural/political disupte between Russia and Ukraine. I was alerted to the unencyclopaedic activities by a similar attempt at Anton Chekhov. I am utterly indifferent to the nationalistic claims of either, having no connection whatsoever with Russia or the Ukraine. The article is being used to promote a political agenda. It requires editors uninvolved in either Russia or Ukraine cultural politics to help to restore an appropriate tone, supported by sources that, similarly, are uninvolved in the ongoing political dispute whose repercussions are being felt here in Wikipedia. The issue of nationality/ethnicity etc. should not be dominating the article on the writer, however important politically motivated contributors may feel it to be.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I spent some time carefully editing the article, removing blogs etc. used as sources, as well as cleaning up the structure of the article. It's being reverted and I can see there is little interest in following Wikipedia's policies in the matter. There is a long history of the same dispute circling again and again on the talk page. Nationality or ethnicity should not be the dominant theme of the article--neither Ukrainian nor Russian--it violates undue guidelines

How do you think we can help?

The problem is indexed to an external political conflict and is, as a result I suspect, ultimately intractable. My concern is with maintaining whatever objectivity and neutrality it is possible to achieve within those circumstances. That needs the assistance of editors more familiar with handling such issues, as I'm sure they often come up in those articles involved in other global poltical conflicts. There is a fairly clear line in non-involved sources. It requires other editors to help.

• Volunteer note - There has been extensive discussion between two editors on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editor. The filing party has also listed and notified a large number of editors who have not recently been involved either in the editing of the article or in discussion at the article talk page. Waiting for a response from the other editor who has been involved in this dispute and from the multiple editors who have been notified but have not recently been involved in the article or the dispute about the article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Filing-party note - I understood all editors involved in discussing the topic on the talk page needed to be notified. I haven't used this process before. Apologies if that wasn't what was expected.  • DP •   ^{huh?} 02:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - I see. It appears that the filing party listed everyone who has ever discussed the article on the article talk page, including last year. We will let them decide whether they want to participate. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - The dispute appears to be primarily between the filing party and User:Iryna Harpy. If User:Iryna Harpy does not respond, then, since dispute resolution here is voluntary, this case will be closed, and the filing party will be advised as to next steps. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

---

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

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?

-

Location of dispute

• Talk:Harry Watson, Jr. ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Koplimek ( talk · contribs)
• JLOPO ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A dispute between another editor(JLOPO) and myself. It is actually a carry over from 2015 on the same issue on Harry Watson, Jr. talk page. On the issue of Harry Watson Jr.'s date of death which he insists is October 1, 1965. He has posted no source/citation and uses the excuse that because he created the article that his death occurred in October '65. Silent Film Necrology contradicts and clearly states Watson Jr. died in September 1930 which I sourced from the Silent Film Necrology. Koplimek ( talk) 17:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: Please use the DR/N request form when requesting dispute resolution, as it helps make sure that things are formatted correctly for the bot. AntiCompositeNumber ( Leave a message) 17:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - There has been very little recent discussion on the article talk page. Please discuss on the article talk page. This thread will be closed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: I've tweaked the filing, so that the bot recognizes it and nothing screw up. Regards— UY Scuti ^Talk 20:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

---

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

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:Ürümqi#Demographics 

Users involved

• Lemongirl942 ( talk · contribs)
• Rajmaan ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

False accusation of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE at Talk:Ürümqi#Demographics. Views expressed in an RS source by a University Professor, James A. Millward, are getting called fringe for no good reason.

[14] [15] Professor of Chinese and Central Asian History James A. Millward

The book in question was published by Stanford University Press

False accusations of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are being hurled with no reference to any of the content of those guidelines. I pointed out specific guidelines from FRINGE and UNDUE and asked how they applied to the content, and I am ignored and reverted by the opposing user.

A borderline attempt at trolling occurred, with the user suggesting to reverse the entire POV of the original source

As noted at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Reliable_sources, university presses are reliable sources. This book was published at a university press by a historian holding a degree in the relevant field- Chinese and Central Asian History. The city in question, Urumqi, is located in China and Central Asia.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing in a civil manner on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

To declare whether FRINGE or UNDUE apply to the source. And require justification for removal of the content from the article if they do not.

The important reason why I reverted Rajmaan's edits were because they were clearly POV and possibly a misrepresentation of the source. You can see the comments by uninvolved editors here Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#False_accusation_of_FRINGE ( permalink) and they essentially say the same thing which I initially tried to explain at Talk:Ürümqi#Demographics ( Permalink). Btw, I generally don't appreciate being called a troll. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 23:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: The filing party is reminded that it is their responsibility to list all involved editors, including themselves. The listed editor was notified by the filing party, without use of the template. There is one discussion on this topic open at WP:FT/N, that has received no replies as of 18:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC). There appears to be sufficient discussion between two editors on the article talk page. AntiCompositeNumber ( Leave a message) 18:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

---

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

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

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Galway United: two clubs or one.3F ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mooretwin ( talk · contribs)
• Djln ( talk · contribs)
• Stevie fae Scotland ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is about whether the current Galway United F.C. article should be restored to two separate articles Galway United F.C. (1937–2011) and Galway United F.C. (originally Galway United F.C. (2013).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion at WikiProjectFootball

How do you think we can help?

Mediation and interpretation of Wikipedia policy

---

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:Frank.e.white ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Drmies ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

External links to ALL media articles should be allowed under "further reading"

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

discussed on TALK......Unresolved

How do you think we can help?

Please have ALL 9 external links posted to the David Dunnels Article under further reading.....Drmies keeps on deleting these external links and then posts a partial amount of them under references.....where they have no relevance under references Frank

---

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:Michael Greger#Removal of sourced content ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sammy1339 ( talk · contribs)
• Jytdog ( talk · contribs)
• Alexbrn ( talk · contribs)
• Iloveinfo22 ( talk · contribs)
• Roxy the dog ( talk · contribs)
• JzG ( talk · contribs)
• Bluemousered ( talk · contribs)
• Ciopenhauer ( talk · contribs)
• Ckrystalrose ( talk · contribs)
• Brianyoumans ( talk · contribs)
• Gruffduff62 ( talk · contribs)
• SageRad ( talk · contribs)
• Cschepker ( talk · contribs)
• Dodger67 ( talk · contribs)
• Dialectric ( talk · contribs)
• MjolnirPants ( talk · contribs)
• DrChrissy ( talk · contribs)
• I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc ( talk · contribs)
• ThePlatypusofDoom ( talk · contribs)
• Viewmont Viking ( talk · contribs)
• Ronz ( talk · contribs)
• Sapeli ( talk · contribs)
• BloodyRose ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute concerns the use of a blog post by Harriet Hall in the article on Michael Greger. The post comes from Science Based Medicine, a "nonprofit opinionated education and advocacy group" which applies editorial oversight to submissions from the public, but apparently not to the primary contributors, including Hall. I believe that the use of this source, in context, violates WP:BLPSPS and that the relevant section of WP:RS makes clear that self-published expert sources cannot be used for claims about a person. Other editors feel that the claim is about Greger's work, and that therefore the policy doesn't apply.

Complicating matters, a number of new and IP accounts have repeatedly tried to remove the problematic material for months. Since some of them show up with knowledge of BLP policy, it's clear there is some activism going on. However, I happen to think they are right.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This has been discussed extensively on the talk page.

Alexbrn reminds me that there were also noticeboard discussions, which were unproductive in my view. [16] [17] [18]. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 09:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

It seems like a straightforward matter to me - either WP:BLPSPS applies here or I am mistaken and it doesn't.

In response to Robert McClenon's question, this particularly concerns the final sentence of the lede, "Greger's promotion of veganism has been criticized for including exaggerated claims of health benefits." I claim that this is a statement about Greger, and therefore the use of a SPS is inappropriate. Others think this is a statement about Greger's work, and therefore BLPSPS does not apply. This also affects the second paragraph of the Career and Advocacy section. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 16:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@ Alexbrn: Which other editors do you think belong here? I will add them. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 14:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

At least those who you have contacted on their talk pages. Personally I'd suggest adding everybody who has added or removed the Hall content recently (within the last 14 days say). Alexbrn ( talk) 14:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

To remove all such concerns I added everyone who has ever commented on this issue or edited the relevant material. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 03:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's necessary to say a little more. I think the use of skeptic sources such as Hall's is necessary on many articles where it can be supported by WP:PARITY. I think that editors here are usually right about who is and isn't a quack - but not always. The presumption that Greger is a quack underlies this whole conversation, and the extreme derision and dismissive attitude of most of the editors involved has rendered discussion impossible.

This view of Greger is flatly contradicted by another skeptic blog, which explicitly says of him "the science was sound." [19] Now, he is a vegan activist, openly so, and is opinionated. This blog post also notes that, as well as his avoidance of reporting on studies which say nice things about animal products. ("While there is some zealotry here, the studies that Dr. Greger enthusiastically talks about are from respected journals and merit our attention. I think his videos are worth watching, but keep in mind that there is some cherry picking of data. Of course that doesn’t mean the cherries he picks are rotten; they’re fine.") I think this is a fair criticism, and a reason to regard his work skeptically, but it's not the same as him being a crank TV doctor. In fact he is a highly cited researcher and is better credentialed in his subject area than Hall.

Hall is not wrong about the science, but it seems that her post misrepresents Greger by assuming that everything he says is part of an argument that veganism is the optimal diet. In fact, as far as I can tell, Greger never claims that the science supports the idea that veganism is healthier than low-meat diets, which it doesn't. One editor tried to change "veganism" to "a plant based diet" in this article, which was accurate to what Greger actually says, though not to the Hall source.

The Hall post is also polemically anti-vegan, framing Greger's work in the context of the zealotry of vegan activists he has nothing to do with. It cites a thoroughly debunked article by Steven Davis, half of whose citations are devoted to criticizing it and correcting its blatant factual errors. To me, this adds some irony.

None of this should really be necessary to mention, as BLPSPS is straightforward and unequivocal, and should end this dispute. But it explains why invoking BLPSPS here is not just a technicality. There are assuredly many cases of disputes between two respected academics, and we don't use the nasty blog posts they may write about each other. This is not much different from that situation.

This edit had a quote from the latest book by Greger, to sum up his views on vegan vs plant-based, and what he actually advocates for. The first minute and a half of this video interview with him can make it even clearer. Jytdog was fully aware of the quote that was made in response to their comment, yet it has never actually stopped them from constantly arguing that Greger just promotes veganism. -- Rose ( talk) 02:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The content being disputed is the following: Physician and skeptic Harriet A. Hall analyzed one of Greger's videos in which he claimed that death was largely a "food-borne illness" and wrote that while it was already generally accepted that plant-based diets with less red meat conferred health benefits, the evidence for them "is nowhere near as impressive or definitive as the true believers think". ^[1]

The OP believes that this content is about Greger. As Alexbrn and I have explained on the Talk page, it is about the claims that Greger made. If the content said "Greger is a quack" the OP would have a point. It doesn't say that. Advocates for Greger have been unhappy with this content for a long time (for example, the page is now locked because a SPA kept deleting this - see Special:Contributions/Iloveinfo22) and it has been discussed to death at various noticeboards and on the Talk page. Jytdog ( talk) 01:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy for biographical subject matter ( WP:BLP) and a policy that covers fringe views ( WP:PSCI within WP:NPOV). The latter says we should include an "explanation of how scientists have reacted" to the fringe view. This we do in the Greger article, and so are in line with the relevant policy. Obviously we wouldn't use the same source for biographical details about Greger. Alexbrn ( talk) 05:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(Procedural note: I am concerned that this filing does not properly list the participants in the dispute. Alexbrn ( talk) 05:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC))

I've certainly helped form and maintain the consensus, but I'm sure my name wasn't on that huge list of miscreants and vagabonds when I was notified of this request? - Roxy the dog™ bark 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Not liking consensus does not constitute a dispute requiring resolution. There is no dispute here, only Wikipedia's use of reality-based sources (Harriet Hall is a noted authority on quackery and fraudulent medical claims) versus a sincere wish that the world was not as it is. Greger's claims are bullshit, the scientific literature typically does not bother addressing bullshit (the recent paper on chemtrails being a striking exception), so we use scientifically informed commentary from noted authorities to establish what the reality-based community thinks of such claims.

As a point of administrivia, I am not convinced that Bluemousered ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ciopenhauer ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ckrystalrose ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Cschepker ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Iloveinfo22 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are separate people. If they are, then the arrival in short order of several limited-purpose "warriors for The Truth™" may indicate offsite solicitation, not uncommon when Wikipedia critiques evidentially unsupported but lucrative claims. Guy ( Help!) 06:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea why I'm listed here, as far as I can determine I have not edited the article or the talk page. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 05:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I participated in one of the previous discussion, 8 months ago at a noticeboard and not at the article. I believe I already voiced my thoughts about the subject there. I have re-read what I wrote then, and my views have not substantially changed. If an individual makes fringe claims about science in popular media, then popular media skeptics are absolutely appropriate sources to cite in the article. Also, that anyone wishing to allege a skeptical bias on the part of the Wikipedia community needs to be able to produce evidence of this before they have any right to expect me, or anyone else to take them seriously. I really have nothing else to add to this discussion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This is ludicrous. Either the claims have been criticized or they haven't (they have). Pedantry of the sort being argued by in the OP is a waste of everyone's time. I recommend closing as tendentious. jps ( talk) 07:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with jps. This is nuts, there's no point to it. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I tried to summarize it here at the WP:NPOV noticeboard, which is already linked to by Sammy. Other than that, I only have this to say on the matter. The article in its present form is very misleading and it has been for months if not years. I'd rather work on things outside of Wikipedia, where one or two misinformed or biased editors can have full control over an article. -- Rose ( talk) 03:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: I have notified all listed participants, who were not notified by the filing party. The noticeboard discussions are all stale, and the only discussion with substance was at WP:FT/N. It appears that there may be other involved editors not listed in the filing. -- AntiCompositeNumber ( Leave a message) 11:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - I thank AntiCompositeNumber for notifying the other participants. It is still the responsibility of the filing party to list all of the editors including themselves. Also, the filing party is asked to state what the content dispute is as to whether the policy WP:BLPSPS applies, since the purpose of this noticeboard is to resolve article content issues. There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)}}

---

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

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:Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories#Judgement of theological claims ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ergo Sum ( talk · contribs)
• Acroterion ( talk · contribs)
• Johnuniq ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article currently has two separate sections: one addressing claims over Barack Obama's religion and the other addressing claims that Obama is the antichrist. The lede section states that all the claims contained within the article are factually false. The issue is that while the former section can be proven false (and for which I see no issue in the article), the latter section is based on religious claims that cannot be proven true or false, no matter how implausible. There is also little Wikipedia precedent or allowance for patently stating that any theological claim is factually false, since doing so is epistemically impossible and a violation of WP:NPOV.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to make edits to correct this issue and they were reverted. A lengthy discussion has since ensued to no avail.

How do you think we can help?

I think volunteers can weigh in to determine whether calling theological claims factually false is a violation of WP:NPOV.

I'm traveling on business tomorrow, so I'll keep it short: my position is on the relevant talkpage. Extensive discussion over years has created a consensus that religion-related conspiracy theories associated with Barack Obama are false and the article should plainly say so. The article is subject to BLP, and I disagree that NPOV demands the removal of "false" because it is epistemologically unprovable. The use of that particular word is typically insisted upon where false allegations have been made about living subjects, and there is nothing different about this article. Circular discussion about the knowability of inner belief quickly leads down a rabbit hole of speculation, we must stick with what the subject himself has said, written and done. Acroterion (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. The other editors have been notified of this filing. However, one of the editors has declined, on a talk page, to take part in dispute resolution. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

---

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

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:Luisito Pié ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Osplace ( talk · contribs)
• Nika de Hitch ( talk · contribs)
• Virgrod ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User Virgrod is adding conspiracy theory about the nationality of the Dominican Republic Olympic bronze medalist Luisito Pie's mother, hence about the athlete. The main source is a disputed reputation media article that claim that "A person with the same name, town and year of birth" is listed in certain list, meaning she were not Dominican. There is not any investigation about her nationality neither she have not been to any special process. Then user Virgrod what "the casual reader to choose if the official bureau is right about the mother being Dominican or not" with the inclusion of those sources, including those incredible like "see image", completely inappropriate and never seen before. Similarly I have cited the Barack Obama certificate birth issue, there is no mention about the gossips and conspiracy theories about it in the main Barack Obama article, we talk about it, but then user Virgrod drop it, after noticing this point. My interest is leave the article free of conspiracies and just have the true information, facts referenced accurately not by yellow journalism media, no matter if they were running for years now. Finally there is a official press release copied in the talk page at large explaining that there is no such investigation, but user Virgrod says official press release should not be taken into account.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asked for WP:3 but noticed Nika de Hitch intervention meaning more than two editors, and by the way, no response from the WP:3

How do you think we can help?

Evaluate the edits made by bot editors. Evaluate if the article should break WP:CRYSTAL by welcoming a nonexistence investigation about her nationality. Should the article keep the mentioned disagreement from the yellow journalist article vs official press release

Osplace ( talk · contribs) has completely mis-characterized the dispute. A serious controversy has arisen over the citizenship of an international athlete who just won a bronze medal at the recent Rio Olympics. He had also previously competed at recognized international events. The controversy has been discussed by reasonably reliable sources in at least two countries, the Dominican Republic (which he has been representing) as well as neighboring Haiti (the country of all his grand parents, and at least his father). The controversy is a serious matter for at least two reasons: first, if an athlete has indeed represented the "wrong country", Olympic and or federation rules may have been violated. Secondly, any medals won by him may have been credited to the "wrong country", in detriment of another. There is no evidence yet of any official investigation by international sports authorities (any such investigation may be at first confidential), but the point simply is that such controversy is a SERIOUS matter, which should be discussed (with appropriate sources) in the athletes wiki article. The organization officially in charge of citizenship matters in the country he has been representing is the Electoral Board (JCE). The JCE has issued a press release first acknowledging that a serious controversy on the athlete's citizenship exists, and then providing some (unsupported) arguments justifying his Dominican citizenship. However, sources on both countries involved have disagreed with the JCE conclusions. A key item is whether or not the athlete's mother had Dominican citizenship when the athlete was born (the father is definitely from Haiti). If she did, then the athlete was also born Dominican. The press release claims that she was Dominican because when she was born her own (foreign) father (maternal grand father of the athlete) was a permanent resident of the country in question. However, sources immediately pointed out that a person with identical COMPLETE name, year of birth and (small) town of birth appears in an official list put out by the JCE that contains thousands of people who were "irregularly registered" in the country's Civil Registry (a confirmed and verifiable fact since the list is at the official website of the JCE). Furthermore, several sources (including the athlete's own family) have indicated that initially the Dominican government did not want to issue a passport to him (why wouldn't they if all was in order). Also, one or more SOURCES have pointed out that the mother speaks with a notable foreign accent, which is at best strange for someone BORN AND RAISED in a given country. Furthermore, a Haitian source indicates that the athlete's true name is different from the name he is using, and that he is indeed from a specific part of neighboring Haiti. What this editor is proposing is that the wiki contains a small section on this controversy (a few paragraphs at most) summarizing the main points that the SOURCES involved in this controversy have given. This includes of course the JCE's press release (representing the "official" position) but also the SOURCES that oppose the government's conclusions. The fact that a person that seems to be his mother is in the mentioned list is simple a serious evidence that have been pointed out by SOURCES, and should be mentioned in this section. Of course the wiki article should not try to "choose a winner" but simply to summarize the controversy for the reader. Virgrod ( talk) 18:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editors of this filing. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editors of this filing. It isn't entirely clear to this volunteer what the controversy is. What is the issue about bots? What does Barack Obama's birth certificate have to do with the article in question? Waiting for the filing party to notify the other editors, and for a clearer explanation of what the controversy is. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• Filling editor note - Other editors have been notified. It would be very important for a person volunteering in this to read the talk page. There is no discussion about bots and I do not know why this have been mentioned. The Obama birth certificate was an example, is explained in the talk page, but as this gossip existed there is no mention about this in the main Barack Obama article. Similarly, there is no need to include this gossip in the Luisito Pie article. The controversy is explained in the talk page and expressed in the filling: User Virgrod claims that the nationality of the mother of Luisito Pie is disputed, hence the nationality of the athlete is also disputed. Already expressed in the talk page that such investigation are existent and constitute a violation of multiple policies, including WP:CRYSTAL. -- Osplace 13:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Some confusion was due to a typo in which we were asked to evaluate the edits made by 'bot editors', which should be 'both editors'. Please note that this noticeboard does not "evaluate" the edits made by other editors in the sense of determining that they were right or wrong; it facilitates discussion between editors. In this case there are three editors. Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I am accepting this case for moderated discussion. I expect each participant to check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours and to reply to any questions from me at least every 48 hours. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Discussion about the article should be centralized here, rather than on the article talk page or user talk pages; I will not be checking for comments elsewhere. As is always the case at DRN, be civil and concise, and comment on content only, not on contributors. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements do not clarify issues. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, not to discuss other editors. (There has already been more than enough comment on contributors. Any further comments on contributors may be hatted.) I understand that there may be an issue about whether the citizenship of the subject of the article was correctly established. That is the extent of my knowledge of the subject matter. I will ask each editor to state, in one or two paragraphs, what the issue is with regard to what should be in the article (that is, with regard to content). Do not reply to comments by other editors; do not engage in back-and-forth discussion; address your comments to the moderator and to the community. Will each editor please state briefly what they see as the issues? (You may repeat statements that have been made above, if they do not involve comments about other editors.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe that my summary above characterizes accurately the issues (please read it). The article should contain a section on the citizenship controversy about this international athlete who has won medals in major events. It should summarize the main points that the SOURCES involved in this controversy have made. This includes the press release by the government body (representing the "official" position) as well as the SOURCES that oppose the government's conclusions, including the one from Haiti. The citizenship of the mother is a central question, and the fact that a person that seems to be her is in the mentioned official list of "irregularly registered" individuals is a major piece of information brought out by SOURCES, which should be mentioned in this section. Of course this section should not try to "choose a winner" but simply to summarize for the reader the main issues and arguments in this controversy. Virgrod ( talk) 03:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

---

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

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

• Hong Kong legislative election, 2016 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lmmnhn ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The user involved just insist removing the link Centrism#Hong Kong for middle-of-the-road parties, and he claims that the term is not common in English media, but in reality, the term "Centrism" can explain the political position of those middle-of-the-road parties.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have explained my edits in the comments, and tried to ask User talk:Sirlanz and User talk:Deryck Chan, but those users did not help me yet.

How do you think we can help?

Stop the user involved from removing link "Centrism#Hong Kong" in various related articles.

---

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:Han Taiwanese#Lead sentence WikiLink ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lemongirl942 ( talk · contribs)
• Lysimachi ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute concerns what term to use - " Han people" or " Han Chinese" when describing " Han Taiwanese". For example, "Han Taiwanese" are Taiwanese people of "Han Chinese" descent. I want the article to at least mention the word "Han Chinese" since multiple reliable sources use it and in English, "Han Chinese" is the WP:COMMONNAME used. Lysimachi, wants no mention of "Han Chinese" in the article saying than "Han Chinese" are different from "Han People". They have consistently scrubbed out any mention of Han Chinese, even going to lengths such as using Han people which actually redirects to Han Chinese. I have cited multiple sources but I'm unable to convince Lysimachi. I can cite the sources and explain my position, once ths discussion proceeds.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussions.

How do you think we can help?

I think it would be good for a third party to actually hear both of us. I personally feel Lysimachi is acting based on the Chinese version of the terms, but this is English Wikipedia and we use the common English terms.

Lemongirl942 thinks the term "Han" (people/ethnicity) is the same as "Han Chinese" and has been very keen on adding "Chinese" to the article, which is why Lemongirl942 filed this dispute.

Now let's consider the two possibilities:

1. "Han" = "Han Chinese"

a. This doesn't seem to be true because:

(1). Lemongirl942 hasn't provided any reliable studies proving the two terms are completely interchangeable and have the same meaning in all contexts. Without such evidence, there is no reason to assume that two terms can be the same.

(2). "Han" only refers to the people/ethnicity "Han" (汉; Pinyin: Han), whereas "Han Chinese" can mean Chinese that are Han, as Han Taiwanese refer to Taiwanese that are Han and Hmong Americans refer to Americans that are Hmong.

(3). There are English sources where both "Han" (people/ethnicity) and "Han Chinese" do not refer to the same group of people.

b. Even if the two terms really always have the same meaning, why should we use the second more redundant term? ( WP:REDUNDANCY)

2. "Han" are not necessarily "Han Chinese"

The compound "Han Chinese" is a common term, but it is often used in contexts where Han Chinese are distinguished from non-Han Chinese groups (for example), that is when the topic is Chinese people.

Taiwanese may be, in some people's view, Chinese, and Han Taiwanese may be Han Chinese. There are certainly hundreds of thousands of sources saying that Taiwan is Chinese, but citing a source and saying that in the beginning of the WP article on Taiwan is not how WP should work per WP:NPOV. And this is exactly what Lemongirl942 has been trying to do to the article Han Taiwanese. (Note that neutrality is especially important in the lead, where Lemongirl942 has been attempting to add "Chinese". WP:LEAD: "The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.")

Any scholars aware of the issue of Taiwanese identity, such as the author of Is Taiwan Chinese?, would clearly distinguish between "Han" and "Chinese" instead of using "Han Chinese" as a synonym of "Han". And it should be stressed that saying Han Taiwanese are "Han", as in the current version of the lead, maintains a neutral point of view on whether Han Taiwanese are Chinese or not, and helps the article to focus on its topic, the Han people of Taiwan.

To summarize, due to redundancy and difference in meaning, describing Han Taiwanese with the disputable label "Chinese" is unnecessary and not neutral per Wikipedia policies. Lysimachi ( talk) 15:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editor of the filing of this request. Waiting for a response from the other editor, since participation here is voluntary. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: Hello and welcome to DRN. I'm UY Scuti and I'm taking this case for moderation and will be your moderator till the end of the case, unless otherwise stated. Some of my suggestions to make this process smooth are as follows; 1)Please check the discussion at least once in every 48 hours. (failing to do so, may get this case closed as stale) 2)Comment only on the content and not on the contributor. Personal attacks/Harassment are not tolerated and will have this case closed. 3)Try not to edit the disputed area of the article until the case here is closed. 4)Discuss the issues here, so that we'll have a centralized discussion 5)And last but not the least, please be civil and concise. P.S. Participation on this discussion is entirely voluntary. Good luck and Regards— UY Scuti ^Talk 13:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

For the ease of discussion and sorting out the troubles, we'll discuss the issues one by one. Let's dive into the first issue from my perspective. To Lemongirl942, can you provide 3 reliable sources which explicitly claims the terms, Han and Han Chinese the same and (or) interchangeably uses both the terms? Please be as concise as possible. Reply (on the content) in sections provided for you. Regards— UY Scuti ^Talk 13:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources Lemongirl942 and the concise answer. The sources given by Lemongirl942, indeed claims that 1, the term Han is the same as Han Chinese and 2, they can be used interchangeably. And interestingly I find the sources providing explanations of the other issues we might have here. But first things first, Lysimachi, can you please provide three sources that claims the terms Han and Han Chinese are not to be interchangeably used? Regards— UY Scuti ^Talk 18:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. The term is interchangeably used. Han Chinese and Han people are the same. You can also look at our article Han Chinese, the first sentence.

1. [20] This uses the words interchangeably
2. Han Chinese and Han peoples. Both are from the 2015 Taiwan Yearbook published by the Executive Yuan.
3. [21] If you look at the previous page and the current page, the term is used interchangeably. It specifically mentions the Han Chinese in Taiwan.

Note that the article "Han Taiwanese" claims that "Han Taiwanese" are 95 to 97% of the population of Taiwan. This same claim is also repeated at multiple places except that the word "Han Chinese" is used [22], [23], [24](pg 1,4) among others.

"Han" are not necessarily "Han Chinese":

1. In this peer-reviewed article, "Han Chinese" refers to the Chinese that are Han, while "Han" refers to Han people as a whole or not from a certain country: "people of Han ethnicity (Hans)", "Although no significant association of NRAMP 1 polymorphism with susceptibility to tuberculosis was found in Taiwanese Hans in this study, a recent study from China reported that variants of NRAMP 1 were significantly associated with the severity of, rather than the susceptibility to, pulmonary tuberculosis in the Han Chinese population."
2. This peer-reviewed article has the same usage: "Chinese worldwide are outraged by the Tibetan protestors. Han Chinese, in particular, have always perceived Beijing’s Tibet policy as a favorable economic liberation of the region.", "How both Han Taiwanese and non-Han Taiwanese view the new Taiwanese identity has become the central issue in defining the relationship between China and Taiwan."
3. In Table 3 of this peer-reviewed article, "Han Chinese" and "Han Taiwanese" are listed as distinct ethnicities.

"Han" and "Chinese" are different terms. This published book, for example, clearly states the former is used to refer to "ethnic identity" and the latter "national identification with China".

Comments on Lemongirl942's statements:

• None of the sources "explicitly claims the terms, Han and Han Chinese the same".
• Wikipedia articles cannot be used to support the statements per WP:CIRCULAR and WP:WINARS.
• The third source clearly views (most) Taiwanese as Chinese ("the Chinese in Hongkong, Singapore and Taiwan", "In Taiwan, Han Chinese (including both the Taiwanese Chinese and the Mainland Chinese)"). The second source (website) is from the government Republic of China, whose official view is that Taiwan belongs to (Republic of) China, which is controversial. It's no surprise they think the Taiwanese that are "Han" are also "Han Chinese".
• The first source (unpublished master thesis) does not mention Taiwan and uses Han as a short form for Han Chinese in the context of Southeast Asian Hans, who identify themselves as Chinese and are officially called Chinese by their government, hence "Chinese" is redundant and can be omitted. It does not explicitly equate the two terms. Lysimachi ( talk) 23:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Despite not being able to go through two of the paywalled sources from Lysimachi, going by the quotes and the one article, I find the explanations not very convincing. I acknowledge the fact that there might be a minority disagreement on the use of terms. But overall, I find a lot of sources, using the term interchangeably. I've done my research, and below are my findings;

• This source explicitly gives it away,

HAN ("Han people," Han ren or Han jen) Also known as Han Chinese;

• This source explains the term Han

Han is a broader term that encompasses many groups, such as the Hakka and separates Han Chinese from the fifty-five other groups..

• this source gives a sort of definition to the term, Han Chinese

... Han Chinese is the largest ethnic group in China

So Han Chinese is indeed an ethnic group.

• this source describes the Han Taiwanese as a subethnic group, under Han Chinese

Several distinct groups of people migrated to Taiwan from China during recorded history. These groups were all classified as Han Chinese, or the ethnic group to which over 90 percent of China's present population belongs. Distinctions among the Han Chinese should arguably be termed as "subethnic"

And I'd say the use of the terms Han or Han Chinese or Han people are valid. However, per WP:DUE, if enough sources could be found (given that there is no original research done on interpreting the sources), the disagreement among the sources should be mentioned in the article, thus maintaining WP:NPOV. That is how deep we can go about for now on researching about the terms.

• There are two possible routes we can take from here. One being the participants Lysimachi and Lemongirl942 agreeing on the view of the moderator. And two being the participants settling on a compromise. If neither of those work out, this case will be closed as failed. Regards— UY Scuti ^Talk 12:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Lysimachi, do you agree on what Lemongirl942 has said? I believe it helps the article be neutral. Participants are encouraged to come to a workable compromise. If either of them would not agree on that, I'm afraid I'll have to fail this case. The next step would be WP:RfC. Regards— UY Scuti ^Talk 13:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: @ Lysimachi and Lemongirl942: This case will be closed in 24 hours due to the lack of participation. Regards— UY Scuti ^Talk 15:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

My original position which is rooted in NPOV is that we mention the most commonly used term in English which is "Han Chinese" and add an explanation (maybe with a footnote) that henceforth, the word "Han" or "Han people" is used in an interchangeable manner. The convention I have seen being used in academic articles is similar. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand Lysimachi's statement. Is Lysimachi claiming that "Han Taiwanese are NOT Han Chinese"? If that's the case, I don't see Lysimachi offering any proof. I have cited multiple literature which shows that Han Taiwanese are ethnically Han Chinese. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 23:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Please also note this article Partial duplication at AZFc on the Y chromosome is a risk factor for impaired spermatogenesis in Han Chinese in Taiwan. It says Here we report our characterization of the AZFc region in Han Chinese in Taiwan (Han Taiwanese) that make up 98% of the population. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 01:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The sources listed hitherto agree on one thing: Han Taiwanese are Han, which is also what the article Han Taiwanese suggests. Whether the terms "Han" and "Han Chinese" are equivalent is an issue for pages Han and Han Chinese. Whether Taiwanese are Chinese is something for status of Taiwan, Taiwanese identity, Chinese nationalism or Chinese people. Lysimachi ( talk) 11:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

---

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

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

• Rajdeep Sardesai ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Rajivk16 ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There was a huge controversy about Rajdeep Sardesai at Madison Square Garden in Sept 2014

I think it deserves some mention - probably the person who edited the paragraph I wrote does not want this controversy mentioned in Wikipedia

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I am new to volunteering in Wikipedia - I reached this link and I thought this is the only mechanism

I admit - I may not have known all Wiki editorial policy nuances and may not have adhered to Wiki standards.

All I was trying to do is mention - in neutral / factual way the controversy for the purpose of providing a complete picture

How do you think we can help?

Everyone in India knows about this controversy - there are YouTube videos, etc

I think it deserves some mention in Wikipedia :)

---

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

Users involved

• Sennaitgebremariam ( talk · contribs)
• Otakrem ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Problem with user Otakrem after a long discussion lasting three months, after it was reported Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 1 after that there have been discussions with other users 1, ask the write lock for the user Otakrem on the page tigrayans

the problem is a war of senseless changes in section1 Notable Ethiopian Tigrayan people of which you complain of the sources that are authoritative sources, ask the page restore, of The Voidwalker 1 who has tried to mediate with the words Wikipedia: Accuracy disputes

and to warn Otakrem do not change more paragraph Notable Ethiopian Tigrayan people but to change it just proving the opposite

there is the Sockpuppet suspicion that the user has multiple accounts that would be Otakrem Puhleec Ethiopianhistorian EthiopianHabesha, that goes reported

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried with the page Talk: Tigrayans, with the help of other users, with reporting to Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard / Incidents, with my personal page User talk: Sennaitgebremariam

How do you think we can help?

I hope you solve the problem

---

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.