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:Sri Lanka Matha#Tagore claim has been rebutted ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Obi2canibe ( talk · contribs)
• BlueLotusLK ( talk · contribs)
• Peter K Burian ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute on the Sri Lankan national anthem article Sri Lanka Matha as to who wrote it, Sri Lankan Ananda Samarakoon or Indian Rabindranath Tagore. This has been a source of dispute since April 2012 but before the current dispute all views about the anthem's origins were given and attributed in accordance with WP:NEWSORG and WP:NEWSBLOG, irrespective of whether they were opinion pieces/blogs or not. Last week BlueLotusLK edited the article so as to say that only Samarakoon wrote the anthem and that suggestion Tagore wrote the anthem was rubbish. This is a violation of WP:NPOV which requires all significant views that have been published by WP:RS to be included. There are many WP:RS which state that Tagore wrote the anthem, in full or in part. They can be found on the Talk Page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The issue has been discussed at length on the article's talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Decide if Wikipedia's policies require the inclusion that Tagore may have written Sri Lanka Matha.

Summary of dispute by BlueLotusLK

• Obi wants to give undue weight to a minority view that seems to be an unsubstantiated rumour spread by several opinion pieces in Indian newspapers unfamiliar with Sri Lanka and its anthem, only dealing with it in passing while seeking to glorify Tagore. I left the oldest source to claim the view in and included another source from a newspaper that disputes its claim. Obi does not approve of this and wants to make the Tagore claim seem unchallenged "so the readers can decide". BlueLotusLK ( talk) 21:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Peter K Burian

I am not one of the two users who are debating this issue, but one of them mentioned that I could post a comment here (on the Talk page). I am a totally unbiased guy in Canada, without any involvement in the country of Sri Lanka or (India). I am not acquainted in any way with either of the parties to this dispute.

I did a great deal of research on the issue of who wrote the anthem. Afterwards, I edited that section of the article, with a series of citations from major news agencies, all from 2015 or 2016. I posted a copy of that revised version on the Talk page for easy reference. It's under ORIGIN, in the topic == Finished editing - origin and use of the Tamil version of the anthem ==

Frankly, I am surprised there is any dispute on this topic. Peter K Burian ( talk) 21:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Sri Lanka Matha#Tagore claim has been rebutted discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editor of this filing and should do so. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon: I notified the editor straight after filing this case.-- obi2canibe ^{talk contr} 16:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

 Verified -- JustBerry ( talk) 16:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: ( edit conflict) Moved Peter K Burian ( talk · contribs)'s comments to own summary dispute section per noticeable involvement (and disagreement) in content dispute on article talk page. -- JustBerry ( talk) 16:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Verified All involved parties have been notified on their respective talk pages. -- JustBerry ( talk) 16:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• @ Obi2canibe: @ BlueLotusLK: Opposing parties, thank you for your statements. I will be moderating the case moving forward. Other volunteers are more than welcome to give their input within the discussion. Although your initial statements do not demonstrate this, please remember not to make personal statements, including remarks about another editor's behavior. Rather, the discussion should be focused on the content dispute at hand. In the section I have created below called "Involved Parties #1," I would appreciate if both parties would list the sources they feel are independent, published by a third party, and reliable. Weighing the frequency and depth of references to the subject within those sources, as well as the sources' reliability, will help push the content dispute forward. -- JustBerry ( talk) 04:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Involved Parties #1

Sources saying Ananda Samarakoon wrote and composed "Namo Namo Mata" aka "Sri Lanka Matha":

BlueLotusLK ( talk) 06:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Here are some sources which state that Tagore wrote the anthem, in full or in part:

-- obi2canibe ^{talk contr} 21:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Note: There's 3 The Hindu sources saying Ananda Samarakoon wrote "Namo Namo Mata" inspired by Tagore to 1 saying Tagore wrote it. There's 2 Hindustan Times sources saying Ananda Samarakoon wrote "Nam Namo Mata" to 1 saying Tagore. Also there's 1 each from Daily News and Analysis and International Business Times stating both views at different times. Make of that what you will in judging their reliability. Also source 3 in the Tagore list says Samarakoon was inspired and wrote it and 19 incorrectly states that a Tagore song was translated into Tamil to be adopted as the Sri Lankan National Anthem. BlueLotusLK ( talk) 22:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

It's quite common for newspapers to publish different views. That does not mean that they are unreliable.-- obi2canibe ^{talk contr} 21:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion #2

•  Volunteer note: @ Obi2canibe: @ BlueLotusLK: It seems as though two sets of reliable sources support two views of authorship. Are both editors willing to work towards crafting a rephrasing that highlights the ambiguity in authorship? If not, please be prepared to thoroughly demonstrate why the other party's sources are invalid for use. -- JustBerry ( talk) 22:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. Prior to the current dispute the article did mention the ambiguity - please see the first paragraph of the "History" section of this version of the article. This can of course be updated/rephrased to take into account the many new sources that BlueLotusLK and I have found recently.-- obi2canibe ^{talk contr} 22:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@ Obi2canibe: Thanks for the reply. @ BlueLotusLK: Looking at he first paragraph of the "History" section here, which sentences do you disagree with or would like to add? -- JustBerry ( talk) 23:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to do that. There is no ambiguity about authorship. The Sri Lankan government and the curators of Tagore's library say Ananda Samarakoon wrote and composed the anthem as well as many well known scholars. The CIA World Factbook agrees. Their statement holds more weight than unknown journalists in India writing in the 2000s. This is giving undue weight to a view that is unsubstantiated. Further even the RS that support Obi's view say the Ananda viewpoint most of the time. BlueLotusLK ( talk) 23:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

You can't claim authorship just by repeating something without any evidence. There's articles dealing exclusively with the anthem itself with great detail that explain how it came to be written. To give them the same weight as articles that claim something in passing without any explanation makes no sense. BlueLotusLK ( talk) 23:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:Undue weight . Obi's sources don't even have one uniform idea of what happened. some say Tagore wrote only the music and not the lyrics and some say he only wrote the lyrics and not the music. Should we make small sections for every variant of these claims? First you mention the mainstream view held by most credible sources and then mention the fringe view in passing if at all. BlueLotusLK ( talk) 23:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict) @ BlueLotusLK: Can you pin point the sources that explain the anthem's creation in great detail? I did notice this one. @ Obi2canibe: How do the journalists you reference hold a similar weight as this source, for example? -- JustBerry ( talk) 23:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Sunday Observer (January 30 2011): "It is on record that Namo Namo Matha - now Sri Lanka Matha - was composed while he was a teacher at Mahinda Colege, Galle. T.D. Jayasuriya then Chief Inspector of Schools for the Southern Province had suggested to Samarakoon to compose a song that would inspire a feeling of patriotism in the listeners. Namo Namo Matha was his response to Jayasuriya's suggestion. He called it a Jatika Geeya national song. Samarakoon has made a note in one of his books that he composed it in October 1940. This fact was stated in an article in the tabloid Nava Yugaya of Nov. 5, 1984. It was first sung in public before W. Dahanayaka, then Mayor of Galle. He was accompanied by Elain de Silva with whom he had earlier sung the duet Endada Menike. Two years later in 1942 he sang Namo Namo Matha in a 'Sarala Gee' programme on Radio Ceylon. This time he was accompanied by a pupil of his, Swarna de Silva who was then his partner in singing duets. The song first appeared in print in 1943 in a book of songs titled Kumudini with a foreword by T.D. Jayasuriya. Namo Namo Matha and some other songs that Samarakoon sang with Swarna de Silva were recorded by H.M.V. the gramaphone record company" ^[1]
• The Island (April 5 2016): "Namo Namo Matha...Some of us are fortunate enough to travel the world and every time we fly back and get the first glimpse of the wonderful ’Pearl of the Indian Ocean’ we are overwhelmed by its beauty. Unlike us, it is said that the first time Ananda Samarakoon flew back from India in October 1940, having done previous journeys by train, he put his thoughts to verse and ‘Namo Namo Matha’ was born. He spoke for all of us when he penned:"Sundara siribarini surendiethi Sobhamana Lanka Dhanya dhanayaneka mal palaturu piri Jayabhoomiya ramya" He was the music teacher in Mahinda College, Galle and got the children to sing it as a patriotic song, the cry for freedom being embedded in the line "Nava jeevana demine nevatha apa avadikaran Matha" meaning ‘Awake us again for a new dawn". He recorded it with Swarna de Silva in 1946 and it became an instantant hit. ^[2]

These two and also this source from a curator who has access to all of Tagore's writing (which would contain the original version of "Namo Namo Mata" in Bengali if it existed: * Livemint (May 6 2011): "Tagore made a roundabout entry, having inspired the creation of the Sri Lankan national anthem, Sri Lanka Matha. “Jana Gana Mana and the Sri Lankan national anthem are based on the same raga too,” explains Supriya Roy, who is curating anexhibition of photographs, text, poems and manuscripts titled Rabindranath Tagore: Pilgrimages to the East, which opens on Monday to coincide with Tagore’s 150th birth anniversary. A letter from Ananda Samarakoon, the composer of the Sri Lankan anthem, to Tagore is in the possession of the Tagore archives of Visva-Bharati University, Roy says In it, Samarakoon—a former student at Tagore’s Visva-Bharati University in Santiniketan who was moved by Rabindrasangeet to create the modern Geeta Sahitya music style in Sri Lanka—expresses gratitude to Tagore and hopes the Sri Lankan song “pleases” him.." ^[3]

This is a great deal of specific information and isn't very general and vague like most of Obi's sources. Only Haroon Habib from those sources comes up with a scenario on how Tagore came to write the poem for Ananda and it doesn't stand up to the reality of Tagore's situation at that time. Tagore was bedridden in 1937 and not at Santinketan to be interacting with students as suggested by Habib. BlueLotusLK ( talk) 23:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

There are some academics within the my sources above e.g. Nira Wickramasinghe and Ashis Nandy. Wickramasinghe is particularly a good source as she is a professor of Modern South Asian Studies with good Google scholar presence and she's Sri Lankan meaning she can't be accused of being biased in favour of Indians. The date of her book (2003) means she can't be accused of copying Wikipedia or Indian news websites.-- obi2canibe ^{talk contr} 23:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

They are academics admittedly, but does a passing comment by them rise to the same level of reliability as the curator of Rabrindranath Tagore's possessions at Shantiniketan who is in possession of communications between Tagore and Samarakoon? The fact that the CIA World Factbook states that Ananda Samarakoon is the composer and writer of the National Anthem indicates that it is the widely accepted view and thus should be given precedence. If there was ambiguity on the author I would think the CIA would mention that. BlueLotusLK ( talk) 01:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The "communication" only states that Samarakoon expresses gratitude to Tagore and hopes the Sri Lankan song “pleases” him. This can be interpreted in many ways. Is Samarakoon thanking Tagore for helping him write the anthem? Maybe Tagore wrote the music (as one of my sources states) and Samarakoon finished off the anthem by writing the lyrics. Or vice versa.

The CIA World Factbook isn't as reliable as you think. This version from March 2015 gives the Sri Lankan Tamil population to be 3.9% of Sri Lanka's total population and gives Sinhala as the sole official language. If you didn't know anything about Sri Lanka and considered the CIA World Factbook to be gospel, as you seem to be doing, you would assume those two facts to be correct. But they're not. In fact Sri Lankan Tamils constitute 11% of the population and Tamil has also been an official language since 1987. If the CIA can make mistakes like that, what's to say they haven't made a mistake about the creator of the anthem?

I have no issue with giving precedence to the view that Samarakoon wrote the anthem. But my understanding was that you wanted the article to only give the view that Samarakoon wrote the anthem i.e. erase/dismiss any notion that Tagore wrote it. Correct if me if I am wrong.-- obi2canibe ^{talk contr} 14:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The curator also states that Tagore inspired rather than wrote the National Anthem and doesn't share the full content of the letter which leads him to arrive at this conclusion. Are you now admitting that reliable sources can make mistakes as you have found an old version of the CIA World Factbook to have done so? What is to say your sources are not making a mistake as well? The version of the World Factbook I'm linking to has fixed its errors and is reliable unless proven otherwise. I want to state that the widely held view in Sri Lanka and the West is Ananda Samarakoon wrote and composed the National Anthem and only include him in the infobox. You can discuss the Tagore authorship theory after that as long as the critical view of the theory as presented by Kamal Wickremasinghe in the Island article is included as well as the fact the curator being unaware of Tagore writing it. BlueLotusLK ( talk) 18:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I would propose something like this: " Although the official and widely held view in Sri Lanka and the West is Ananda Samarakoon wrote and composed the National Anthem, several alternate views have been proposed in Indian media in the 2000s and by a few Sri Lankan academics. The predominant of which is the idea advanced by Haroon Habib in 2011 that Tagore wrote the original song of "Sri Lanka Matha" in 1938 and Samarakoon later translated it in 1940. This view has been shared by Junaidul Haque, J. P. Alexander, Kamanathi Wickramasinghe and Yoshitha Perea of the Daily Mirror, Aakanksha Singh of the Daily News and Analysis, Sushmita Sen of the International Business Times, a staff writer of the Hindustan Times, Khaled Ahmed of the Indian Express, a staff writer of India Today, Mamun Rashid of the Dhaka Tribune, Bipin Dani of the Pakistan Observer and Shivam Vij of the Huffington Post India. Another view is that Tagore only composed the music but didn't write the lyrics which has been shared by Nira Wickramasinghe, A. M. A. Muhith and Ashish Nandy. An Article in the Island by Doctor Kamal Wickramasinghe was critical of this view. Wickramasinghe directly challenged Haroon writing that "Haroon’s assertion that Sri Lanka’s anthem is based on a Bengali song written by Tagore, and wast translated into Sinhala by his pupil Ananda Samarakoon is unsubstantiated. A careful search of the complete works of Tagore in original Bengali - the 30 volume Rabindra Rachanavali - has failed to show any poem by Tagore that vaguely resembles the possible original words of Namo Namo Matha." Supriya Roy, A curator of Tagore's works at Visva Bharati University, similiarly stated that Tagore inspired the creation rather than wrote the Sri Lankan National Anthem in a Livemint article after looking at a letter that Samarakoon had sent to Tagore." BlueLotusLK ( talk) 18:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Whilst its good that you are now willing to include the view that Tagore wrote the anthem you are still trying to steer the reader into thinking that this view is somehow unworthy, violating WP:NPOV. You are suggesting that Haroon Habib was the first person to suggest that Tagore wrote the anthem. This is untrue. You are suggesting, without any evidence, that most of my sources have copied Habib. And you are giving too much credence to Kamal Wickramasinghe who is not an expert on this subject and is known Sri Lankan nationalist.

It's not only Indian media who are saying that Tagore wrote the anthem, Sri Lankan media also do. It's not only Sri Lankan academics who are saying that Tagore wrote the anthem, Indian academics also do. From what I can see there is only one western source, the CIA. One source cannot speak for the entire western world, particularly when I have shown it is capable of being factually incorrect.

I would suggest a much shorter paragraph, something like: "There are differing accounts as to the origin of the Sri Lanka Matha. The most widely held view is that Sri Lankan composer Ananda Samarakoon wrote the music and lyrics to the song inspired/influenced by Tagore. A minority suggest that Bengali poet Rabindranath Tagore wrote the anthem in full. Some have suggested that Tagore wrote the music whilst Samarakoon wrote the lyrics.".-- obi2canibe ^{talk contr} 21:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. Let's go with that. I would like the infobox to just say Ananda as that's the majority view. BlueLotusLK ( talk) 01:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. Thank you for your co-operation. Bit busy now but when I have time I will add the above text with references at beginning of History section. Might have to tweak existing paras so that the narrative flows better. You are welcome to do this if you have time. Thanks to JustBerry for mediating.-- Obi2canibe ( talk) 20:34, 23 January 2017 (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:Reformed Political Party#Theocracy should be removed ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Autospark ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Some want to say that the Reformed Political Party (SGP) advocates "theocracy" which is defined as "a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission" by Webster's dictionary. No sources are given that are neutral and all sources cited refer to attack pieces that violate WP:Core content policies and Wikipedia:Neutrality_of_sources.

Also, when I and another editor tried to remove it, I was asked to prove a negative by citing sources that show the SGP does NOT want a theocracy Argument from Ignorance. There is no reliable source that SGP wants a theocracy WP: V and putting it on the article is misinformation and a smear against the SGP. -Autospark

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page and personal messages.

How do you think we can help?

Protect the edit.

Summary of dispute by Autospark

Talk:Reformed Political_Party#Theocracy_should_be_removed discussion

•  Volunteer note: : I Will take this one on when statsments are made. TheMagikCow ( talk) 16:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: : Please ensure that you have notified all parties involved with this case by placing {{subst:Template:DRN-notice}} on their talk pages. TheMagikCow ( talk) 17:34, 26 January 2017 (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:Al-Ahbash#Qibla ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Chaabano ( talk · contribs)
• McKhan ( talk · contribs)
• Barelvi ( talk · contribs)
• MezzoMezzo ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Please note that the Author had wrote "Qiblah" page dispute to confuse us about the real page issue [Al-Ahbash] page where I found contradicting information listed by authors who share or came from the same background. I tried editing by removing the wrong information but the authors put them back. Then I tried one to two lines comments under each subject then i was accused of warring. So I started the talk but other authors were not interested. One major issue is about a person name [Tariq Ramadan] who has for many is the head of what they call themselves Muslim Brotherhood or Hizb Al-Ekhwan. He has conflicts with a lot of groups, so other authors decided to use his comments about the group [Al-Ahbash] . Tariq Ramadan comments about the Al-Ahbash groups is irrelevant because he is in conflict with the group, and since his Brotherhood groups will use all kind of methods deadly and not deadly against regime's changes where Al-Ahbash is the opposite they use non-violent methods and will not be involved in regime's changes. So I have requested removal of his comments as bios and the authors are bios too.

• • Second about Qiblah issue, I have traveled to North America from West to east driving 6000 miles round trip. I have stopped at many major cities where I examined Qibla directions at random mosques, I have seen some Mosques directions to Muslim preyers are North East and some Are East-South East. I have talked to physics, engineering, Mathematicians, and other professors at MIT LAB Artificial intelligence San Francisco State University and Stanford university. We concluded after careful studies that Qiblah in North America for Muslim's preyers toward Meccas in Saudi Arabia is South East South. My reasoning is that direction as explain by Merriam Dictionary "something is pointing or facing". Since the earth is not flat. the direction will cross the earth to reach the straight line between North America and Mecca In Saudi Arabia. I just would want to add my findings.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried the Talk but did not work. Please examine Al-Ahbash page which is the real issue page, unfortunately, the author or authors have written "Qiblah" page for more confusion. The page that I found contradicting information and tried to editing it is called [Al-Ahbash] article.

How do you think we can help?

By examining my point of view vs the other authors point of views which are not willing to change. There are wars in the Middle East, There are a lot of groups and many are using Islam in wrong way to promote violence and regime's changes. Since I am not going into politics, I just would want to show readers that Tariq Ramadan comments about non violence groups which are know to defend themselves is irrelevant especially from a person who is the head of an organization that promotes violence.

Summary of dispute by McKhan

Summary of dispute by Barelvi

Summary of dispute by MezzoMezzo

I absolutely reject Chabaano's claim that attempts to mediate the dispute have already been tried on the talk page in question. He replied only a few times; McKhan replied only a few times; I literally only posted a single comment. Discussion there is far from over and there's no indication at all that the topics under discussion require a case at DRN. This appears to be a mistaken understanding of the DR policy by a new user. A real discussion needs to be attempted, in good faith, before it's declared fruitless. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 18:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Al-Ahbash#Qibla discussion

•  Verified that the involved parties have been notified on their talk page. Note to Chaabano: Please make sure you list involved parties in the case and notify them on their respective talk pages with the following template: {{subst:drn-notice}} (refer to Template:drn-notice for documentation) in the future. I have done it for you this time. -- JustBerry ( talk) 05:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: Additional sections have been inserted for involved editors to provide their summaries of the dispute. @ McKhan: @ Barelvi: @ MezzoMezzo: Inviting involved parties to provide said summaries. -- JustBerry ( talk) 17:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: Other parties seem unwilling or unavailable to participate. Moderated discussion requires the active involvement of more than one editor. Heading towards a close. -- JustBerry ( talk) 05:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - If two or more parties express an interest in moderated discussion in 24 hours, this case will be opened for moderated discussion. Otherwise it will be closed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:30, 27 January 2017 (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:John Fleming (American politician) ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Politics555 ( talk · contribs)
• Neutrality ( talk · contribs)
• Gamaliel ( talk · contribs)
• NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In this article I have chosen to add important information that was left out of a discussion on Rep. John Fleming's page regarding an incident in 2012. I have not removed any of the previous content. But, the existing content was not from a NPOV. Important legal and legislative facts were totally missing. I added that important content and it was well-resourced. Two editors working together, or one and his sock puppet account it appears, reverted every word of my edit, together 4 times. He/they have brought in friends to attack me as the violator because I re-reverted back to my added content. I would appreciate resolution to this dispute. I am not asking to remove his/their content, only allow my factual content that provides a truthful, honest, balanced and neutral perspective of Fleming's statements and actions based on the facts at the time.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I posted on the a resolution board that he/they have violated the 3RR rule and properly noticed him/them. I believe it to be one editor using two accounts because when I am emailed with their posts, oth editors' notices take me to Neutrality's talk page. At the very least, if it is two, they are working in concert. One even admitted that he "knows" the other.

How do you think we can help?

I would like to have the important additional information to be included. I would be happy to get a number of opinions, but I think the article reflects only one perspective by eliminating essential facts in the discussion. Ultimately, it is crafted to make Rep. Fleming to appear to be an anti-gay bigot. However, his actions were based on the facts in existence at the time and should properly reflect that.

Summary of dispute by Neutrality

Summary of dispute by and Gamaliel

Talk:John Fleming_(American_politician) discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. I have added the name of another editor who also took part in the discussion. The filing party has not notified the other editors of this filing and should do so. Do not make conduct allegations at this noticeboard. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Since the filing user has been blocked for 24h, I have notified the other users included in this dispute so that they may add their opinion to help reach a consensus. Please note, that I am not moderating this dispute, Robert is. Have a good day, ItsPugle ( Talk) 01:25, 30 January 2017 (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:Milo Yiannopoulos#Adding Category:British people of Jewish descent.2C not Category:British Jews ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• RudiLefkowitz ( talk · contribs)
• Bradv ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am claiming that a WP category relating to a persons descent can be added without the need of some loosely defined self-identification criteria

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Neutral point of view!

How do you think we can help?

Neutral point of view!

Summary of dispute by Bradv

Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#Adding_Category:British_people_of_Jewish_descent.2C_not_Category:British_Jews discussion

•  Volunteer note: - Please inform all users on their talk pages before proceeding. TheMagikCow ( talk) 15:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Consensus has been reached on the article talk page not to identify the subject as Jewish. If the filing party wants to identify the subject as of Jewish descent, further discussion on the article talk page is in order. If the filing party wishes to clarify the consensus, they could use a Request for Comments for the purpose. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:40, 29 January 2017 (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:Leposavić#.22Albanik.22 

Users involved

• Ktrimi991 ( talk · contribs)
• Zoupan ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The discussion is held if should the alternative name of Leposavic (which is Albanik) be mentioned in the article or not. The alternative Albanian and Serbian name of the settlements are mentioned in the lead in every single article about a city or a municipality in Kosovo. This is done to avoid any possible conflict and because both names are used in offical documents. Albanik is the name used by Kosovo government in offical documents. ^[1] Marc Sommers and Peter Buckland elaborate on Albanik. ^[2] The lead should include both names used in offical documents.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have discussed on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

The dispute can be solved by adding the alternative name Albanik in the lead.

Summary of dispute by Zoupan

I will repeat what has already been said. "Albanik" is purely a provocation, a failed attempt to erase traces of Serbian culture by Albanianizing the name of a Serb-majority settlement (the municipality is inhabited by 96% Serbs according to OSCE). The Albanological Institute suggested the name for Republic of Kosovo use (as was done with Srbica/Skenderaj, Uroševac/Ferizaj), but it was not adopted (Albanian-language name/transliteration is still Leposaviq). 'Albanik' has only found itself in a paper on mining economy and "some maps". Ktrimi991 falsely concludes that Albanik is the name used by Kosovo government in offical documents; nothing points at this. The Republic of Kosovo commonly uses the dual designations, as in 'Leposavić/Leposaviq', which is also followed by UNMIK, NATO, EULEX, UNDP, UNHCR, OSCE, ECMI, etc.-- Zoupan 21:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Elaboration on "Albanik" matter

• Marc Sommers; Peter Buckland; International Institute for Educational Planning (2004). Parallel worlds: rebuilding the education system in Kosovo. International Institute for Educational Planning. On some maps, for example, the town of Leposavic (Serbian) is listed not as Leposaviq, the Albanian equivalent, but as ' Albanik' , which translates as 'Albanian' . Located in the far north of Kosovo and close to Serbian borders on three sides, Leposavic / Leposaviq / Albanik has historically been an area of Serbian settlement. The politics surrounding 'Albanik' is only one example of the multitude of ways that conflict between Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo continues after the war has passed.
• Saskia Drude (2008). Hundert Wochen Kosovo: Alltag in einem unfertigen Land. Karin Fischer Verlag. pp. 99–. ISBN  978-3-89514-836-1. Für Leposavić/Leposaviç, mitten im serbischen Siedlungsgebiet gelegen, verfügte das Albanologische Institut den Namen Albanik, das ist schon eine besondere Provokation! [...is an exceptional provocation!]
• Grand Hotel Kosovo: Schlaglichter einer europäischen Staatsbildung. LIT Verlag Münster. 2011. pp. 69–. ISBN  978-3-643-11425-9. Örtchen Leposavić in Albanik umzutaufen, konnte bisher angesichts. mangelnder Repräsentanz der Albaner vor Ort bisher nur in den. Werken nationalistischer Kartographen Gestalt annehmen. [... only used in works by nationalist cartographers]

Straightforward.-- Zoupan 21:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Official Republic of Kosovo use

• "Dragiša Krstović". List of the Deputies of the Kosovo Assembly. Republic of Kosovo Assembly. Leposavić/Leposaviq
• "Monitoring and Evaluation of Language Rights in Kosovo" (PDF). Republic of Kosovo. March 2015. Leposavić/Leposaviq
• "Leposavić/Leposaviq" (PDF). Central Election Commission. Republic of Kosovo. Leposavić/Leposaviq

Clear name used by Kosovo government in offical documents.-- Zoupan 21:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Leposavi%C4%87#.22Albanik.22 discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editor. Editors should be aware that ArbCom discretionary sanctions are available for disruptive editing with regard to the Balkans, but that discussion here is a way to resolve disputes reasonably. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Ktrimi991's response - Yes, Albanik is the official name used by Kosovo government in official documents. Zoupan is now saying that Leposaviq is an alternative name. My question here is: Why did Zoupan deleted Leposaviq from the article considering it a provocation?

There are several official documents of the government of Kosovo which use “Albanik”.

Government official documents:

• MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. "MINING STRATEGY OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO 2012 – 2025" (PDF). http://mzhe-ks.net/en. p. 21. The most important lead and zinc resources and appearances are located in the so called "Metallogenic Trepça strip", which lies in the northeastern part of Republic of Kosovo, ranging from Albanik (Leposavic) to Gllame (Gjilan). The strip length is over 80km, whereas its average width is around 30km. {{ cite web}}: External link in |website= ( help) ---- Ministry of Economic Development and the Kosovo Parliament

• MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND SPATIAL PLANNING. "State of nature report" (PDF). --------- Ministry of Environment and Spatial planning. Page 15, there are used both Albanik and Leposaviq.

Media:

• "Serbs of north prevented the visit of high police officials in Albanik". Serbs of Albanik (Leposavic) have prevented the visit of Director General of the Kosova Police Sheremet Ahmeti and the leaders of the police component of EULEX Rainer Kuehn in this town, blocking access of Albanik. ---- KosovaPress

• "Explore Kosovo, the most attracted places in the country!". Kosovo Polje, Albanik, Lipjane,

Scholarship:

• "Rusia ey el conflicto de Kosovo" (PDF). p. 7. En especial, para los serbios de Kosovo que están concentrados principalmente al norte del nuevo Estado (en los municipios de Albanik, Zubin Potok, Zvecan y Mitrovica) ---- Page 7
• Marc Sommers; Peter Buckland; International Institute for Educational Planning (2004). Parallel worlds: rebuilding the education system in Kosovo. International Institute for Educational Planning. p. 19. Albanik

Public services:

• "Mitrovicë". F.sh. Jarinje /PKK Kosovë - SMZ/ 43500 Albanik (Leposavic) --- Both Albanik and Leposavic

The sources presented by Zoupan mention and elaborate on Albanik. I can present additional sources too. Zoupan claims that Albanik is “purely a provocation, a failed attempt to erase traces of Serbian culture by Albanianizing the name of a Serb-majority settlement (the municipality is inhabited by 96% Serbs according to OSCE)”. Bosniaks and Croats say the same thing about Republiks Srpska. If we follow the same logic then the Republika Srpska article should be deleted. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 19:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously insisting on the inclusion? How in the earth does this and Republika Srpska have anything in common? Your logic is terrible.-- Zoupan 22:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• "UNMIK use". UNMIK. Leposavić/Leposaviq
• "OSCE use". OSCE. Leposavić/Leposaviq
• "KFOR/NATO use". KFOR/ NATO. Leposavić/Leposaviq
• "UNDP use" (PDF). UNDP. Leposavić/Leposaviq
• "EULEX use". EULEX. Leposavić/Leposaviq
• "EUCOM use". EUCOM. Leposavić/Leposaviq
• "ECMI use" (PDF). ECMI. Leposavić/Leposaviq
• "CoE use" (PDF). CoE. Leposavić/Leposaviq
• "UNSC use" (PDF). UNSC. Leposavić/Leposaviq
• "EEAS use" (PDF). EEAS. Leposavić/Leposaviq

So, the Republic of Kosovo and all major international organizations uses the neutral Leposavić/Leposaviq. "Albanik" falls under WP:UNDUE; we should not use a newly-composed provocative nationalist (anti-Serbian) name found in extremely small instances. There is no logic in that. The Western authors did explain the nature of this "alternative" name – it is Albanian nationalist, meant to provoke. Do I need to repeat that it is not in official use?-- Zoupan 22:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Is this an issue where compromise is possible, or is this simply a yes/no question about alternate names? If this is a yes/no question about alternate names, this noticeboard is not the right place, and a Request for Comments is in order. There is a widespread belief that moderators here can arbitrate; they cannot; they can only mediate. If discussion here is to continue, it should be concise. The above post is lengthy. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:14, 31 January 2017 (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.

---

Location of dispute

• User talk:72.141.9.158 ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Beyond My Ken ( talk · contribs)
• Theroadislong ( talk · contribs)
• Bbb23 ( talk · contribs)
• MarnetteD ( talk · contribs)
• White Arabian Filly ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

My edits at swing state and a user's talk page have been consistently reverted, for no reason. Many users deleted my edit at the first page with no relevant edit summaries, and many different users reverted my edits at the latter. No administrator has yet replied to my request. As none of the users involved have replied on my talk page, or theirs, where necessary, I have been unable to contact them further over the last few days. I would like to add my comments and edits back, but it keeps getting reverted and my attempts to contact them have been in vain. Please see my talk page for the actual discussion and further details.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Messaging them on their talk page, on my talk page, alerting an administrator (although that was only today), making my intentions clear in further edits. However, they have not responded but continue to revert my edits.

How do you think we can help?

Notify the editors involved and add my information back in, as long as they have no valid and legitimate objections. If that's the case, I would be happy to discuss it with them, but only if they will actually engage with me.

Summary of dispute by Beyond My Ken

I will not be participating. All problems stem from the IPs unwillingness to follow policy, as I've painstakingly pointed out to him. IP has been told to discuss content dispute on the article's talk page. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Theroadislong

User is edit warring and editing without consensus to remove a section which is properly sourced, because they don't like it. Theroadislong ( talk) 08:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bbb23

Summary of dispute by MarnetteD

Summary of dispute by White Arabian Filly

I'm not involved in the content dispute over on the article. I was patrolling the IP contribs page for vandalism and happened to see an IP reverting a registered user who I know by reputation on MarnetteD's talk. I've seen that kind of thing before and it's almost always some kind of personal attack, so I reverted. I didn't know about the ongoing dispute, so I'm sorry if I made it worse by my edit. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

User talk:72.141.9.158 discussion

•  Volunteer note: Involved users have been notified on talk pages. I can't moderate this case because I have things going on in real life, but I'll be happy to provide another opinion if one is needed. MereTechnicality ( talk) 00:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - The filing party appears to be editing against consensus. The purpose of this noticeboard is not to provide another forum for continuing to argue against consensus. If any of the other editors want moderated discussion, we will have moderated discussion. Otherwise the filing party is advised that a Request for Comments can be used to obtain a larger consensus. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - There doesn't appear to be any interest in moderated discussion. If there is any interest, please so indicate. The filing party is advised that moderated discussion against consensus isn't useful. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:01, 2 February 2017 (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:American Legislative Exchange Council#Section .22Convening the first U.S. state constitutional convention.22 ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Calexit ( talk · contribs)
• Chris troutman ( talk · contribs)
• DrFleischman ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

- Editors on the page above have reverted my submission, I made corrections needed and still got reverted - Either my newness on WP, personal behavior or quoting a policy without providing any relevance are used as a case for reversion

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I honestly tried to respond to all their "objective criticism of the actual content submitted" as much as possible but they continuously keep diverting the discussion towards other issues.

How do you think we can help?

Let me be fully upfront and warn you that, sadly, the topic at hand is extremely political and divisive on all sides and I'd hate for WP to be yet another political front.

A person with expertise on the topic at hand and who is known for objectivity is what I'd settle for any day. WP and we all lose even if the third party just supports my content because of their political ideologies.

I also wanted help in seeing if the content submitted should be separated into its own page. Thank you.

Talk:American Legislative_Exchange_Council#Section_.22Convening_the_first_U.S._state_constitutional_convention.22 discussion

I think this DRN referral is premature. I am not opposed to including material along the lines that Calexit has proposed, but it needs to be better sourced and the content needs to be adjusted to reflect those better sources. I started explaining this at article talk but Chris and I were met with personal attacks, sarcasm, and edit warring. Calexit is brand new and has potential to become a productive contributor, if they are open to learning our policies and guidelines (both content and conduct). -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editors. The discussion on the article talk page has been minimal. I would suggest that the editors should try to discuss on the article talk page a little longer. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Chris troutman

The word "calexit" refers to a hope by some that California will secede from the Union. This is in keeping with what the American Legislative Exchange Council's goal of increased states rights as Mark Levin described in his book, which is why I become concerned about a new editor called "Calexit" now pushing this content onto the article. The content itself is UNDUE because it focuses too narrowly on a few very RECENTISM-driven media reports with heavy use of external links to draw attention to conventionofstates.com. Calexit (the editor) is making arguments more based on cognitive biases than our guidelines and policies. This appearance at DRN could be interpreted as WP:FORUMSHOPPING because they don't like the pushback they've received at the talk page. While I understand admins don't want to wade into a content issue I think a BOOMERANG is in order. Chris Troutman ( talk) 18:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Summary of hilarity by Calexit

• Everyone has biases, aka, no one lives in a vacuum. I'll be more than happy to openly share mine in the matter at hand (Just ask next time):
  • I am a strong proponent of California seceding from the Union though I have no affiliation with any organization in that regard until now (I guess I'm still WP:FORUMSHOPPING)
  • As a human, I Despise ALEC and almost everything the Koch brothers stands for. Zero apologies here. To expose how they want to use things for their benefits is my pleasure
  • I made it very clear what I think Chris Troutman leanings are on my talk page
• "The content itself is UNDUE because it focuses too narrowly on a few very RECENTISM-driven media reports". Finally I got from you what it means in our case. I honestly never knew that WP doesn't publish anything that is recent
• "heavy use of external links to draw attention to conventionofstates.com" I put direct links to everything that I could find direct links to and this is the one you choose! okay
• Chris, you wouldn't have used the term cognitive bias like that if you truly knew its extent. Let me give you an analogy that might help you in this life: Cognitive biases are like bacteria; they are invasive in everything that is human. And just like bacteria, not all of them are good, not all of them are bad
• WP:FORUMSHOPPING!! WP:BOOMERANG!!!! You guys at WP are really fun
• Weirdly, my preference was, and still is, to have this content on its own page. Adding it to ALEC page was done only because I couldn't find a single thing related to this important topic on WP except for that page keep popping up as the most relevant for "convention of states" and others. I wrongly thought the way to go was to add it as a small part there that's short and event-based, then break it into another page as I gather more info

I can go on but, Robert, I think it's far more productive imho if you can either guide me into the process of creating a new page for this content since its scope goes far beyond the page's topic, or to where the EXIT sign is. Thanks WP! Calexit ( talk) 19:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by coordinator

This seems to be getting off to an unpleasant start. I am troubled by the comments of both User:Chris troutman and User:Calexit. First, Chris Troutman thinks that a boomerang may be in order. What is meant by that? The boomerang essay has to do with filings at conduct forums such as WP:ANI, where a disruptive editor who files a complaint may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. What is Chris Troutman proposing? This is not a conduct forum, and I don't see a conduct issue. Second, User:Calexit seems to be treating this proceeding as a joke. If it is a joke, it is because it isn't being taken seriously. Also, Calexit refers to creating a new page for new content, but appears to be expressing strong opinions. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and presents opinions as they are seen by reliable sources. What exactly is Calexit asking? Do the editors want to engage in moderated discussion of how to improve content? If so, this is the right place. If not, this thread can be closed. Will the two editors please clarify what they want? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Reply

"Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and presents opinions as they are seen by reliable sources"

To ask of anyone to pretend neutrality in the face of the unjust is a nicer name for immorality. What WP asked of us here is fair though; be faithful messangers of opinions expressed by reliable sources and utilize the community to ensure doing so. No where there do I see Thou shalt not have strong opinions. Keep them away from WP main content, yes.

"Do the editors want to engage in moderated discussion of how to improve content?"

Yes and to prove it I shall proceed. To address the last objection raised, and looking at how old ALEC is, I must say that, at least according to the WP:RECENT decree, it's a reasonable objection. I therefore accept that this content should either be moved somewhere else more appropriate or dropped entirely.

Btw, Chris, I'm pretty open to being prosecuted in any court or banning forum such as WP:ANI or else as you see fit. If WP isn't open to persons like myself, I'll be more than happy to actively aid you in any way possible to go through the banning procedures to ensure my likes are promptly banned. Let me know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calexit ( talk • contribs) 15:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

More comments by coordinator

Discussion here is voluntary. I have never said this before, but it also requires that the parties take it seriously. Voluntary discussion requires the participation of two or more parties. I haven't heard whether either of the other two parties besides Calexit wants to take part in moderated discussion. User:Calexit appears to be saying above that they want moderated discussion and to prove it they will proceed. It doesn't work like that. Slow down, please, User:Calexit. Does anyone else want moderated discussion? Will User:Chris troutman please explain their boomerang comment? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Reply

Again, just to confirm, I'm very open to a moderated discussion. Calexit ( talk) 05:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Reply by Chris troutman

Calexit already admits to pushing a POV. " I Despise ALEC and almost everything the Koch brothers stands for. Zero apologies here. To expose how they want to use things for their benefits is my pleasure." Why are we tolerating a POV pusher here, at all? In any case, I'll address the content, which violates WP:NPOV. Calexit writes "At ALEC’s 2016 annual meeting in July, the Convention of States was made a top priority." and cites Conventionofstates.com. That's not a reliable source and certainly not independent. "ALEC has adopted model rules for an Article V convention... That sentence is fine. 'The “State Legislators Article V Caucus” of the Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force (BBATF) is dominated by ALEC legislators, and pro-convention advocacy groups including BBATF and Convention of States are part of ALEC.' There's no cited source and that's a very partisan claim. The content returns to "Convention of states" and I don't see why. The rest of that 2nd paragraph is fine. The third paragraphs is untenable. While true Lisa Nelson write the article and former Clinton-staffer wrote a Facebook post, the point of the paragraph is to portray the former as crazies while spouting the partisan propaganda of the latter. Calexit lied when they claim above they "honestly tried to respond" because as the talk page indicates, there wasn't much discussion. DrFleischman was against using partisan sources and Calexit makes an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. DrFleischman replied in the negative and Calexit ran to this forum knowing they needed a fellow traveler to push their preferred version through. Calexit would love to write an entire article of screed but is stuck trying to get some edits applied to the article about ALEC. I, for one, do not enjoy wasting my time justifying my edits in this manner. Per WP:CONSENSUS the fact that more editors disagree with the content than agree with it is enough. Wikipedia would rather I spend my time with countervandalism and reviewing Good article nominees but instead I have to provide words to a refusal to allow this article to be hijacked by an admitted partisan with an agenda. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Reply

First, I'd like to share the page I'm looking at in terms of this discussion as it is the last reversion made by CT and I'm sure he's not just arrogantly and ignorantly reverting content without actually reading it. Let's go through the claims:

Why are we tolerating a POV pusher here, at all?

I'm assuming that sentence is void of POV and as such clears you from that accusation. Or, perhaps, you are of a higher status of existence that is beyond POV as understood by us peasants.

"At ALEC’s 2016 annual meeting in July, the Convention of States was made a top priority." and cites Conventionofstates.com. That's not a reliable source and certainly not independent.

There's actually no citation at that sentence whatsoever, there's an external link that hyperlinks "Convention of States" to "Conventionofstates.com". Do Wikipedians call that citation now?

'The “State Legislators Article V Caucus” of the Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force (BBATF) is dominated by ALEC legislators, and pro-convention advocacy groups including BBATF and Convention of States are part of ALEC.' There's no cited source and that's a very partisan claim. The content returns to "Convention of states" and I don't see why.

Hmm, some good news and bad news here. Good news is that there's a citation, bad news is that I mixed up the citations of the first and second paragraphs. That sentence comes, almost verbatim, from In These Times article's second section, fifth paragraph. I'm sure you have read that cited article and aren't just cluelessly responding?

The third paragraphs is untenable. While true Lisa Nelson write the article and former Clinton-staffer wrote a Facebook post, the point of the paragraph is to portray the former as crazies while spouting the partisan propaganda of the latter.

Wow, talk about having no POV to push. So I shouldn't quote a Title of an op-ed someone wrote? And I shouldn't quote a meager staffer because CT deems what he says as spouting the partisan propaganda?

Calexit lied when they claim above they "honestly tried to respond" because as the talk page indicates, there wasn't much discussion. DrFleischman was against using partisan sources and Calexit makes an  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. DrFleischman replied in the negative and Calexit ran to this forum knowing they needed a fellow traveler to push their preferred version through.

Thank you for that kind insult. I expect nothing less from a metamoral person like yourself. To make life easier, CT is referring to the talk here. When "Calexit makes an  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. DrFleischman replied" with:

You're not going to obtain consensus for your edits that way. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia  policies and guidelines and lay off the  personal attacks and  sarcasm please. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 

Nowhere do I see a reply in the negative or a quotation of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS

Calexit would love to write an entire article of  screed but is stuck trying to get some edits applied to the article about ALEC. I, for one, do not enjoy wasting my time justifying my edits in this manner. Per  WP:CONSENSUS the fact that more editors disagree with the content than agree with it is enough. Wikipedia would rather I spend my time with countervandalism and reviewing  Good article nominees but instead I have to provide words to a refusal to allow this article to be hijacked by an admitted partisan with an agenda.

Even more kind insults! If I was a WP admin I'd be worried by this last part. CT has certainly proven himself to be a neutral, POV-free kind of guy. Calexit ( talk) 01:28, 4 February 2017 (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:List of Indian Christians ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• [[User: Sitush| Sitush]] ([[User talk: Sitush|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/ Sitush|contribs]])

Dispute overview

the user Sitush has been reported as "Wikipedians who are not Wikipedians" in past and he/she has attempted to deleted his/her recent view history after I confronted him/her. the said user has been actively involved in editing pages involving caste and religion in India, I have by painstaking research contributed names of Indian origin Christians in the"list of Indian christians" but time and again the said contributions have been deleted by Sitush, Sitush activities on Wikipedia shows that he has been sedulously involved in editing/vandalizing the constitutions of genuine wiki users especially in matters involving caste and religion in India on a regular basis, noticing his activities and vandalization I have requested Sitush against persisting in these activities, the editions done by me are genuine names of Christians like vijay hazare , chandu borde ,amrit kaur and other prominent names who have their independent pages with reference/citations that they are Indian Christians however Sitush whose past activities are highly doubtful has time and again vandalized my contributions despite me explaining the reasons in support on the page talk forum. these kind of activities are very common in India where politicians hire such handlers to scuttle truth and repaint history which is a serious concern and against the very spirit of wikipedia.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

i have sufficiently talked with sitush and given him sufficient notice of cease and desist

How do you think we can help?

vandalism and attack on a tiny Minorities like Christians in India by distorting historical facts is a very common phenomenon, facts like Indian Christian contribution in freedom struggle and their participation in other fields on international neutral forums like Wikipedia is thus very essential. A sedulous campaign is going on by politicians with the help of such social media handlers to scuttle this truth and fact from being highlighted. Hence your intervention

Summary of dispute by Sitush

Talk:List of_Indian_Christians discussion

---

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:Muttahida Quami Movement Pakistan ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Saqib ( talk · contribs)
• Rameezraja001 ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) divided into two factions late 2016 when one its senior member Farooq Sattar disassociated the party from MQM founder and chief Altaf Hussain.

Media reports says that "MQM is registered with the Election Commission of Pakistan in the name of Dr Farooq Sattar" as since 2002 which make him leader of MQM. Farooq Sattar also stated "MQM is Pakistan. The MQM is registered in Pakistan and recognises the laws and Constitution of Pakistan."

But on the other hand, Altaf Hussain claim he's the leader of MQM and dismissed Faroor Sattar from the party membership. Media label Altaf Hussain as the leader of MQM’s London-based leader while Farooq Sattar as the leader of MQM Pakistan.

Now the question is do we really need a separate page Muttahida Quami Movement Pakistan?

I tried to resolve the issue on MQM Pakistan talk page but did not work.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk:Muttahida Quami Movement Pakistan

How do you think we can help?

Not sure.

Summary of dispute by Rameezraja001

Talk:Muttahida Quami Movement Pakistan discussion

• Volunteer Note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. However, is the real question one of article content, or is it whether to merge two articles or keep them separate? If this is a merge discussion, see WP:Merging. If there is a dispute between two groups or within a group, the neutral point of view policy requires that Wikipedia report it in a neutral fashion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@ Saqib: Pinging case filer for response to the question posed by Robert McClenon above. -- JustBerry ( talk) 05:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note -
  Resolved

   – This dispute has been resolved - Please see this page for the related comments. Have a good day, ItsPugle ( Talk) 03:20, 29 January 2017 (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:Emmett Till ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ShanonFitzpatrick ( talk · contribs)
• Tmerlis ( talk · contribs)
• Magnolia677 ( talk · contribs)
• Gandydancer ( talk · contribs)
• JudgeRM ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This page, which discusses the horrific murder of Emmett Till, has had a patently racist and anti-historical lede. The two introductory sentences state Till's identity, the fact that he was murdered, and the statement that he "reportedly flirted with a white woman." This is unacceptable because: 1) It elides acknowledging the central fact that Till's murder was linked to systemic violence against African Americans in the Jim Crow South; 2) It ascribes blame to a CHILD MURDER VICTIM for his death by focusing on the "flirtation"; 3) It denies the fact that recent scholarship (cited in the article!) has shown that the woman whom Till "reportedly flirted with" lied throughout her testimony.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

See multiple edits and talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Take action to note that this is a space where racist ideas about black "hypersexuality" and an ahistorical refusal to place Till's murder in context are being perpetuated.

Summary of dispute by Tmerlis

Summary of dispute by Magnolia677

Summary of dispute by Gandydancer

Summary of dispute by JudgeRM

I hope you people here don't mind, but I've fixed the names so they're separate. I have also added my name to this since I'm involved. There are also other users involved in this, but I will leave that up to the filer to add them if they wish to. As for the actual issue at hand, I will comment on this later, and feel free to revert if what I did was wrong or out of process. JudgeRM (talk to me) 05:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Emmett Till discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been some discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has not correctly listed the other editors because they have apparently run their names together. The filing editor is requested to list individually the other editors and to notify them. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note it appears an RFC on this subject is currently running. I believe the case should be closed, Robert McClenon what are your thoughts? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:14, 6 February 2017 (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

• User talk:Chipmunkdavis#WP:WIKIHOUNDING ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Giorgi Balakhadze ( talk · contribs)
• Chipmunkdavis ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Description of the dispute is here ► Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Dispute_over_removed_material

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I opened discussion on his talk page and tried to solve the dispute. I tried to explaine with arguments but no improvement.

How do you think we can help?

I need a third party and admins involvement because I do not see any chance to find a solution.

Summary of dispute by Chipmunkdavis

User talk:Chipmunkdavis#WP:WIKIHOUNDING discussion

---

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.

---

•  Volunteer note: The user who requested resolution may be forumshopping. Some examples of this are linked here. ( 1) ( 2) ( 3) ( 4) ( 5)

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#Adding Category: Yiannopoulos is Jewish - adequate sources verify this and should not be removed until proven otherwise ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• RudiLefkowitz ( talk · contribs)
• MPants_at_work ( talk · contribs)
• Only_in_death ( talk · contribs)
• Ad_Orientem ( talk · contribs).

Dispute overview

Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos - Hello. I have a source from The Forward newspaper that states that Mr. Yiannopoulos is Jewish. Furthermore, in other sources that verify this, it is Mr. Yiannopoulos stating that he is, through his mother/grandmother, Jewish. The original and current Jewish definition is that as long as one’s mother, grandmother, great-grandmother is Jewish, then you are Jewish. Very simple. Regardless of disbelief or losing the technical 'status' of being a Jew by adopting another faith or even born in to another faith, you are still a Jew ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/beliefs/beliefs_1.shtml) So the claim of being Jewish can be verified through sources and the definition itself, Who is a Jew?. I have cited WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. So the question: Is my edit adding Category:British Jews or even Category:British people of Jewish descent justified and valid? PS. From the Jewish perspective it does not matter if Mr. Yiannopoulos has been born into another religion or embraced another religion , as long as his blood affinity is matrilineal. Ethnicity and religion are intertwined in Judaism. Thank you. Regards

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Citing source, Citing Wikipedia policy, Law & practice concerning the subject. Trying to correct be and civil in personal responses.

How do you think we can help?

Applying WP policy. If valid source backs adding a category, it should not be removed.

Comments by MjolnirPants

Okay, I am (one of) the other editor(s) involved. The other two are Only in death and Ad Orientem. All three of us oppose this edit. I have a few things to point out here:

1. The source claimed to state that Milo is Jewish actually states "Yiannopoulos’s maternal grandmother is Jewish, so according to Jewish law, he is, too, but he was raised Catholic." ^[1]
2. The claim that Milo's grandmother is Jewish stems only from Milo himself, and has only been made in response to accusations of antisemitism. It is highly suspect, the last source's credulity notwithstanding. ^{[2] [3]}
3. Milo has a long history of borderline Nazi association. He use to write under the pen name "Milo Wagner"; is well known for making antisemitic remarks and (non-critical) references to Hitler; and has posted images of himself wearing Nazi symbols and reading books about Hitler to the internet. ^[4]
4. The category RudiLefkowitz wishes to add does not exist. ^[5] This may be the result of a bad copy & paste job, but it is the specific edit Rudi has been edit warring over.
5. Rudi has been warned by myself ^[6] and Ad Orientem ^[7] that his edit grossly violates a number of WP policies and that his argumentativeness is disruptive to the article.
6. This issue seems very likely to result in an AE request against Rudi, which would be disruptive to any DR process.

With that in mind, I do not consent to any DRN process that discusses whether we should violate our policies against original research and verifiability in order to appease one editor's religious sensibilities. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: I'll count this as you being "alerted" to the case, and I'll ping the other two. Thank you for your comments. MereTechnicality ( talk) 20:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Ad Orientem

RudiLefkowitz appears to be on some sort of crusade to have Milo Yiannopoulos categorized as a Jew. His argument is predicated almost entirely on Jewish Law as generally accepted among Orthodox Jewish Rabbis and scholars which holds Judaic identity is conferred by heredity through the mother. However Mr. Yiannopoulos self identifies as Roman Catholic. Mr. Yiannopoulos' alleged anti-antisemitism is, from my perspective, neither here nor there. It has always been the practice on Wikipedia that when assigning a religious affiliation we accept whatever they declare to be their faith group, if any is indicated. I also need to note here that RudiLefkowitz editing history, both on the article and its talk page has been tendentious. So much so, that it was a factor in my recent decision to invoke Discretionary Sanctions and impose WP:1RR editing restrictions on the article. And I further note, that this appeal to WP:DRN was made after I felt obliged to issue a formal caution to Rudi regarding his disruptive editing. In closing I wish to remind the participants this article is subject to Discretionary Sanctions and at this point I believe Rudi's editing on this topic has ceased to be constructive. Beyond that I would merely encourage that anyone concerned review the talk page discussion thread. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: Thank you for your comments. I'll begin discussion when the final involved party makes a comment. MereTechnicality ( talk) 20:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#Adding_Category:_Yiannopoulos_is_Jewish_-_adequate_sources_verify_this_and_should_not_be_removed_until_proven_otherwise discussion

•  Volunteer note: Please ensure that you have notified all parties involved with this case by placing {{subst:Template:DRN-notice}} on their talk pages. Please also list all users involved with this dispute above. MereTechnicality ( talk) 18:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: I will take this on when statements are made. TheMagikCow ( talk) 18:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: I was going to, but if you want to take this case, go right ahead! MereTechnicality ( talk) 18:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Ohh sorry - I don't want to just step in if you want to take the case! It is something that would interest me from a technical/content point of view - but I don't want to tread on any toes. TheMagikCow ( talk) 19:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry! If I need help with this, I'll ask you. (And I very well may.) MereTechnicality ( talk) 19:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Confirmed that all parties specified by MjolnirPants have been notified MereTechnicality ( talk) 20:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: This case has been closed, as the issue was already discussed on the ANI, and consensus was reached not to list Milo as Jewish. MereTechnicality ( talk) 21:54, 25 January 2017 (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:Kalhor (Iranian tribe) ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Hosseiniran ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I added some authentic resources that has referred to Lurish identity of Kalhor tribe without deleting any other citations about other citations and theories. I wonder why a user deleted them frequently?! I asked him the reason but he continued to edit warring several times. Please have look to the page and citations mentioned there to clarify our dispute.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I asked the admins to help and protect the page and it is protected now.

How do you think we can help?

I think Lurish-origin theory should not be manipulated because is not pleasant for some ethnocentric oriented users. A lot of Kalhor tribe consider their origin as of Lurish people, a lot of historians as well. Both Lurs and Kurds of Iranic originally and this trend is very usual in Iran. In case of Laks people in Iran this issue is true too.

Summary of dispute by Hosseiniran

Talk:Kalhor (Iranian_tribe) discussion

• Probably your edits were deleted because the other user found them objectionable. Try to find more reputable sources. Wikipedia is not a garbage bin that accepts any source, only verifiable reputable sources are accepted here, we are a serious encyclopaedia project. Absinthia Stacy 13 ( talk) 12:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Blocked sock— UY Scuti ^Talk 12:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. It doesn't appear that there is a complete list of editors. Will the filing party please ensure that the list of editors is complete and that the other editors have been notified? Also, please comment on content only, not on contributors. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:13, 5 February 2017 (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

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

Users involved

• Apoorv2312 ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The user LeoFrank has been constantly reverting and deleting the Central Air Command Section of the page. Allahabad Airport is primarily known for the same, and then secondarily for civil operations. I seek an investigation/discussion. I personally belong to the place of interest being discussed, and an outsider should not unnecessary deprive information regarding one's regional page of interest.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Central Air Command itself is a separate Wikipedia page and a brief about it at Allahabad Airport is appropriate. The user LeoFrank says its not 'reliable'. The user has been rude and used disruptive threat talks. We work on Wikiepdia for collaborative efforts and not authoritarian power. I don't want dispute with the user, rather I would need to resolve the issue formally, in terms of good words.

How do you think we can help?

Decide whether Central Air Command section should be included or not. It has been on the page for long enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Allahabad Airport&action=history discussion

---

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

Users involved

• StephenTS42 ( talk · contribs)
• JJBers ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

At issue is the use of {{TOC left}} or Template:TOC left. The article in which I would like to use this template is Norwalk, Connecticut. Between the 'table of contents' or TOC and the 'Infobox settlement' is a large river of whitespace which could be remedied simply by the appropriate placement of the above template. My edit to do so has been reverted by the above user twice.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have indicated WP:MOS, WP:STYLEVAR, MOS:STYLEVAR, MOS:VAR, WP:WHITE, WP:TOC

How do you think we can help?

I seek an alternative remedy to the whitespace problem in the Norwalk, Connecticut article as a means to bring about an agreement among any involved editors.

User talk:JJBers discussion

• Volunteer note - Please discuss the use of the template on the article talk page. I see no discussion on an article talk page, only a user talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is better than edit-warring, but discussion on an article talk page is the proper way to discuss an article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:50, 10 February 2017 (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

• Lee Joon-gi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 203.87.156.98 ( talk · contribs)
• xdeluna ( talk · contribs)
• Treysand ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There has been extensive discussion on the talk page about the title of the category "2014-Lowly rated dramas". However later, the discussion was halted because all of the users found participating in the discussion were sock-puppets of one account.

Yet, a new IP user is reverting edits, claiming there was a consensus reached. It seems like the sockpuppet user is back again trying to exert WP:Ownership.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

As seen on talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Opening a new discussion where other users would participate.

Summary of dispute by 203.87.156.98

Summary of dispute by xdeluna

Summary of dispute by Treysand

Lee Joon-gi discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been no recent discussion at the article talk page by the listed editors. There has been discussion, but not in the last few days, by other editors who are not listed here. The editors should discuss article content on the talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, they may request moderated dispute resolution here at a later date. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  I donno, this sounds to me like like a case for Sockpuppet investigations or Request for mediation. I don't see how dispute resolution will help, as the current problem isn't exactly the dispute. — Firespeaker ( talk) 05:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There does not appear to have been any recent discussion at the article talk page. This thread will be closed.
• Volunteer note - User:Firespeaker - A request for mediation is a more formal version of a request for moderated dispute resolution here. Since there doesn't seem to have been recent discussion, it doesn't look as though either DRN or RFM is appropriate. Thank you for your comment. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:59, 10 February 2017 (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

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

Users involved

• Kbrose ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

the user involved keep remove "*" and "#" from possible permutation of telephone number

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

i have add the picture link, but the user involved neglected

How do you think we can help?

to add "*" and "#" to possible permutation of telephone number

Summary of dispute by Kbrose

Telephone number discussion

• Volunteer Note There appears to have been no discussion on the talk page whatsoever. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer response The filing party has also not listed themselves as one of the involved parties in the dispute (you can't have a dispute involving just one person) and also does not appear to have a user account (i.e., is editing from an IP address). While it looks like the concern is perhaps a perfectly legitimate one, this request also looks premature and somewhat malformed. The filing party, 118.140.205.66, needs to formally attempt to engage the other editor in a discussion on the article's talk page before bringing a case here to dispute resolution. It would also be helpful (though not necessary) if the filing party opened up a user account rather than operate via an IP address. Lastly, asking "us" to add * and # to the article page is not going to happen. We are not here to impose rulings or change article content, we are here to resolve disputes through discussion and mediation. The filing party needs to understand this. KDS4444 ( talk) 08:46, 14 February 2017 (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:List of Playboy Playmates of 1995 ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Richterer11111 ( talk · contribs)
• K.e.coffman ( talk · contribs)
• Guy1890 ( talk · contribs)
• Ronz ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Playboy playmate page, no clear understanding and agreement of BLP, and whether playboy.com, and imdb.com are useful sources for BLPS.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

talk page.

How do you think we can help?

if there are other editors who can comment would be appreciated.

Summary of dispute by K.e.coffman

Summary of dispute by Guy1890

Summary of dispute by Ronz

First, if we were going attempt bring the dispute here, the request needs a rewrite: It should identify all the involved editors and they should be contacted. It needs to clearly identify the issue(s) along with the policies and guidelines that apply. (Discussions so far have mentioned reliability of sources, notability concerns, BLP...)

Even if this request were rewritten, it's probably too early to try this venue. Editors would like to treat Richterer11111 as a vandal, and it's unclear if attempts to focus on the content and policies will even get responses at this point. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment on dispute by NeilN

I'm not involved in this dispute beyond looking at it from an admin POV when it was brought to WP:ANEW. However it seems clear that this involves a whole class of articles instead of a single page. Please see this. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1995 discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. However, as noted by an administrator, this appears to spread across multiple articles. The filing party has not notified the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:52, 15 February 2017 (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:Pieter Bruegel the Elder ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• UnicovW ( talk · contribs)

Johnbod ( talk · contribs)

C.Gesualdo ( talk · contribs)

Freshacconci ( talk · contribs) Dispute overview

The dispute is twofold: a minor and a major one. Johnbod made edits on the Pieter Bruegel the Elder article and changed two things that are contestable. Firstly the minor dispute, namely the claim that '[Pieter Bruegel] was the most significant artist of Dutch and Flemish Renaissance painting'. This is of course subjective and not WP:NEUTRAL (it may as well be Hieronymus Bosch).

Secondly, the major dispute is the discussion concerning Bruegel's place of birth. Johnbod writes that the town of Bruegel 'does not fit any known place'. This is however false and contradicting to what Manfred Sellink, the main authority on Bruegel's work, wrote (Sellink, 2007), the RKD ( https://rkd.nl/nl/explore/artists/13292) and the primary source itself: Karel van Mander ( http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/mand001schi01_01/mand001schi01_01_0221.php). I've made it clear to Johnbod that he's using information based on outdated sources (Van Bastelaer, 1907), but he's not accepting my criticism and keeps on using the Grove (that probably refers to Orenstein (2001), who in turn refers to Van Bastelaer).

This dispute is essentially a dispute of the precedence of sources. I said to Johnbod that Sellink is explicitly attacking the idea that Breugel is not the town in Brabant and that the RKD gives priority to Sellink. Possibly because Orenstein isn't doing original research and instead refers to a source dating from 1907, but also because the main source - van Mander - explicitly refers to Brabant. In terms of content, it has to do with the fact that van Mander specifies Breugel als the town in Brabant and isn't at all talking about the town of Bree, which is situated in the Prince-Bishopric of Liege and is only called 'Breda' in Latin.

NOTE: the original version of the article did include Breugel as a possibility: see the article version of 15:14, 2 February 2017‎.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to give reasonable arguments in combination with reliable sources (such as the RKD and Manfred Sellink, the main authority on Bruegel's work).

How do you think we can help?

There's suspicion of me being a sock puppet for another user and I have also been accused of 'village patriotism'. I made it clear on several occasions that this is not the case. However, the suspicion is still there and I fear that this is part of the problem. An intervention of an objective third party might therefore be helpful to resolve the dispute.

Talk:Pieter Bruegel_the_Elder discussion

• IMO UnicovW is connected to C.Gesualdo ( talk · contribs) as either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. This editor has essentially identical interests with the other editor by only editing on only two pages both of which were edited by C.Gesualdo; this is a WP:SPA that also is arguing with the identical argument used by that blocked user... Modernist ( talk) 23:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: Modernist, if you're trying to accuse him of puppeteering, please open a case at the SPI. MereTechnicality ⚙ 00:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

As an observer I am just stating the obvious... Modernist ( talk) 00:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, but if that's the problem you have, it's better suited for SPI. MereTechnicality ⚙ 01:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: Not all users have been notified. UnicovW, please notify User:C.Gesualdo. And Modernist, you seem to have...indirectly...notified the other two. If you want to make a formal accusation against UnicovW, please file it at the SPI. UnicovW, please provide diffs of the claims you've made in your statement. Thank you. MereTechnicality ⚙ 01:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It's all on the talk page. No point in commenting further until Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/C.Gesualdo is resolved. Quack, quack! Johnbod ( talk) 03:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Didn't see that. Thanks. MereTechnicality ⚙ 03:48, 17 February 2017 (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

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

Users involved

• UU ( talk · contribs)
• Kbrose ( talk · contribs)
• IdreamofJeanie ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

the users involved keep remove "*" and "#" from possible permutation of telephone number

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

i have add picture link and telecommunication vendor links, but the users involved neglected

How do you think we can help?

per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored, stop the user involved from censoring content

Summary of dispute by Kbrose

Summary of dispute by IdreamofJeanie

Telephone number discussion

• Volunteer note - While there has been discussion on the article talk page, it has been minimal and should continue. The filing party has not notified the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - The filing party is instructed to read What Wikipedia is not. "Wikipedia is not censored" is more often misused than used correctly. Do not yell "Censorship!" in order to "win" a content dispute. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:23, 17 February 2017 (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:WrestleMania 33#Big Show VS. Shaq ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• JDC808 ( talk · contribs)
• WarMachineWildThing ( talk · contribs)
• Dane ( talk · contribs)
• TheDeviantPro ( talk · contribs)
• Sc30002001 ( talk · contribs)
• LM2000 ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On the article WrestleMania 33, an upcoming professional wrestling pay-per-view, we are having a dispute on whether or not a particular match has been confirmed for the event. Some editors believe that the sources that they have provided confirm the match. Others disagree based on those same sources, claiming that those sources actually do not confirm it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Lengthy talk page discussion is all.

How do you think we can help?

Read over the discussion and the sources, and provide your own opinion on the matter that could hopefully resolve this issue.

Summary of dispute by WarMachineWildThing

Reply: Not really sure how this disagreement has led to such distaste towards me. We used to be on good terms. It's not OWN. It's upholding the article based on policies and what the sources actually say. I requested the article to be unlocked so that we can edit other information on the page that doesn't pertain to this particular issue. I did say that about the match, but I also said that it shouldn't be added until sources actually confirm it, otherwise it's essentially WP:OR. -- JDC808 ♫ 09:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes we were on good terms but this is the second article in 2 days you have started an argument on. The coverage by the news outlets wouldn't be allowed by WWE if it weren't happening and you know it. It was started live on the espys and has been covered for almost a year by news outlets, they are keeping interest in it by saying "possible" because of it being so long before it takes place. It's not a rumor and you know it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 09:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe we had any interactions on the other article. News outlets can cover what they want without permission from WWE, unless WWE purposely had them report on it (which is something we can't verify). Also, rumor doesn't necessarily mean false information. -- JDC808 ♫ 10:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Dane

Summary of dispute by TheDeviantPro

Summary of dispute by Sc30002001

Summary of dispute by LM2000

Talk:WrestleMania 33#Big Show VS. Shaq discussion

• Volunteer response I am KDS4444 and I am here to try to help resolve this dispute. I have had a look at the talk page and the arguments there. My take on the dispute is this: although Wikipedia has a guideline about not including speculative information within its articles (see WP:CRYSTAL) the fact is that if a particular possible future event has been covered in independent reliable sources, then that is usually good enough to warrant that event's inclusion. Announcements of the "official" nature of that event are not relevant, and WWE's having only teased about it is also irrelevant— if the match has been discussed publicly, then it warrants inclusion (along with the caveat that it has only been discussed and not confirmed— you can always make that clear within the article). While I agree with the sentiment that Wikipedia should strive to have content that has been made certain and is confirmed, the reality is that this is not the basis for inclusion— mere discussion is enough. Provided adequate published sourcing exists. If any of the involved editors has any questions on this, please see WP:CRYSTAL and get back to me here. Good luck! I will consider this thread resolved if no one responds within the next couple of days. KDS4444 ( talk) 08:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi KDS4444, would it not be considered WP:CRYSTAL to include unconfirmed information? The point of the Storyline section in the article is to cover storylines and events that result in a match at the pay-per-view. The match is unconfirmed, so until confirmed, it is speculation on a possible match. In all past instances that I'm aware of, the information was only included when it got confirmed, because it's basically a rumor until its confirmation. -- JDC808 ♫ 09:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

KDS4444 too many news sites have reported the match, WWE would never allow the build up its getting from Fox sports, sky sports, ETC. especially after it all started on live TV at the espys if it wasn't happening. WWE would have put a stop to it by now. It's called build up and get people interested, it's not a rumor so WP:Crystal ball wouldn't apply. JDC808 has already admitted on the article talk page he knows the match is happening as well so he's already contradicted himself plus added a hidden section to the article about the match. So if its a rumor as he says here why add all of that? Now that 4 users agree it should be on the Article (only 1 other user besides JD wants it off) he has brought it here as consensus isn't going his way. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 09:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The sources have reported on the possibility of the match. All other announcements that were made first by Fox Sports, etc., were later also reported by WWE on their website and on TV. With this issue, that has not occurred. I did not contradict myself. I clearly stated that although I agree that it's going to happen, it shouldn't be added until it's actually confirmed. Also, I actually did not add the hidden paragraph. It was there beforehand, and I've only added onto it. It's hidden for ease sakes for whenever the match does get confirmed. -- JDC808 ♫ 09:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer response Everyone has had a look at WP:CRYSTAL by now, yes? That page does state, "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." That sentence occurs in the subsection on product announcements. The only question, then, is this: is the event almost certain to occur, and are there reliable sources saying so? That is what will take this beyond speculation. As a counterpoint: ask yourself, "Is this match UN-likely to occur?" Given the apparent hype, how likely do editors honestly think that the event, the match, will not actually ever take place? Is the rumor mill likely to be based on a lie or other deliberate deception? Is the WWE prone to participation in deliberate deception ("Upcoming battle between Hilary Clinton and Ivanna Trump in swimsuits likely to take place in the fall! Wait for more news!") If rumors of events in this area almost always end up becoming events, then the new rumor of such an event is enough to include it in the article, provided there are sources discussing it and even though it is only a rumor. I know that sounds disappointing, because it means Wikipedia becomes part of the rumor mill, and I myself prefer to see my encyclopedia content be verified and scheduled. But this is not the actual basis for our content. Is the event likely? Is it discussed in reliable sources? Then it warrants inclusion, even if unconfirmed and unscheduled. Because people come here wanting to know more about such things as well. Is the match unlikely to occur? I am not a WWE fan and have no idea. That call is up to y'all. If it is truly unlikely, then the rumors don't deserve to be repeated here no matter who says them. Is it unlikely?? KDS4444 ( talk) 10:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

No its not unlikely as there has been to much hype on verified news sites and live tv. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

(I know you feel this way <smile>. I am hoping to hear from the other side of the dispute. KDS4444 ( talk) 10:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC))

Understood, Btw if it were unlikely WWE wouldn't have posted this on WWE.com Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict)The event is an annual event. Only a natural disaster would keep it from happening, and then, it would probably just be postponed. The speculation is not whether or not the event will happen, it's whether or not a match at the event will happen. I agree that there's a 95% chance of the match happening (the other 5% of me is saying, what if something happens?). It just seems odd to say we should include speculation when it hasn't been confirmed yet. -- JDC808 ♫ 10:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, that's a teaser. They've done it with other matches that never happened (i.e., that Twitter post about Sting vs Undertaker. Still salty on that whole situation.) -- JDC808 ♫ 10:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

KDS4444 as your not a WWE fan, the teaser JD is referring too never happened after alot of hype only because Sting had to retire because of an injury, secondly Sting vs Taker never had the news coverage Shaq vs Show has had for over a year. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

There's more than just that reference (that was just the first to pop in my head), and it hasn't quite been a year yet on the coverage. The ESPYs were in July, though that still is a good bit of time. -- JDC808 ♫ 10:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

You have done nothing different here than you've done on the talk page, you continue to argue both sides and in circles wasting everyone's time. The consensus on the talk is still in favor of adding the match to the article. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 11:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Argue both sides? Okay. Consensus is reaching an agreement from the parties involved; there obviously has not been one. I'll provide a compromise that maybe we can agree on. Although I disagree with the sentiment, since KDS4444 throughout their explanations is basically saying it's okay to include speculation, we can include the paragraph about the match, but we don't add it to the matches table until the match is actually confirmed. -- JDC808 ♫ 18:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer response This sounds like a good compromise (with no more circumlocution!)— it allows the match to be included in the article, but prevents it from appearing to have the same status as other formally-scheduled matches. As an outside observer, this seems appealing to me. Any objections? (Also, FWIW, I am officially a "he", not a "they", and have always disliked the gender-neutral plural for individual people of disclosed gender— though none of that has any bearing in this discussion per se. Just sayin'.) KDS4444 ( talk) 01:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I just read through this and I think that the compromise as proposed is the best course of action for the time being. -- Dane ^talk 02:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer response Great! And so far, two days have passed and no other editor has expressed any disagreement with the proposal. I will wait another day or two to see if anything new shows up, and then I will mark this case as "resolved" (unless someone feels it clearly isn't and says so soon). KDS4444 ( talk) 10:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Haven't implemented the change yet just to see if there would be any opposition. If there is none before the closure of this, then I'll implement it (unless someone else gets it first). -- JDC808 ♫ 05:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer remark It seems like any other involved parties have had a chance by now to comment if they oppose this solution. Given that there hasn't been any opposition, I am going to consider this case resolved and encourage the parties to implement the solution that has been proposed above. If it turns out anyone does have an opposing position, we can reopen this discussion. Thank you all for your willingness to discuss this matter in the way you have. It was in the right tone, which can be difficult sometimes. I appreciate it. KDS4444 ( talk) 11:53, 18 February 2017 (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

• User talk:Justeditingtoday#Cristo Rey Network ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jzsj ( talk · contribs)
• Justeditingtoday ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The page Cristo Rey Network was edited by someone who works in the Network but I have cleaned up all that seems to me like advert and made the independent references more precise and pointed. But I have not been able to satisfy the person who keeps replacing the same three tags, I believe unfairly. The person has only a talk page, no user page, as indicated below.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Repeated improvements to article and request for help toward improvements on his/her talk page, on my talk page, and on the article talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Someone explain to Justeditingtoday what "common sense" application of citation criteria means in the area of secondary schools where media coverage is not exhaustive and the institutions' websites can generally be trusted where claims are credible. Severe tagging of this very popular model of education for the poor is not going to "make Wikipedia thrive," but rather create more sceptics and critics for Wikipedia.

Summary of dispute by User talk:Justeditingtoday

I was just now notified that this discussion was even happening. Contrary to what Jzsj claimed, no effort was made to notify me about this by him (and the fact that I have a redlinked user page is irrelevant). I repeatedly explained to Jzsj on my talk page and his that none of his edits alter the fact that the bulk of the text was added by someone named BrendaMorrisCristoReyNetwork which shows a clear conflict of interest. That tag is necessary per policy.

Jssj actually added more WP:PRIMARY sources here and unreliable sourcing like here (PRweb is not a reliable source) and used that as a basis to remove all the tags.

Now two brand new single purpose accounts have appeared, The1pes and Anna1985, the first of which immediately set out to remove the tags on the page. There is a complete conflict of interest here with obviously affiliated editors attempting to control the article to make it more promotional. I desired actually constructive edits per policy before the tags were removed. Since that apparently couldn't happen, I have no desire to fight a sock army over the page. Justeditingtoday ( talk) 19:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Justeditingtoday#Cristo Rey Network discussion

• Volunteer note - There has not been adequate discussion on the article talk page. There does appear to be an issue about the tags because of non-neutral language; that should be discussed on the article talk page, Talk:Cristo Rey Network, rather than being edit-warred. Adequate discussion on the talk page is a precondition for discussion here. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• I've moved our more-than-ample discussion to the article page from the page in which the discussion took place. Must I just wait until some third party takes an interest in the discussion? I'm asking about specifics on the non-neutral language: it doesn't seem like an advert to me but rather a modest appraisal of a very successful model, and I am not connected to any of these schools. And are all three tags appropriate since the article has been gone over by a neutral, non-employee who has written over 300 Wiki articles and has a pretty good idea of what advert means.@ Robert McClenon: Jzsj ( talk) 22:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Jzsj - It isn't entirely clear to me what your question is. You ask: "Must I just wait until some third party takes an interest in the discussion?" What are you asking? You are here at DRN, which is a forum to request a third party to conduct moderated discussion. You are not required to wait for a third party, but you are expected, regardless of whether you are asking for mediation, to take part in discussion on the article talk page. You say that you are asking for specifics about the non-neutral language, but you don't appear to be asking a question, but making a statement, and another editor disagrees with you. (You think that the language is satisfactory. Another editor thinks that it violates neutral point of view.) Discuss on the article talk page. There definitely has been COI editing, and the COI tag should only be removed if there is consensus that the article has been neutralized. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. Since you directed me to the talk page I am pleading for help there, though the editor who replaced the tags has no user page and so I don't know how to request his reply. Again, I don't find the person's statements about few independent sources or advert language to be accurate, since I removed most adjectives except from independent sources. One of his replies came within a minute of my removing the tags after four hours of my responding to the tags (q.v.), so I have reason to question whether he is reading the changes. Jzsj ( talk) 01:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment I have had a look at the article: it still has too much puffery in it ("...traces its roots...", "...five full days a month...", "...more than two decades ago...", etc.) where it needs to only report specifics ("...began in...", "...five days per month...", "...22 years ago..."). This occurs throughout the article, and explains why it was tagged as non-neutral. It needs to be revised so that it reads like an encyclopedia article, not like an advert for the thing it describes. Good Lord, I can't even tell from the opening sentence what it IS! (A radio network? TV? Spider?). KDS4444 ( talk) 10:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks much. Not difficult to correct all that. Jzsj ( talk) 12:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer response I am now moving this discussion from "New" to "In progress" in the hopes of resolving it quickly. So far there has been no response from the other party. Jzsj, you should know that even though the user may not have a regular user account, this does not mean that he/ she doesn't have a talk page; and if a talk page does not yet exist for the account, there is nothing stopping you from making one, just like any other redlinked page. The user will be notified that there is a new message waiting for him/ her on the account talk page, and can look at it at his/ her leisure. This is no guarantee, of course, that this will be done, but it does relieve you of the obligation to do your due diligence of attempting to contact them via their talk page. Now, having said all that, I am impressed with the new state of the article with its puffery mostly lost and its tone changed. I see the tags are also removed, which seems appropriate. We can wait for a little while longer to see if the other party decides to enter this discussion or decides to attempt to replace the tags. If the tags go back up without that user having entered in to this resolution process or specifically justified his/ her actions on the article talk page, then there may be a case for warning and then blocking the account. My guess is that the user has grown tired and moved on. If so, I will be able to soon mark this case as resolved. KDS4444 ( talk) 09:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I must admit, however, that I remain concerned about possible WP:COI issues here, and it may still be appropriate to place a COI tag on the article— Jzsj, can you please disclose what your own relationship is with the Christo Rey Network? Thanks! KDS4444 ( talk) 09:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• COI? I have never had any contact with anyone at the Network and, as I explain on my user page, I am using my free-time from prison ministry to give Jesuit works more of a presence in Wikipedia. I only visited one Cristo Rey school, briefly, just for a look, eight years ago, and have no contact with any of them now. That's it. Thanks for your acceptance of the improvements. I do find it more difficult to revise an article than to write concise, encyclopedic articles from scratch. Jzsj ( talk) 11:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Please note that this discussion has been moved to the article's talk page, as recommended above. Jzsj ( talk) 16:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Drive-by volunteer comment: There had been no notice given to the other party. I've just given the notice. I concur with Robert that the discussion is pretty minimal here since we require "extensive" discussion, especially once all the procedural and conduct discussion has been filtered out, but a volunteer has the prerogative to take the case nonetheless unless it has already been closed for that reason. I will not be participating further here, so it's back to KDS4444 to moderate if the other party chooses to participate. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks for suggesting this; I just did place a notice on his/her talk page (since (s)he has no user page and I failed in my attempts to reply to his/her talk page). However (s)he clearly had the article on his/her watchlist. Jzsj ( talk) 16:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment It looks like the other party has now made a statement above with regards to the removal of tags on this article. The appearance of sock puppets removing tags is very disturbing— I had placed a COI warning on the talk page of Brenda Morris who is clearly an administrator of the organization and should never have edited the page (she has still not declared her COI anywhere on her user page, which I believe is a policy violation at this point, though another editor decided to out her as a paid contributor on the article talk page six days ago). I would not be surprised to discover that the new accounts were created either by her or one of her subordinates. But that is neither here nor there as far as this discussion goes. It looks like the other party has decided to back out of the discussion because he/ she was faced with an "army of sock puppets." I understand the sentiment completely, and wish I could do more to reveal who is behind them. However, it appears that Jzsj is a legitimate and unconnected editor with a sincere interest in improving the article, and has done so— perhaps even the other party in the dispute would agree (I have to note, however, Jzsj, that you removed an "Unsourced section" tag from the article recently without doing anything to address the tag— that should not have been done, and I ask you to either replace the tag or to fix the problem it indicated; just taking it out because you didn't like it is not the way tags are supposed to work, and casts doubt on your intentions with regard to the other tags this article had recently. Also, taking steps like that will put you in conflict with other editors, and that will end up bringing you back here before too long, which I would rather were not the case). KDS4444 ( talk) 10:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in resolving this and the time you're taking on it. I don't see what you are referring to about my removing a tag without responding to it. I am not aware of ever doing this, please specify. My latest response to a tag was to accept that in-line citations were entirely inappropriate, though I thought they were the best way to handle the prospective schools in the Network. When removing the tag I added a reference to each of them. @ KDS4444: Jzsj ( talk) 13:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

In this version of the article user Arjayay placed an {{ unsourced section}} tag on the "Future schools" section of the article. In this diff you removed that tag and in the edit summary you wrote "restore refs and remove tag". Let me know if you can see what I am talking about. On another note, I have now interacted with one of the would-be sockpuppets mentioned by Justeditingtoday above— the individual ( The1pes) appears to be an uninvolved editor rather than a sockpuppet. I have left a COI warning on the talk page of the other account, LuckyAnna1985, but that has gotten no response. KDS4444 ( talk) 12:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

*Volunteer comment and closure I have now taken another look at the article and it looks like I made a mistake, Jzsj— references were indeed added to the article for that section and the removal of that tag appears to have been done correctly. My apologies. I don't know how I missed this. Anyhow, given that the other party, Justeditingtoday, has so far declined to participate, it no longer seems like we have a dispute. I am going to go ahead and mark this case as resolved. If Justeditingtoday changes his/her mind and wants to participate at this point, I will be glad to change the case status and continue to try to resolve the dispute— except that I just looked up the user's userpage, and it appears the account has been deleted for vandalism which means he/ she cannot edit this page anyway. KDS4444 ( talk) 11:07, 20 February 2017 (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:Antisemitism#Group hate ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mryanbrown ( talk · contribs)
• El_C ( talk · contribs)
• NeilN ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Differing views as to the etymologically accurate definition of antisemitism. Consensus is that anti-Semitism is exclusively Jewish-centric yet there are no cited historical references that define antisemitism as exclusively referring to Jewry therefore etymological accuracy should dictate that the definition be generalized according to the etymological root--being Semitic--people.

I propose that the definition of anti-Semitism be change to include all Semitic people who are victims of non-Aryan prejudice and recommend that historical emphasis be placed upon the Jewish people immediately following this definition while simultaneously acknowledging the anti-semitic sentiments suffered by the Arab people and other Semitic races.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried to discuss points of fact that Arab people are also victims of anti-Semitism. I understand that there is a warning acknowledging Arabs are also Semitic. This is not the same as acknowledging Arabs are also victims of anti-Semitism, which the Jewish-centric definition refuses to acknowledge.

How do you think we can help?

Objectively consider the position respective to policies regarding definitions.

Summary of dispute by El_C

Consensus is that Arabs (and others) may be Semites, but Anti-Arabism is not known as Antisemitism. El_C 08:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by NeilN

Quoting El C: " Cite reliable sources and gain consensus for your changes". No sources have been provided and so we can't really proceed to the gain consensus stage. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism#Group hate discussion

• Volunteer note - The use of the Stop Hand in what would otherwise be dispute resolution discussion is a form of shouting. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - What we have here is an English word whose well-established meaning is not what would be inferred from construction. That is, although it would seem that "anti-Semitism" refers to prejudice against Semitic people, that is not its meaning in English. The job of Wikipedia is to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, and the word in English refers to anti-Jewish prejudice, not to anti-Arabic prejudice. Those who dislike its eccentric usage in English may use other words to refer to prejudices. Having said that, I am recusing myself from moderating this case if it is opened for discussion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Looking for a mediator. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• 2nd Volunteer note - Wanted you to know that I'm researching this issue and willing to moderate. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 09:36, 21 February 2017 (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.