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:Mirza Ghulam Ahmad#edits by xtremedood (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs)
• Xtremedood (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

According to Ahmadi Claims Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad A.S fulfilled a prophecy that said , "For our Mahdi, there are two signs which have never happened since the earth and the heavens were created, i.e., the moon will be eclipsed on the first of the possible nights in the month of Ramadan and the sun will be eclipsed in the middle of the possible days of the month of Ramadhan." As is clear from the above statement the claim of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani A.S is that 1)The Moon will be eclipsed on the first possible night in Ramadhan, 2)The Sun will be eclipsed on the middle of possible nights in Ramadhan, Now Xtremedood wants to add "criticism" to this which is "Critics also say that the lunar eclipse did not occur on the first night of Ramadan and the solar eclipse did not occur on the middle day of the month as detailed in the prophecy. Some critics also maintain the prophecy refers to eclipses that will happen before the arrival of the Mahdi, not after." I contest to this addition. I will explain my reservations in my comment below.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

talk on talk page only

How do you think we can help?

Remove unreliably sourced material and protect the page.

Summary of dispute by Xtremedood

The article in question contains material that is against Wikipedia's neutrality policy (NPOV). The prophecy outlined states: "For our Mahdi there are two signs which have never appeared before since the creation of the heavens and the earth, namely the moon will be eclipsed on the first night in Ramadhan and the sun will be eclipsed on the middle day in the same month of Ramadhan, and these signs have not appeared since God created the heavens and the earth." — Dar Qutni Vol. 1, page 188.

According to the "Ahmadiyya" viewpoint, Mirza fulfilled this prophecy (which is detailed in the article), however, according to opponents, Mirza did not fulfill this prophecy. There are three main points of criticism that I want to remain on the article (as to retain NPOV), they are: 1) criticisms pertaining to the veracity of the prophecy itself, 2) the indication that critics do not believe the eclipses occured on the 1st and middle-day (~15th) of Ramadan 1894/1895 respectively (as outlined in the prophecy), and 3) according to critics, the prophecy is referring to before the arrival of the Mahdi, not after. These criticisms are highlighted in a variety of different sources and I have mentioned them in the page's talk page.

The dispute is centered around FreeatlastChitchat's unwillingness to bring about legitimate criticisms to Mirza's claims and my willingness to do so. Xtremedood (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mirza Ghulam_Ahmad#edits_by_xtremedood discussion

Issue #1

Summary of Issue #1 - OK we've identified some common ground here and we've agreed that academic sources cite two different translations and per this essay it would be prudent to give both translations in the article and attribute them to their respective sources. With that I'm closing this section of the discussion and we can move on to the final issue surrounding the use of criticism and their corresponding sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Issue #2

What is the next sentence and corresponding citation(s) that you would like to discuss?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the next issue is the "criticisms". I would like to suggest a compromise where any criticism which does not use the word Qadiani is added and the response from the ahmadiyyah is added after the criticism. Any comments regarding this?FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I think it is important to include criticisms in this section. Prior to my edits, the article contained only 1 criticism. Freeatlastchitchat would eventually delete all the criticisms. This one criticism was criticisms pertaining to the veracity of the prophecy itself (i.e. veracity of the prophecy, dispute of the authenticity of the source, the source is weak, etc.). I also wish to include 3 more criticisms (a total of 4) to the section. They are as followed: 2) the indication that critics do not believe that the eclipses occurred on the 1st and middle-day (~15th) of Ramadan 1894/1895 respectively (as outlined in the prophecy, according to the translation provided in the Zeki source of the quote on issue 1(Islamic studies magazine)), 3) according to critics, the prophecy is referring to before the arrival of the Mahdi, not after, and 4) the criticism by David McNaughton, who outlines that even according to the tranlsation + interpretation of the initial quote by the "Ahmadiyyah" (which is from the Adamson's source of the quote on issue 1), the eclipses did not potentially occur as described by "Ahmadis." David McNaughton makes it clear that the "Ahmadiyyah" claim of the eclipses happening on the 13th and 28th of Ramadhan is prone to error as the eclipses may have happened on the 12th and 27th.

The sources for the first criticism are:[21] and [22]

The source for the second criticism is: [23] on page 100.

The source for the third criticism is: [24] on page 100 (same page as last one).

The sources for the fourth criticism are: [25] and [26], the first link is from what seems to be his official site. Xtremedood (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I am fine with inclusion of four criticisms if the Ahmadiyyah response is included with them. However, I can't agree with the sourcing as they use the derogatory slur "Qadiani" to refer to the Ahmadiyyah. I am fine with using David McNaughton if it is mentioned alongside his "surmise" that almost all muslims start and end lunar months with "visibility" of the moon and not "astrological positions of the moon". So basically criticism number four is good to go if you want to use the official website, and if you can replace the sources for the first three I can agree with those too, but at the present these books are not reliable.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm watching and reading along. Let's see what the response is to this proposed compromise.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The term 'Qadiani' is not derogatory, as it refers to a place (Qadian in India). Mirza was from Qadian, in India. The terms '"Ahmadiyya"' and '"Ahmadi"' derive from one of the names of the holy Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ, blessings of Allah be upon him and peace be upon him) which is 'Ahmad'. Muslims believe that the name 'Ahmad' is so holy that it should not be utilized for a group of people who believe in a different prophet after the holy Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ, blessings of Allah be upon him and peace be upon him). Mirza claimed to be a prophet. Muslims consider the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) to be the final Prophet as described in the Quran (Chapter 33 verse 40). "Ahmadis" however disagree. Since this is a theological difference of belief (not racism or prejudice) I believe that the term 'Qadiani' should be allowed. It has been the official position of the Government of Pakistan to utilize the term 'Qadiani' for the followers of Mirza. If the Government of Pakistan were operating upon legitimate positions of racism and prejudice it should be held accountable under International law, since racism and prejudice violates international law. However there is no case of the Government of Pakistan ever being held accountable for utilizing the term 'Qadiani' since this term stems from theological differences of belief, definitely NOT racism, discriminiation or prejudice. Since the term 'Qadiani' is based on theological differences (NOT racism, discrimination or prejudice) and Wikipedia is in no position to interpret theological discourse, the term 'Qadiani' should therefore be allowed.

Also, for criticism number 1, the following source does not utilize the term 'Qadiani.' [27]

So far then, criticisms number 1 and number 4 seem legitimate according to both parties. Xtremedood (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

OK then, before we discuss anything else, can we confirm that #1 and #4 are "legitimate according to both parties"? Then we can take any remaining criticisms one by one and discuss them. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed on both. I would like to add that if Xtreme can find a book for the first it will be better. I don't want to bicker, just commenting on the fact that a book source will go down better, I am fine with anything that does not use "Qadiani" so even the website is ok with me, but someone else may come to the article and slap an unreliable on it. I would also like to clarify that Qadiani says that the term is a slur, so this is not just my personal opinion. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Good then let's move on to this source being cited for the second criticism, [28] on page 100. The objection is that it is using the term Qadiani? Is that the only objection?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Now that I've had a chance to look at the sources.............Qadiani is a derogatory term and should not be used in the article. However I'm not sure that automatically disqualifies the source from being cited in the article without the Qadiani term.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Now, upon closer examination, I see that are many issues concerning the proposed sources for criticisms:

• Central-Mosque website - The content is anonymous. There is no information about the organization, who the writers are, what their expertise is, if there is an editorial board etc. This is not a reliable source.
• Moonsighting.com - The author here is Khalid Shaukat who is allegedly a consultant to Fiqh Council of North America and the Islamic Shura Council of North America. Consultant is a pretty vague word so I'm not impressed with those claims. I see no sign of editorial oversight or that this website has received any recognition or awards from third parties for its fact checking and reliability.
• Muhammad is the Last Prophet – Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi is a prolific author but the book is Published by the Bilal Muslim Misson of Tanzania which was co-founded by the author so it does not appear to have editorial oversight. This source is better than the two previous ones but it appears to be a self published source and has strong potential for bias.
• David McNaughton’s personal website – Personal websites are not reliable sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This has been my statement from the get go. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of the content is not in English, so there is a lack of academic sources pertaining to the matter at hand (even for the pro-"Ahmadiyya" stance). Similar statements may be stated about the claims of the official website of the "Ahmadiyya," since much of their own published material is self-published, lacks fact checking from third parties, often anonymous, and may be considered biased. However the website is sourced throughout the article and is the most common source within the article "[29]". For example if we look at the opening section, "[30]" is the most common source of information. There is no third-party fact checking going on, on this website and there is no indication of editorial oversight. Sources like these "[31]", which are also included as sources within the article are anonymous as well. If we look at the article we see that probably over 50% of the sources are from this one single website. With this in mind I see not much difference in the nature of the content from these four sources than the material being used by "[32]".

Here are some additional sources for the criticisms:

criticism 1, [33]

criticism 2, [34] <- same as last one.

criticism 3, [35] on page 46 it clearly states "Before the Mahdi rises"

criticism 4, [36] David McNaughton's work is also cited in the "Ahmadiyyah" website. It states: Dr David Mc Naughton has pointed out that lunar eclipses can occur on 13th, 14th and 15th and solar eclipses on 28th and 29th. Only under special circumstances, a solar eclipse can occur on the 27th of the Islamic month. Also, under special circumstances, a lunar eclipse can occur on the 12th. Hence the dates of the eclipses should be taken as 13, 14, 15 and 28, 29 or as 12, 13, 14, 15 and 27, 28, 29. Xtremedood (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Xtremedood and thanks for your response. You are correct that the other primary sources with no editorial oversight are also not reliable sources for information that is controversial or that is being challenged by other editors. The fact that they call themselves the 'official' website of XYZ doesn't hold water by SP [WP] standards. The additional sources you have provide are likewise unreliable for the same reasons. The book you have cited appears to be self published and would in most cases not qualify for the same reason(s).-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, the only compromise I think is suitable for present is to put in the two translations, then put in the the two criticisms which do not use the word Qadiani, followed by the response to said criticisms from the Ahmadiyyah website. You can search around for better sources for other criticisms and if you find anything which does not use the slur you can put that in too. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Closing notice and comments

I'm going to wait a day or two, so the particpants can make final comments if they wish, and then I'm going to close this case. Here are the reasons why:

1. DRN "is an informal place to resolve small content disputes" (emphasis added) and this is not a small dispute.
2. DRN cases are generally completed within two weeks and this case has been going on for more than a month
3. The more we discuss the more new issues arise. I don't feel that we are close to a resolution.
4. The issues that are being raised here regarding reliable sources, POV etc. are issues that apply to the specific sections under discussion and the entire article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Closing Comments: What I see is that this biography of a religious figure is being used as a battleground for editors of different ideologies. Aside from the use of unreliable sources I see in the article: POV language, undue weight and off-topic information being included to prove a point. I suggest you consider this article for mediation so the many issues there can be ironed out.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort, Keithbob.

FreeatlastChitchat, it seems that both your source "[37]" as well as my sources are considered unreliable according to Wikipedia standards outlined by Keithbob. If this is the case and since there is no final resolution, we should then start deleting all of the references to "[38]" which amounts to maybe 70%-80% of the articles content. Since this may take a lot of time and is seemingly quite a cumbersome task, perhaps we may leave the article as it is and I can introduce my 4 criticisms and you may wish to add your own perspective on the matter after that. After stating the quote of the alleged prophecy by Saritoprak and Adamson(as agreed in issue#1) we may place a heading called "perspective of critics on the alleged prophecy" and under that you may wish to place your own perspective under a different heading. This may be a valid compromise to the issue in which both of our perspectives are addressed. That way we have both perspectives, even if they may be considered from "unreliable" or non-academic sources.

In case this discussion gets closed I now have posted the same message on your talk page.Xtremedood (talk) 05:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep this open for another day or two to see if the two of you can agree on one of the proposals you've outlined. I think we have made some good progress here and I don't want to cut off a possible final compromise. So please proceed keeping in mind that we are now in the phase of wrapping things up. Thanking both of you for your good faith participation and efforts to find common ground and adhere to WP guidelines. I know things can become heated on contentious articles and I commend both of you for your continued participation in the dispute resolution process.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat, I noticed that you posted above; for organization I will post here. To use the word 'Qadiani' in a source is legitimate, even if you may consider it deragatory (which I disagree with you regarding this- my reasons are above). Keithbob has informed me that he considers it derogatory as well and therefore it should not be included within the article, however the use a source that uses the word 'Qadiani' is legitimate. There are many historical sources that utilize words that may be considered derogatory, however, these sources are still considered legitimate. For example, if you study the American Civil War a variety of sources utilize the word 'Negro' which is considered derogatory in a racial sense. However the word 'Negro' does not appear on the article even though many sources utilize it. Utilizing a word that may be considered derogatory by some does not invalidate the source. Although using the word 'Qadiani' in the article for this section may be omitted, the points provided by the source should be included as they are legitimate concerns based on sound reasoning. There is no rule (that I know of) restricting me from using this on Wikipedia. The reliability of the source is another issue. As previously stated, both your source "[39]" and a variety of the sources I provided are deemed by Keithbob as unreliable or potentially unreliable. The focus should therefore be on reliability. Since this seems to be the case and since there is no final resolution, I am proposing a potential compromise in which we keep the content and include my 4 criticisms and you may wish to include your perspective after that. If that is not the case and if we decide to only focus on reliable sources then that means the deletion of maybe 70%-80% of the article's content, since the main source is your source.

Keithbob, just a quick question, I was wondering since there is no resolution and edit warring is prohibited by Wikipedia, what other actions may we take if we do not agree? Xtremedood (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

There are several avenues for dispute resolution and you can see the options here and here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not the moderator of this discussion, but I would suggest either formal mediation (the heavy-weight version for which this is the light-weight version) or multiple Requests for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I have opened up request for formal mediation. One pre requisite is that this case be closed so that we move on the mediation. As this is a step up from this ongoing case I would like to suggest that we close this and move onto formal mediation. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2015 (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

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

Users involved

• Karthigemini (talk · contribs)
• User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

We had given proper citation and sources to have some edits in our Balija community page,But Sitush from Wiki keep on deleting that and stating that its a unreliable source and we know better about our community and We are searching past sources and providing that and also we dont want some unwanted information mentioned in the wiki page that creates bad impression on Wiki too.So we want our edits should be reflected and we got proved our Varna to be Kshatriyas and given good proofs and not simply editing.We need a clarity in this regard and we dont have any dispute with Sitush but why he is reverting back all again to old one , we dont aware and we need this issue to be resolved. Regards - Karthick Simhadri

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

we clearly stated a valid proof

How do you think we can help?

You can review again the source provided by us and solve the dispute.

Summary of dispute by

Balija 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

• LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Brisvegas (talk · contribs)
• Flyer22 (talk · contribs)
• Roscelese (talk · contribs)
• BoogaLou (talk · contribs)
• PaulinSaudi (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

They are adding in sources from people, who cannot be proven as actually visiting there, that supposedly claim that homosexuality is common and done publicly in the KSA and are ignored (which contradicts sources saying all these punishments that cruelly happen to gays in Saudi Arabia). I don't know if the sources are legit and I fear that if they are left on the page, people who are LGBT may incorrectly think that Saudi Arabia is tolerant and accepting of their behavior, which may make them act gay openly, leading to them possibly getting fined, whipped, castrated, deported, tortured, executed or killed by a vigilante execution (which all happens in Saudi Arabia). I am considered that any false or misleading sources like this make directly or indirectly make gays feel too comfortable in this harsh environment for gays and then they could get injured, jailed, deported, or even killed. We dispute on the talk page if this is an issue or not. What are your thoughts?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried talked on boogielou's talk page

How do you think we can help?

Decide if you think gays are endangered with this added info and then freeze the page after making your decision to prevent vandalism

Summary of dispute by Brisvegas

Summary of dispute by Flyer22

Summary of dispute by Rosclesce

Summary of dispute by BoogieLou

Summary of dispute by PaulinSaudi

LGBT rights_in_Saudi_Arabia 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 already discussed this issue on the User_talk:Sionk page and on the Talk:Alternatiba,_Village_of_Alternatives page.

Location of dispute

• Alternatiba, Village of Alternatives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Alter005 (talk · contribs) and Sionk (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is disagreement over the allowance of publishing information about future events. Because, according me (Alter005 (talk · contribs)), there are a lot of cultural events for next 2015, 2016, 2017 and over, both for opera, film, dance or other festivals, which are already announced on the EN WP. So, as Alternatiba is aimed to diffuse toward the world wide population encyclopedical information about cultural and social life, I believed that it is also possible to inform on the EN WP sourced materials about the future European Alternatiba events, just as it is already done on the French and Spanish WP (with 41 references). Otherwise, Sionk (talk · contribs) pretends that announcing future events is a kind of advertising, that is not the purpose of Alternatiba.

So my contributions have been modified and meanly removed repeatedly by a particular user, Sionk (talk · contribs).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to discuss this issue 3 times on the User_talk:Sionk#Why_are_you_deleting_.22Alternatiba.2C_village_des_alternatives.22.3F. for trying to engage the dialogue with that individual. But I din't get any reply for my last demand. Then I have published a longer argument concerning the possibility of announcing future cultural events such as opera, film. I publish first this question on the User_talk:Sionk page and then on the Talk:Alternatiba,_Village_of_Alternatives page in order to enlarge the debate.

How do you think we can help?

Discourage Sionk from edit warring, and merely removing my adds of future Alternatiba events. I would like to engage in meaningful dialogue on the possibility of publishing future events already based on real work rather than being disregarded, and removed by one who acts as an unappointed authority. I would like to pursue that step if necessary as I am doing on French and Spanish WP.

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:Sfs90 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:Impru20 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:People's Party (Spain)/meta/color (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Citizens (Spanish political party)/meta/color (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Impru20 (talk · contribs)
• Sfs90 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This user has started changing Spanish party colors in meta/color templates, after several years of those colors having been established. The issue is that, since those were established so much time ago, graphics, maps and other charts using those colors have been made already. As happens, this user is keen on pressing his edits forward without entering into discussion (well, yes, he's using edit summaries to talk with me (clearly not the most opportune place) talking in my talk page just to notice me that he is keeping reverting me, without an apparent intention to stop the edit war, qualifying my arguments as "poor" without explaining how his are stronger, and even threatening to notice me to the administrators' noticeboard... despite being him the one wanting to press forward his change!). As it seems, it is an user who has engaged in such edit warring in the past, so I'd probably not be able to convince him alone without breaking the WP:3RR rule, since now that I can't edit further because of the rule, he has just stopped discussing with me.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried to talk with him in his talk page. Despite showing him evidence of different uses of color shades by the parties, he just keeps on the "your arguments are poor" argument and goes on to revert me (when I'm just trying to keep the non-disputed version before any change) without even answering my own questions.

How do you think we can help?

To discourage Sfs90 from edit warring, as well as to convince him to actually enter into discussion before trying to press forward his changes (which are clearly disputed). I want him just to enter reason so as to the titanic work would suppose changing all maps, charts, graphics and the such (which he requires me to do, accusing me of being wrong) just because he felt like changing all parties' colors now all of a sudden. I'm not closed to change, but it requires discussion.

Summary of dispute by Sfs90

Spanish political parties color templates 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:Vic Dibitetto (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• KDS4444 (talk · contribs)
• Stuartyeates (talk · contribs)
• Vicfan23 (talk · contribs)
• ComedyMan4 (talk · contribs)
• 67.87.138.217 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

One or possibly two editors, under one IP address and two user accounts (with probably one user), appear to have taken ownership of the article on Vic Dibitetto. My own recent good-faith edit was reverted without explanation, and the earlier good-faith edits of at least one other editor have been also been undone (that editor was then "warned" on his talk page to stay away from the Vic Dibitetto article in a tone that was reminiscent of a mafia threat). I have attempted to engage one of these opposing parties (the IP user) on his talk page, but got no response. I am not the first. None of the opposing accounts seems to be interested in engaging in a discussion of the article on their own talk pages, and attempts to engage are ignored. The article currently has the format that these accounts have chosen for it, in violation of Wikipedia's policy on article "ownership." I am not 100% certain that this venue is the correct one to bring up this kind of dispute, so if there is another venue then please let me know.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have attempted to engage one of the parties on his talk page but was ignored. Multiple attempts have been made by others to engage the accounts in similar ways and have also been ignored. I see no point in additional talk page messages. I doubt the reviewer(s) of this dispute will disagree with me.

How do you think we can help?

The person(s) making the opposing edits should probably have their accounts temporarily suspended. Multiple warnings have just been ignored, and the request made through one of the accounts to stay away from the article is beyond the Wikipedia civility pale. This kind of behavior is probably the result of a single new editor who does not understand how Wikipedia works and apparently turns a deaf ear when shown how what he is doing is disruptive. I don't know what else to do or ask for.

Summary of dispute by Stuartyeates

I worked on Vic Dibitetto after finding it on new pages patrol. I gave up and removed the article and associated pages from my watchlist when found it stressful going because of the SPAs involved. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Vicfan23

Summary of dispute by ComedyMan4

Summary of dispute by 67.87.138.217

Talk:Vic Dibitetto 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? No, I have not discussed this issue on a talk page already; it's been discussed at the Reliable Sources noticeboard.

Location of dispute http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Endurance International_Group&diff=659588708&oldid=659570758
Users involved

• Nodove (talk · contribs)
• NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs)
• TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Removal of referenced edit, with LegitScript as an expert reference.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_188#Legitscript
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nodove#Endurance_International_Group

How do you think we can help?

I'm wanting clarification of why the edit is not a proper edit with a proper expert reference?

Summary of dispute by NorthBySouthBaranofm

Summary of dispute by TheRedPenOfDoom

LegitScript as an expert reference

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

• Harold B. Lee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ChristensenMJ (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is disagreement over speculative statements. I believe that a specific paragraph violates wikipedia policies. As wikipedia stipulates: Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. Questionable sources, such as those relying on unsubstantiated opinion, should only be used as sources of material on themselves. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. A critic has made claims about proceedings behind closed doors that no other source has verified, and which are not verifiable. Yet, the claims appear motivated to slander. It would also be an exceptional claim, which requires multiple high-quality sources, in particular, surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest. Quinn's speculation about Lee's efforts regarding African-Americans and the priesthood commits each of these errors.

As to resolution, my contributions have been blocked repeatedly by a particular user. Although he justifies his changes saying that others need to comment on my proposed changes, he refuses to engage with the merits of my discussion, does not offer reasons why the speculation should remain, in effect, reverting my proposal without dialogue or chance for consensus.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have sought an outside opinion. I engaged in dialogue with that individual. How do you think we can help?

Discourage ChristensenMJ from edit warring, and merely undoing my suggestions on the speculation. I would like to engage in meaningful dialogue on Quinn's speculation rather than being disregarded, overturned, and bypassed by one who acts as an unappointed authority. I also notice that numerous other wiki users have sought arbitration and edit war complaints against ChristensenMJ. I would like to pursue that step if necessary.

Summary of dispute by ChristensenMJ

I wasn’t notified of this, but happy to respond. The issue in question has largely continued because of the IP user’s insistence at eliminating, or significantly reducing, content that was not only sourced, but also had some longevity in the article. As a result, I indicated there should be opportunity for discussion & allowing the community to arrive at consensus. As with any talk page discussion, the consensus outcome might include removal, modification, or continued inclusion. That doesn't seem to have been received well by the IP user. As noted in additions today by another user, the content in question has not been an isolated assertion and other sources have been added. I have neither taken, assumed or asserted any “authority” over the article. I have tried to help a new WP user better understand the typical course of things. The claim that represents a pattern is quite incorrect. These supposed “numerous” situations, if any, might involve new, IP or wp:spa users, and would at best include those who blatantly or aggressively violate WP standards or practices. I'll even provide an example - such as at Gordon B. Hinckley, where a user kept trying to insert wording that several users felt violated a npov. I disengaged the user given the idea that “you can’t reason with a drunk” – in that case, that primary user was blocked indefinitely, long after I recognized the pointless efforts to engage in good faith, a view shared by other users – thus the block. In this specific instance, it should be noted that the user initiating this resolution request has used 4 different IP addresses, previously unused, to focus only on this article, and has several times been encouraged to establish an account. Additionally, the same IP user requested a wp:3O and the respondent there that found the content to be acceptable. ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Harold B._Lee discussion

• Volunteer note - I am neither accepting nor declining this case. Please be civil and concise, and comment on content, not on contributors. It is difficult to engage in discussion with unregistered editors, especially with ones whose IP addresses keep changing. It is also difficult to engage in discussion with editors who forget to sign their posts. I will provide the same advice as has been given on the talk page that the unregistered editor should create an account, especially if he or she wants to discuss article content issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Hi, I'm L235, and I'll be opening this (per email to TransporterMan). This is my first DRN case, so it'd be appreciated if other experienced volunteers make sure I'm not doing anything incorrectly. Thanks! --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Welcome L235! You can put a note on the talk page if you have a question or get stuck on something. If you need a quick response you can ping myself or Transporterman etc. Good luck! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• Alright, let's get started. Remember, this is DRN, not ANI, so please keep discussions focused on content, not conduct or contributors. Why don't each of you start by making a very concise list of the disputes and issues, in each of your opinions? --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• This will be closed as stale without objection after 24 hours. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:37, 3 May 2015 (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:Glauciamiguel (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Glauciamiguel (talk · contribs)
• User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

Email I sent that I had a reply: Subject: Re: [Ticket#2015050110014491] Rude Ignorant People on Wikipedia {{request edit}} This is about the title of the page that now is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajneesh It should be: Osho period! Next to the picture on the right it should be: Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) And I don't have the time to discuss with this rude people that are editing the page (they are enemies of Osho; only enemies called him Rajneesh when he was alive). I won't use Wikipedia anymore, you are not reliable. Sincerely, Glaucia Pimenta Caraballo

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I'm not going there. I don't have time for this back and fourth: blah...blah ...blah with this stupid editors. Right is right. You don't change it around for your own contentment.

How do you think we can help?

Fix the title and locked it. He has a biography and many, many books. Educate yourselves: http://www.osho.com/, https://www.facebook.com/osho.international, http://www.oshoworld.com/,http://www.religioustolerance.org/rajneesh.htm, http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_p_n_feature_browse-b_mrr_1?fst=as%3Aoff&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Aosho+books%2Cp_n_feature_browse-bin%3A2656020011&keywords=osho+books&ie=UTF8&qid=1430753326&rnid=618072011,

Summary of dispute by

User talk:Glauciamiguel 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

• Eunice Olumide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Louise Davids (talk · contribs)
• User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

I have tried to update 'supermodel. eunice olumide to her page. She is from my hometown and referred to as a Scottish Supermodel. I have added evidence and it keeps reverting back to only mode. Please let me know if you would like to me provide evidence from the press and media

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to contact you about this and I have tried to update it

How do you think we can help?

Add Scottish Supermpodel

Summary of dispute by

Eunice Olumide 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

• Female genital mutilation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• AadaamS (talk · contribs)
• Johnuniq (talk · contribs)
• OnlyInYourMind (talk · contribs)
• PolenCelestial (talk · contribs)
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)
• Zad68 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I introduced changes that started an edit war. Edit warring stopped with the reverted version being protected. The protection has now expired and no progress has been made toward a consensus. I want to restore the changes but I think there's a risk that I could get blocked for edit warring if I do.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

5 days of discussion including edit warring noticeboard and reliable sources noticeboard posts and an RfC.

How do you think we can help?

An official decision needs to be made about this edit. I'm basing it on reliable sources, I don't have any doubts at all about their accuracy. Other editors insist that they aren't reliable enough for wikipedia. I've been told not to edit war but a consensus is impossible, my understanding is that the Mediation or Arbitration Committee has to issue a final statement on the edit. Which committee is the right one to request mediation/arbitration from in this case? Are there any other options?

Summary of dispute by AadaamS

Summary of dispute by Johnuniq

I endorse SlimVirgin's detailed explanation. I mentioned at the article talk (28 April 2015) that the proposed edit consists of minor adjustments to a worldwide report published by UNICEF in 2013, with some updates since. The problem is that it would be WP:SYNTH for editors to "fix" a UNICEF report from other sources. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by OnlyInYourMind

I stopped following the RfC because it makes my young account look like a sock, but from what I saw, PolenCelestial (PC) seemed to really want to good faith contribute to this article. But PC's edits were fully reverted by very experienced editors. I suspect PC is feeling marginalized because his/her efforts and research are being ignored. I imagine PC would be happy if at least a portion of his/her edits could be accepted. Hope it all works out. Bye! :-) OnlyInYourMind^(talk) 07:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by SlimVirgin

Guy Macon: FGM is a recently promoted featured article and has to rely on the most authoritative and MEDRS-compliant sources. The article has been through a peer review, FAC review, and two external specialist reviews.

For the prevalence of FGM, the article relies on reports from UNICEF's Division of Data, Research and Policy. They produce regular updates based on Demographic and Health Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys, which are carried out in Africa, Asia and elsewhere every five years. These are the only reliable figures available from which national prevalence rates can be derived. These figures say that FGM is most concentrated in 27 countries in Africa, and in Iraqi Kurdistan and Yemen. FGM exists in other countries, and may be equally concentrated in other countries, but based on the figures currently available UNICEF deduces that it is most concentrated in those 29 countries.

Polencelestial wants to change the text about prevalence using two newspapers as sources, and one small survey carried out by a local group 12 years ago in Indonesia. PC wants to use those sources to introduce to the article that Indonesia and Malaysia are two of the countries in which FGM is most concentrated. In addition s/he wants to combine the percentage figures in the local survey and figures s/he has found elsewhere about population to deduce an overall country prevalence for Indonesia and Malaysia. This is a classic SYN violation.

We can't change the sources or allow in the calculation, because both would reduce the quality of the article. UNICEF mentions Indonesia and Malaysia in several reports, but makes clear that reliable national figures aren't available.

For example, UNICEF 2013: "Although no nationally representative data on FGM/C are available for countries including Colombia, Jordan, Oman, Saudi Arabia and parts of Indonesia and Malaysia, evidence suggests that the procedure is being performed" (p. 31). Footnote 63 (pp. 121–122) refers to the survey PC wants to use, but it isn't something from which a national prevalence figure can be derived. UNICEF 2014: "[FGM] is also found in ... parts of Indonesia and Malaysia ... but reliable data on the magnitude of the phenomenon in these other contexts are largely unavailable." Our article reflects this.

Several editors have explained the situation to Polencelestial. S/he has responded by restoring the changes, complaining to admins, opening an RfC and RSN, and now this. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Zad68

Close this DRN request per the long-standing principle that DRN doesn't take cases if there's already another WP:DR pathway actively in use, and the OP already has an active RFC going at the article Talk page. OP has actually opened their complaint in at least 3 different places now, there isn't consensus to make the change proposed, this DRN request is just yet another go at it, forum-shopping should not be rewarded. Zad68 16:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Guy well it's got a real RFC tag and Legobot is sending out RFC requests [40][41][42] among others. PC has also brought up the same complain here (TransporterMan gave a solid reply there, referring to WP:NOCONSENSUS), there was this discussion at RSN, and the two separate article Talk page discussions. I don't see the point in allowing it to be pursued here too, given that there's no consensus that PC's proposed changes will be an improvement to what's already an FA. Zad68 18:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by JzG

One person - one - demands that we include WP:SYN and sources massively less reliable than the bulk of the article, in order to reflect his personal belief.

This is not a matter for dispute resolution, it's a matter for the OP shutting up and accepting that consensus is solidly against him. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation discussion

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a couple of participants to either comment or indicate that they will not be participating. If I don't get a response in a day or so we will proceed without them.

AadaamS has indicated that he won't be participating,[44][45][46] so I will open this up for discussion in a few hours. First I want to take a final look at all the comments on the article talk page and all of the involved parties user talk pages and then I will draw up a plan of attack for resolving this content dispute. Thanks for your patience. --Guy Macon (talk)

Sorry for the delay. I had to resolve a couple of issues (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive271#RfC vs. DRN and Wikipedia:Help desk#FA versions). I am now opening this up for discussion.

The first thing I would like to discuss is the differences between the FA version and the current version([47]) as well as the differences between Female genital mutilation and Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country.

Would anyone care to argue for or against the present version being superior to the FA version? Does anyone think that the section starting with "A country's national prevalence may reflect a high sub-national prevalence among certain ethnicities" should be restored to Female genital mutilation or added to Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country?

Should we move some of the details from Female genital mutilation to Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country?

After we discuss the above, I plan on discussing this edit and this revert in detail. Please don't jump the gun and start discussing the edit/revert now -- I want to get the first discussion out of the way first.

As always, talk about article content, not editor conduct. do not talk about other editors except to note that they added or removed specific content. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I am closing this as failed because several parties have chosen to not participate or withdraw (which they are free to do -- participation is voluntary). See Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Female Genital Mutilation - Pending RFC. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2015 (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

• Template talk:People's Party (Spain)/meta/color (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Impru20 (talk · contribs)
• Sfs90 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is a reopen of a previous DRN request, that was closed because the issue had not been discussed on the corresponding talk page. Now it has, yet to no avail: user keeps making edits even when discussion is not over, and yet still keeps almost entirely ignoring what I'm saying and tries to push forward his views nonetheless, engaging in an edit warring behaviour. He is an user who has been involved in edit warrings in the past and, just as of recently, seems to be acting in the same way with other users, so I'm losing hope that I'll be able to make him hear me some day without any help. I'm considering to bring this to the AN, but don't want to have to go to those extremes.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There have been attempts of discussions in several Template talk pages, in our respective talk pages, several requests in edit summaries to make the user to actually go to talk and enter a discussion with me (as far as it goes, he only presents me "his evidence" and push his edit forward without discussing nor answering my own statements). As far as it goes, he just ignores what I'm saying, and once he does get his edit pushed forward, he not even cares to discuss anymore.

How do you think we can help?

To discourage Sfs90 from edit warring, as well as to convince him to actually enter into discussion before trying to press forward his changes (which are clearly disputed). And that discussion means that, for a disputed edit to be brought forward, it has to be discussed and consensus reached. I also think we would need some kind of moderator or something in the debate, because it's only two of us.

Summary of dispute by Sfs90

According to the talk of the template, I presented some sources about the color used by the party, in their logo and their campaign material. Impru20 said that the manual I quoted was only for the european elections (maybe, or maybe not, we don't know if the colors said in the manual were used only in that election). But after reading the complete issue, it looks more clearly that the party doesn't have any kind of "official statement" about the color (instead of other parties like UPyD and Citizens). The issue in that two parties was solved, but in People's Party case I give the benefit of the doubt, because there's no clarity about a color that should be used, and if Impru20 thinks that an intermediate shade or color could be more suitable to generate some type of consensus, I'll agree with that. For me, there's no more discussion about that and I close my opinion in the case. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:People's Party (Spain)/meta/color discussion

Hello, I am Rider ranger47, a DRN volunteer. Please remember we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. Once all users have posted their statements, we will begun discussion. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 11:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

What manual where you following when changing the color? Rider ranger47 ^Talk 22:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This manual. --Sfs90 (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2015 (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:Giuliano Mignini (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• JoeMCMXLVII (talk · contribs)
• 109.145.67.105 (talk · contribs)
• Vituzzu (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Editor Vituzzu placed a POV tag in the article as a "drive-by". Two other editors disagreed with the tag's validity and removed it. The result is a slow edit war. As explained on the talk page, the existence of a POV tag graphically casts doubt on the objectivity of an article and I think it should not be there without good reason. In my view, no good reason has yet been given.

Postscript:

I’ll add that the alleged POV seems to result from the article describing properly sourced examples of the subject’s career, which alarmed Italians and eventually much of the English-speaking world when the subject brought abortive criminal charges against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (among other things, it was Mignini who concocted the scenario of Meredith Kercher being murdered in a satanic sex ritual).

The article doesn’t seem to be biased in any way. Rather, it is about a controversial Italian prosecutor.

I’ll also point out that Vituzzu can, of course, edit anything in the article he thinks is incorrect, or correct any imbalance by adding more positive material, but instead simply brands it with a POV tag and alleges that those who think the tag is inappropriate are biased.

JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Informed opinion on the use and misuse of POV tags.

Summary of dispute by 109.145.67.105

Summary of dispute by Vituzzu

Actually I don't see any real dispute, I raised some problems and I'm waiting for 3rd-party opinions. There are no deadlines in removing a pov tag nor a preventive consensus is needed. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Giuliano Mignini discussion

Coordinator's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm the current Coordinator here. @Vituzzu:: I can't quite tell from what you've said, above, whether or not you wish to participate here. It's your call: No one is ever required to participate in moderated content dispute resolution — basically DRN and formal Mediation — if they do not care to do so. You say that you're waiting for third opinions, but I'm not sure how or in what sense you mean that. Use of dispute resolution processes, especially Third Opinion though DRN does some of that as well, can help with that. Parallel processes cannot be pending at multiple dispute resolution venues, but if you wish to say that you do not want to participate here but want instead to file a request at Third Opinion, this request will be closed and you will be free to do so. Another method of bringing in additional opinions is, of course, to file a Request for Comments. Finally, you can also do none of that and just wait for other opinions to come in at the article talk page (though if your opponent then files for a Third Opinion, or files a Request for Comments, there's not much that you can do about it since your participation is not essential to those processes going forward). Please clarify whether or not you wish to participate here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: actually I had already stopped reverting before being involved into this "formal" DRN, meanwhile my counterpart went on removing the tag I added and writing me lots of nice things. DRN's main pillar is the formal equivalence of all involved parties and honestly I'm tired of this ongoing vilification of one of them. Also I've asked a check about this incident from fellow checkusers because I feel to be way fooled. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Please plainly clarify whether or not you wish to participate here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm here and I stopped editing the page, even if my counterpart didn't, so it's definitely a yes, since it seems the only way to get 3rd-party opinions. Just to clarify if *real* 3rd party users will say the page is neutral I'll be pretty fine. Maybe I perceive it as being not neutral since I strongly believe it's not notable at all. I say so much times "3rd party" because I cannot consider two (though I think "one", actually) users "owning" the page as actual "3O". Generally people adding a disputed content are not the rightest people to judge tags about it. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Repeating what I said above and regarding "Honestly I think you're the alleged second user", I have a distinct advantage over you, Vituzzu, because I know that I'm not and, therefore, I know that you're dangerously prejudiced. You're out of order and that answers your other question: why did I take this matter to Dispute Resolution? JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

As I just told you in the upper section I have a certain experience in making SPIs, I saw several clues but I can, of course, be wrong. This, anyway, doesn't weaken my assertion you're not a 3O because you're involved in writing this article. Try numbering parties you're the 1O, I'm the 2O who is waiting for some redeeming 3Os ;) --Vituzzu (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I see you have already started without a volunteer. Have you resolved this issue or does conversation need to continue? Please remember that we comment on content here, not users. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 15:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rider ranger47: any opinion about content is very welcome for me. As I already tried to explain in talkpage I think the paragraph "role of prosecutor in Italy" is a bit off-topic and it tends to depict Italian prosecutors as loose cannons. Also one of the main sources (note 8 and 9) is pretty outdated, dating back to 1994. The overall page gives me the idea of an underlying "hey! Look who did accuse Knox et al!"-bias. --Vituzzu (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought TransporterMan had volunteered. As far as I'm concerned, the issue is resolved if Vituzzu will state that a POV tag is unwarranted. Thank you, JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@JoeMCMXLVII: Please only comment on content, not users. It violates the DRN rules. According to the templates documentation, it says it can be removed if the issue is not clear. So what is the issue? Rider ranger47 ^Talk 16:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point, Rider ranger47. It's the point I wanted resolved. My apologies go to you and Robert McClenon in regard to violation of DRN rules. If I need to be clearer then I'll add that a section entitled "Role of prosecutors in Italy" is not irrelevant in an article about an Italian prosecutor and that historical facts dating back to 1994 are not outdated. Removal of facts from 1994 would be revisionism, distinctly biased towards the subject of the article. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Why this attack? I said a 1994 source about judicial system is *outdated*: since 1994 Italy had 12 different governments and many recommendations from EU have been included within all the four codes. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Any notion that this is an attack is subjective. As stated above, you placed a drive-by POV tag and reinstated it despite two editors' subsequent and disapproving actions, both justified on the article's talk page. I know that I'm not allowed to comment on your POV (which is a bit tricky because that's what this argument is all about) but, in answer to your question and, more importantly, for the sake of Wikipedia, please consider the evidence against your action and, please, stop being the victim here. The victims are those who've suffered injustice and, more significantly in regard to this particular Wikipedia article, those who administered said injustice. When you accept that the information in the article as it stands is factually correct and when you cease complaining on the basis of your 75% sockpuppet detection criteria then we can cease arguing. With kind regards, JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yet some ad hominem arguments. Can you please plainly list those "evidences"? Also I'd like to know which "pov" do you ascribe to me.

I edited as a both user and steward on lots of wikis but it's the second time I see such an overreaction to a simple pov tag. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No comment, other than to say that you exhaust reason and that's why you're here. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

With respect to Rider ranger47 and Robert McClenon, I apologise again, but at least everyone can see what we're trying to deal with. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflicted)I expressed some reasoning (maybe wrong or maybe right), I tried ignoring your violations of the DRN process, your allusive mention of my alleged pov, etc etc. You simply went on removing the tag without even try to discuss, what should I do now? --Vituzzu (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing, it's clear that you shouldn't have added the tag in the first place. 109.145.67.105 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Why? --Vituzzu (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Because you gave no objective reasons for doing so, nor did you attempt to edit the article to rectify it. Haven't you just been told that above and earlier on the talk page of the article? This discussion is evidently going nowhere. I'm out. 109.145.67.105 (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I did, or better I tried doing it. To there's a POV issue with that page, you, being one of the authors, disagree now we should wait 3Os without insisting on an alleged "self-evident absolute truth". Both of us believe to be right, divergence is common in a collaborative project. Problems arises when one of the involved parts try cheating or nullifying the other one. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, this has gotten way out of hand and off topic. Can all of you agree to resolve this civilly or not? Rider ranger47 ^Talk 21:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing to resolve. The tag is gone. The onus was always on the person placing the tag to provide coherent reasons for doing so. This did not happen. End of story. 109.145.67.105 (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually you removed it against policy, I didn't re-add it because of this DRN (it's a lack of respect for people writing here to going on removing or re-adding the tag). But if you'll quit the DRN I'll re-add it because to me the problem still exists. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I won't quit. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If you re-add the tag, you will be in violation of wikipedia policy adding a tag without providing coherent reasons for doing so. You're also expressing an intention to edit war. 109.145.67.105 (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflicted)@JoeMCMXLVII: I am going to ask you to step back from this discussion for repeatedly commenting on users, not content.

@Vituzzu: Could you please explain why you think the article should have a POV tag? Rider ranger47 ^Talk 21:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That's fair comment. May I continue contributing here if I stick to criticising content? JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No. I have already given you a warning. As the volunteer mediator I have formally asked you to step back from this discussion. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 21:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

How was I to know that you're the "volunteer mediator"? I'd have given you even more respect had someone told me so. Honestly! JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(editconflicted twice)As I said before, the paragraph about prosecutors in Italy depicts them as loose cannons, using outdated sources (some of the issues raised in one of them were mitigated by later reforms) without mentioning, for instance, how their roles are separated "in time" (it's a softer separation than USA one but it exists).@Salvio giuliano: knows Italian judicial system better than be and he might help resolving the dispute.

The overall tone of the page gives me the impression the subject is depicted as a visionary.

Just to clarify, I'm really not interested in "spectacularized" murder trials: I escape from those TV-shows obsessively doing reports of ongoing processes or investigations, so I am not a supporter of neither the "guilty" nor "innocence" parties. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This is your subjective opinion. The section of the article in question is neutral in tone and well referenced.109.145.67.105 (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And this is your opinion as one of the author. You should had waited for 3O before removing the tag then. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your jargon. The tag was removed because there was no justification for it being there. I don't accept your subjective view that the article depicts Italian prosecutors as 'loose cannons'.109.145.67.105 (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty legit, you're one of the main authors of the text I'm criticizing, so it's normal you believe it's right. Everyone who is driven by good faith writes what he believes it's right. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not criticising anyone in particular but I do think that someone here is fighting phantoms in the dark. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll let @Rider ranger47: answer to this. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Vituzzu are you claiming I am a main author of the Mignini article? Where did you get that idea? Is this the legendary Italian detective work in action?109.145.67.105 (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

So you clarified your pov about the subject. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you take my comment as sarcasm? Why would you do that?109.145.67.105 (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we have another mediator please.109.145.67.105 (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I promise never to comment again on the above terminated discussion. Can we have another mediator, please? JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflicted) The DRN co-coordinator has been notified about this discussion and will respond soon. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 23:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Go on, Vituzzu, take courage, do it now, before you make an even bigger arse of yourself. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment - A registered editor and an unregistered editor have requested another mediator. You got one, for a few minutes, while I close this thread as failed because the participants wouldn't stop complaining about each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2015 (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:Greco-Italian War (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• AnnalesSchool (talk · contribs)
• Dr.K. (talk · contribs)
• Alexikoua (talk · contribs)
• Athenean (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I wanted to add a reliable and verifiable comment that while the Greek Army withstood the Italian Primavera Offensive in 1941, and though victorious, Stockings and Hancock (2003) claimed that the Greek Army had suffered over 5000 casualties and was running very low on manpower and supplies of military resources like artillery shells.

Here below is what I wanted to edit into the article:

However, as Stockings and Hancock maintain, the Telepene Offensive exposed the weaknesses of the Greek Army. Not only did it suffer over 5000 casualties during the Italian offensive, but more importantly, it revealed a "chronic shortage of arms and equipment."^[1] In some cases the Greeks had merely one month's supply left of artillery shells and other weaponry "which could not be replaced locally and which exceeded British capacity to import."^[2] "The Greeks," in the words of Stockings and Hancock, "were fast approaching the end of their logistic tether."^[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greco-Italian_War&diff=prev&oldid=661908944

However, it was rejected outright by Dr K who simply deleted it without explaining adequately why. I tried a number of times to seek a consensus.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Yes, several times but each time I was rebuffed by Dr K's very personal and highly charged Greek patriotism.

How do you think we can help?

BY making Dr K see that only by consensus and temperance and understanding that Wikipedia articles should not be bi-partisan simply because he favors the Greek side over the Italian side, but that it should contain differing views from reliable sources, even minority views. Dr K appears to be afraid that the comment by Stockings and Hancock will, in his words, tarnish the greatness of the Greek Army and its victory over the Italians. This is simply taking sides and is a very narrow approach.

Summary of dispute by Dr K

I have taken this tendentious longterm NPA violator to ANI for threatening to mention me and another editor on an external website he is associated with. I will not be taking part in these proceedings under threats and personal attacks. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alexikoua

Summary of dispute by Athenean

Talk:Greco-Italian War 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:Giuliano Mignini (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• JoeMCMXLVII (talk · contribs)
• Vituzzu (talk · contribs)
• many other Wikipedia administrators (talk · contribs)
• et al (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A Wikipedia administrator placed a drive-by POV tag in an article. I contested the validity of the POV tag, pointing out that it cast doubt on the factual validity of the article. Another contributor removed the POV tag. Said Wikipedia administrator reinstated it, and so on, leading to an edit war. I brought the problems here wanting to know under what circumstances a POV tag may be deemed relevant and for how long it may reasonably remain in the article. The issue was not resolved and I still seek informed answers, please.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the article's talk page, previous attempt to resolve the issue here, and question on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

How do you think we can help?

Informed opinion regarding the use and abuse of the POV tag

Summary of dispute by Vituzzu

Summary of dispute by many other Wikipedia administrators

Summary of dispute by et al

Talk:Giuliano Mignini 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:Safety behaviors (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• GoldenCirclet (talk · contribs)
• Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs)
• Prof Haeffel (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The safety behaviors article was flagged as having undue weight on psychopathology because it does not include any information about safety behaviors used in the workforce or other potentially dangerous situations. I (GoldenCirclet) claim that this article is not related to safety behaviors in the workforce. Safety behaviors used in anxiety disorders increase anxiety when they are meant to decrease anxiety, and treatments such as exposure and response prevention therapy are used to reduce these safety behaviors. Safety behaviors used in the workforce promote physical safety and should be enforced. A possible solution is to rename the article as "safety behaviors (anxiety)" to differentiate the article from other safety behavior articles when they are formed, including those used in the workplace.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have provided quotes from cited articles that show that safety behaviors used in anxiety disorders are designed to reduce anxiety but instead lead to an increase in anxiety.

How do you think we can help?

I would like to request an outside opinion on this dispute to determine how best to resolve it. Andrew D. has not yet responded to my last response, and I do not know if changing the article title is the best mode of action at this point.

Summary of dispute by Andrew D.

I have been busy with other things but have returned to update the matter. To help achieve compromise and consensus, I have accepted the title change proposed by GoldenCirclet and have created a disambiguation page to provide links to other contexts which readers might be wanting. Andrew D. (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Prof Haeffel

It appears the primary reason this article was flagged was because there was debate about whether or not "safety behaviors" represent a psychological construct or more general definition that includes being safe in work, driving, job, etc. I argued that the safety behaviors discussed in this article focus on a particular class of behaviors that are used to reduce anxiety and fear in those with anxiety related disorders; these behaviors are clearly related to psychology, and thus, the emphasis on psychology is appropriate. The behaviors are very different than general safety rules and regulations, which I believe to be an entirely different topic. I vote the article stay as is and the dispute be resolved. That said, a title change could be considered to make clear the topic is in relation to anxiety (e.g., Safety Behaviors in Anxiety). Prof Haeffel (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Safety behaviors discussion

Hello, I am rider ranger47 a volunteer mediator. I have looked through the comments and it looks like this issue has been resolved. Is this correct? Rider ranger47 ^Talk 12:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment by another volunteer - It appears that this is primarily an article naming issue, and that the article in question is about Safety behaviors (anxiety), which is a psychological syndrome associated with anxiety disorders. (These behaviors, while meant to mitigate the effect of anxiety, in focusing on the anxiety, can complicate the anxiety.) It also appears that one of the parties made Safety behaviors temporarily into a redirect to Safety behaviors (anxiety) in order to create a disambiguation page, and then create a separate article about safety behavior in workplaces, transportation, etc. If the parties to this thread agree that that was appropriate, then I agree with the moderator that this can be closed as resolved. Is that correct, or does there need to be discussion about naming, or about anything else? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that mostly everything is correct, although I am uncertain about the "undue weight" tag being left in the article since the article was meant to specifically talk about safety behaviors in anxiety. Should that be another discussion? GoldenCirclet (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It can continue under this one. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 02:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

24 hour notice: This thread will be closed if it is not commented on in 24 hours. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 02:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• According to the article's talk page, the tag was left because Andrew D. states that, "I still feel that the treatment of the matter in the psychological context is quite narrow and doesn't fully recognize that people are often anxious for the good reason that their safety or well-being is at risk." Since I have not researched how safety behaviors are used when the person does experience a dangerous situation, this article may not cover everything there is about safety behaviors used to reduce anxiety. Therefore, I will leave the tag until I or another editor can look into this problem, but I will replace the Wikiproject NIOSH template with the general Wikiproject Psychology template to better reflect the content of this article. GoldenCirclet (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@GoldenCirclet: So is the issue resolved? Rider ranger47 ^Talk 00:21, 16 May 2015 (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:Shiply (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• E2daipi (talk · contribs)
• Willreyner (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Blanking of sections by Willreyner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shiply&type=revision&diff=603121896&oldid=602264014 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shiply&oldid=prev&diff=662005843

Please note non usage of talk page.

My comments from the last dispute on this page with COI edits from company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shiply_(2nd_nomination)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Revert some section blanking + leaving comments asking for usage of talk page[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shiply&oldid=659917904

How do you think we can help?

Block user Willreyner from editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiply .

Summary of dispute by Willreyner

Talk:Shiply 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:Baltimore (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Brlaw8 (talk · contribs)
• Onel5969 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I afraid to post without credible information getting deleted by other poster I replied back in the NPOV edits section I am Brlaw8 and I gave a detailed statement on how I feel there. It is as follows below.

Hello I am user Brlaw8 I have been using/contributing to Wikipedia for years and today I wanted to report another user Onel5969 for negativism on his or her talk page and as a frequent poster on the Baltimore page I see how he/she dispute Freddie Gray as being significant in the 21st century and list a few insignificant other things of the time just to add a incomplete 21st century historic subsection. Here's a response from Wikipedia on their talk page. "The article is about the city so on the contrary, we actually need to prevent it from becoming dominated by the Freddie Gray." As this poster is someone from Arizona with no connections to the city or state their reason for posting in Baltimore could be to hurt the image of city to the millions that get their first look of Baltimore through Wikipedia not to inform. The reason this post was brought to my attention as a frequent poster in the Baltimore page is when I would edit obsolete information and update it user Onel5969 sent this Hi. Editor Brlaw8 continues to attempt to add promotional material from cites linked directly to the city, which are highly NPOV. In doing so, the editor has violated the WP:3RR rule. Not every citation is valid, if it is from a non-neutral source, like the city's own website, or a website affiliated with the promotion of the city, than that is not a valid citation. The copy is very promotional, and is simply written to favor the city. Onel5969 (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC). By all means I feel the very same way that their posts are very un-promotional of the city. My sources are valid and up to date and even the sources that were not from the city website like the US Berea of labor statistics were constantly deleted and I believe this user is abusing their power. I believe that

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None other than responding back on the talk page and now this. I really would just like to make and be free to make the necessary changes that need to take place.

How do you think we can help?

Hopefully we can come to a mutual agreement if we have a superior so to speak hear us both out.

Summary of dispute by Onel5969

Hi. On 13 May 2015, Brlaw8 made a number of edits to the Baltimore article, including deleting cited material, deleting material for which a consensus had been reached through edits regarding the recent disturbances (as well as the rest of the information in the 21st century subsection of History), and inputting either uncited material, or promotional material from sites connected with the city. Overall, the effect was to edit out data which put the city in a negative light, and include data from non-independent sources which put the city in a good light. Included among the NPOV edits were other edits which were either innocuous, or which would simply be a matter of opinion, so my intention was to leave those. However, upon attempting to go through the edits one by one it quickly became apparent that they were so intertwined I had to revert all of their edits.

On 14 May, Brlaw8 made 2 edits. One was uncited, and the other used a non-independent source, but in this instance, since it was simply stating a statistic, there was no need to revert. Later on the 14th, Brlaw8 attempted to reinsert some of the NPOV material regarding the economy, which you can see HERE. I reverted, stating NPOV in the edit summary.

On 16 May, Brlaw8 again attempted to reinsert virtually the same material. Another editor, Adavidb, removed most of the material (although he did leave one section which I still found promotional), and that edit can be seen HERE. Later on 16 May, Brlaw8 added a picture to the article. At that point I noticed that the promotional material from the city website was still on the page and reverted it (just the NPOV material, not the picture), again stating the reason in the edit summary. Shortly after this, early on 17 May, Brlaw8 re-inserted all of the NPOV material, which was his 3rd revert in 24 hours. I reverted, citing the 3RR violation, and since it was clear he was not understanding the NPOV issue, took it to the talk page. Brlaw8 responded with a rambling, almost incoherent post, which did not honestly address the NPOV issue, nor his violation of the 3RR rule. He insisted that his references were "not from the city", and indeed, his update on the unemployment was from a neutral source. However, the rest of the references he cited were: "http://www.godowntownbaltimore.com", "http://baltimore.citybizlist.com", "http://baltimore.org", and "http://baltimoredevelopment.com", all of which are Baltimore promotional sites. In addition, he also deleted the Walsh/Fox citation. On the whole, his response made no credible argument for his actions, and in fact, when you wade into it, actually showed he was attempting to edit the article to show Baltimore in a more favorable light. Subsequent to his violation of the 3RR rule, he once again re-inserted the NPOV material.

This editor has recently begun editing on the Baltimore page, and some of his edits have an NPOV issue, such as THIS ONE - which also as a COPYVIO issue with the underlying source, as well as including uncited facts. After his violation of the 3RR rule, and his further violation, I decided to sit back and see what other editors think of his edits. In his talk page response he failed to validate his edits, and he never discussed the violation of the 3RR rule. (sorry about the length, I was trying to be specific - not sure how to check how many characters, only # of words). Onel5969 (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Baltimore discussion

First statement by volunteer moderator

I am accepting this case as the volunteer moderator although I am not entirely sure what the issue is. I would like the participants to state what the issue is, but it appears that there may be a neutral point of view issue. Please be civil and concise. Comment on content, not on contributors. If the discussion gets off track with comments on contributors, or becomes uncivil, I may have to fail the discussion. Please explain what the issue is and how you want the article improved.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Please be specific in identifying changes that you want made to the article, or in changes to the article with which you disagree. Comment on content (improvement of the article), not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Brlaw8

First statement by Onel5969

Hi. Not sure why this was brought here. Simply a case of NPOV, and a lack of understanding regarding the 3RR rule. Cheers. Onel5969 (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2015 (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:Le Sage's_theory_of_gravitation#External_links_trim 

Users involved

• DoNotGod (talk · contribs)
• DVdm (talk · contribs)
• Insidiae (talk · contribs)
• Snowwhiteunger (talk · contribs)
• JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Primarily the depute is over a reasonable definition of a "personal web page" and what qualifies as a "non-mainstream" source. An effort to STOP one link from being added has resulted in 6 other links being removed\censored

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

just useless TALK

How do you think we can help?

provide a rational description of a "personal page" and acknowledge that this site ( http://inmendham.com/ds/index.html ) does not reasonably fit the category "personal site\page"

Summary of dispute by DVdm

As can be seen at User talk:DVdm#Complaint (2) and Talk:Le Sage's theory of gravitation#External links trim user DoNotGod seems not to accept (or understand) that his web page qualifies as a personal web page, as mentioned at wp:ELNO item 11. - DVdm (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Insidiae

Summary of dispute by Snowwhiteunger

Summary of dispute by JohnBlackburne

As well as the article talk page and the article history there's User talk:DVdm#Complaint (2) where the discussion started. Nothing really to add to those discussions.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Le Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation#External_links_trim discussion

• Volunteer note - I am neither accepting nor declining this dispute at this time, awaiting statements from the other editors. I will note that a higher standard of civility is expected at this noticeboard (and in Wikipedia in general) than has been shown in discussion on the article talk page. Be civil and comment on content, not contributors, regardless of whether the discussion is here or on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2015 (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:High fructose corn syrup (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sciencewatcher (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Content I have added to the High fructose corn syrup that was well backed with references, was removed by Sciencewatcher with edit summaries like 'fructose!=HFCS'. This despite many of the studies conducted to gain insight into HFCS, and cited in much of scientific debate on HFCS, are about the fructose. Those scientists study fructose intensively precisely because HFCS contains so much of it. It is pretty much the main reason currently for investigating HFCS, and vice versa (half the dry residue is of HFCS is fructose, the rest glucose) Also, my contribution by adding a subsection on dicarbonyls and other reactive compounds in HFCS was also deleted by SW; SW later said he found reviews claiming other foods like bread contained 'similar' dicarbonyl levels. As HFCS was shown to have up to 1.1 gram/liter dicarbonyls, I found this unlikely and said so, as well as pointing out absorption from non-liquid foods is slower and doesn't overwhelm antioxidant defences. He did not produce any reviews to back up his claim, but instead chided me for not finding those same reviews myself.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Compromised somewhat in added content in current edit

How do you think we can help?

Help to find a compromise wording that will satisfy everyone, and stop the constant attacks on the new content.

Summary of dispute by Sciencewatcher

High fructose corn syrup discussion

• Volunteer note - I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time. The requesting party is a dynamic IP address; at least three different IP addresses in the 85.*.*.* block have edited the article page and the article talk page. Communication with dynamic IP editors is difficult. I will accept the case for mediation if the human behind the IP addresses establishes a registered account. (I am currently working another case.) Registered (including pseudonymous) editors have several advantages over unregistered editors with IP addresses. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

regarding registration of an account, I (85.211.96.117) do have this account... I simply stopped using it, because I do not want to be harassed by the square red 'new messages' notification that could be someone reverting my edits from possibly many months back... I want to enjoy Wikipedia in peace, without looking over my shoulder. So that's why I didn't use it... but I'll use it right here, if you think it's better

(+also added my name to participants, after forgetting the first time)

85.211.100.135 (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - A registered editor can turn off the 'new messages' via the Notifications tab from the Preferences at the top of the screen. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert, thank you for the advice, I will use this account on this thread. Also: I had poosted a DRN notice on Sciencewatcher's account as soon as I opened this dispute resolution request, but he has so far failed to respond. 85.211.100.135, aka Nitrobutane (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't really feel the need to respond...there doesn't really seem to be any dispute on the talk page as far as I can tell, and it wasn't even me who reverted your edits the last few times. I'd recommend participating in the discussion on the article talk page. As far as I can see, the issue is that you aren't familiar with wikipedia policies such as WP:MEDRS and WP:SYNTH. This has been discussed at the talk page, but you appear to ignore the discussion and just re-add your edits again without addressing the problems. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2015 (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.

I am trying to make two small edits, here, to the article NPS. The first one fixes a layout error that affects IE (at least), whereby an unsightly and unintended blank space appears at the top of the article. The second adds a new meaning of NPS, "new psychoactive substance". It is easy to verify that this meaning is in widespread use. Both edits are clearly beneficial, in a small way, but another editor, Bkonrad, seems to have some kind of fixation with undoing them. He or she repeatedly reverts them, ignoring my requests to stop. Please will someone take a look at this and take the necessary enforcement action. Thank you. 86.152.163.183 (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2015 (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:Ohnoitsjamie#User:LuisaDG Link removal (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• LuisaDG (talk · contribs)
• Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dear Sir or Madam, My intention is to add a web link to certain Wikipedia fungus pages redirecting readers to an external webpage describing clinical cases of fungal infections. The website in question is www.fungiquest.net, where the user can look through a database to find clinically valuable information. Unfortunately I added the web link redirecting Wikipedia reader to the main page, whereas it should have been adapted so the reader will immediately reach the webpage showing only the cases of a certain subgroup of the respective fungus. Ohnoitsjamie removed the links. I discussed this topic with Ohnoitsjamie and proposed to change them to deep-linking directly to the respective fungus cases. He insisted it is link canvassing and that I try to spam these links thus, without valuable information. FungiQuest is a tool for clinicians directly linked to FungiScope, an international study on rare invasive fungal infection internationally recognized and appreciated in expert audience. This work is endorsed by all leading scientific societies in the field of medical mycology including ISHAM (International society of human and animal mycology), ESCMID (European society of clinical microbiology and infectious disease) and ECMM (European conference on medical mycology). Thus, to me it is incomprehensible that such valuable information for clinical doctors to improve patient care might be considered spam. There are other external links accepted like Pubmed subpages (biggest journal database). Trough FungiQuest you are able to access the biggest Database of invasive fungal infections cases, not available through Pubmed. This is no advertisement and just should offer more information to readers. For most clinicians Wikipedia is the first source of information when facing such rare disease in their patient. I would herewith like to demonstrate the need and importance of including the link to Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to explain Ohnoitsjamie my intentions on his talk page and how to improve the access to this information but it did not work.

How do you think we can help?

I hope you may understand that this is valuable information that should be offered to readers in Wikipedia.

Summary of dispute by Ohnoitsjamie

I explained multiple times to the user that we do not allow single purpose accounts with a conflict of interest to canvass links, regardless of the quality of the links. Besides, links of high-quality/high relevance are inevitably added by numerous other editors that don't have single purpose agendas. The editor's statement above "It didn't work" could be translated to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Ohnoitsjamie#User:LuisaDG Link_removal 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.