WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 153#Talk:PFC Cherno More Varna

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|5.226.137.179|09:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Administrative close. The filing unregistered editor has been range-blocked. The details of why a range of IP addresses have been blocked are not important for this purpose. Since none of the other editors have expressed a strong interest in moderated discussion, there doesn't appear to be any reason to keep this thread open. If there are any remaining content issues, they can be discussed on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Dan Wagner#Intro}}

Users involved

• {{User|5.226.137.179}}
• {{User|91.102.25.125}}
• {{User|92.233.78.11}}
• {{User|Ol king col}}

Dispute overview

The disagreement concerns the the statement from the article intro 'the founder of British eCommerce'. Editors claiming it should be left in there provide links to various recent publications relating to a recent commercial agreement involving the subject. I have noticed that 5 of the 6 citied articles are word for word the same, suggesting a press release/pr material was used. The sixth although not exactly the same, follows the same content and structure of the other articles and does not claim the subject is 'the founder of British eCommerce'. Agreement cannot be reached on the validity of the sources. Also, another editor has flagged it as WP:PEACOCK.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page but this article has a history of edit warring. Previously intervention and edits by senior editors has resolved this and been accepted by all other editors involved.

How do you think we can help?

Input from an editor not involved in the article is normally accepted by other editors on the page.

As specified in the overview. I do not agreed with the reliability of the cited sources as they appear to be a press release. There's no evidence given to back the claim. I believe the sources are WP:QUESTIONABLE & falls under the press release section of WP:INDEPENDENT. Given the doubt of the sources and the fact the article is WP:BLP, any doubtful sources should be removed.

92.233.78.117 (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The sources I provided are not press releases. Either you are discrediting the sources to back up your own WP:OR or you dont know how to evaluate sources. Therefore, I will request that independent volunteers review these. Note that other language sources, if credible, are just as acceptable as English sources. Volunteers can translate using google translate for your own knowledge. The two sources I have provided are major news papers from Taiwan and China.

::You say sources but it's the same content republished on 5 sites. I suggest you read the press release section of WP:INDEPENDENT in order to understand my position. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

92.233.78.117 (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You say that the reliable sources provided are contradicted in other articles, but so far you have only provided twitter and claims of individuals. Those are not at all reliable and shall be discarded for any Wikipedia purposes.

::You are misrepresenting my statements. I said the claim was mocked on twitter, and I also said twitter was not a reliable source. Regarding the contradicting articles you mention, I actually said there are no other articles which verify this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.226.137.179 (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

09:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I have read the PR section but the sources I mentioned are not PR. I have already said that. Repeatedly saying the same thing does not make your argument right. The sources are mainstream media. Since what you are arguing on the basis of is only twitter (glad that you recognize it is not reliable), your objections are invalid. Popular views on social media have nothing to do with wikipedia. Whereas, I have presented sources. You have failed to present a reliable source contradicting it and therefore, the content stays. It is a simple matter of WP:V which has been accomplished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.78.117 (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

:'Many less reputable news sources will write an article based almost exclusively on a press release, making only minor modifications. When using news sources whose editorial integrity you are uncertain of, and an article reads like a press release, it is crucial to check to see that the source is not simply recycling a press release.' Reads like a press release to me. You claim the replication in content is because it came from a new agency, except no news agency is credited in any of the articles. WP:SOURCES states 'When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources'. A third party opinion will be welcome. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

92.233.78.117 (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Disputing the editorial integrity of China Post and Taiwan News - two highly respected newspapers in Taiwan - is just naive and inaccurate. Both articles are materially different in editorial coverage and both refer the the subject as the 'founder of British eCommerce'. There is no PR announcement anywhere to be found. Why are you insisting on there being one without any justification? Again either you are discrediting the sources to back up your own WP:OR or you dont know how to evaluate sources. The two sources I have provided are major news papers from Taiwan and China.

: Actually, the China Post article you supplied in the talk page, http://m.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/2017/06/21/498936/UK-entrepreneur.htm, does not say that. Naive? No. The other articles, the 5 of 6 I specified in the talk page, the ones that are word for word the same, the ones that aren't attributed to a news agency, I read them and they read like a press release. Let's leave it to an independent editor to review. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The Subject started the first online information platform in 1984 requiring him to develop commerce technologies to take payment for information delivered online. At the time, there were no technologies that allowed payments to be taken electronically. Mr Wagner developed those technologies 11 years before the term eCommerce was coined by Amazon when they launched in 1995. There are enough sources that state that Dan Wagner was the founder of the british e commerce and they have been presented. IP 5 has presented nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.78.117 (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

: Re the claim that term "eCommerce" was only coined in 1995 by Amazon, I refer you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-commerce, additionally claiming that there were no technologies that allowed payments be taken electronically is a claim that need sourcing and / or verifying as it's a strong claim to make without proof, especially when there is clear evidence that online purchasing was happening before Mr Wagner set up his business in 83. Also, do you have a verifiable source confirming that he had to develop eCommerce technologies? And, or, when he did this? He may have set up the business in 83, but he didn't start electronic payments immediately, so do you have any evidence when this was. All info I have seen indicates that it was old fashioned paper invoicing (later email invoicing) for the data procured through MAID / Dialog. If you can provide evidence then that would reinforce the statement and we can update not only Mr Wagners page, but also the ecommerce page. None the less, I think, what User: 5.226.137.179 is unclear about, is that the claim has been made in several, identical, articles recently but there is no other source for this, if you can provide additional evidence supporting the claim then he / she will accept it (I hope), and let the claim stand. User:Ol king col (talk) 13:03, 07 July 2017 (UTC)

I commented on this exact issue 27th June under the heading edits 26th June 2017, before the specific sub heading of intro was created. What I said at the time was

"My view, for what it's worth, is that the line about Mr Wagner being 'the founder of British eCommerce' is that as it is sourced probably can be quoted, but as it is from one source, it does not deserve it's placing so high in the article. The introduction should be his most notable achievements which in this case must surely be the creation of MAID / Dialog, it's subsequent sale & the circumstances around it, and his recent escapades with Powa and it's administration it is what he is best known for. "the founder of British ecommerce" claim may be suitable for containment in the general body of the text, perhaps under Dialog as it's what it refers to."

And that's what I still think. So broadly agree with the filing party. Ol king col (talk) 20:53, 05 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There have been lengthy comments at the article talk page by the filing unregistered editor. The other editors have commented briefly. The filing party has failed to list or notify a registered editor. Waiting to see if there are any responses from the other editors, since discussion is voluntary. The filing party is asked to consider the significant benefits of creating a user account. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

::Apologies, I missed the fourth user. I have added and notified. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

{{V note}} are the two IPs who've not yet added a summary interested in the discussion? Also, before a volunteer opens the case, I'd like to request all IP users to consider the benefit of registering an account. If your IP address is changed mid-dicussion and is used by a vandal to create problems here or reply innapropriately, it'll be assumed that you are responsible for that and this could result negatively in this dispute resolution. Make sure you've a static IP that won't change during the course of this DRN (if it's opened). Yashovardhan (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Just a regular note Both of the IP editors who have been currently participating (this includes the filing party) have both been CheckUser blocked for a month. menaechmi (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Seraphim System|22:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as apparently abandoned. There has been no recent discussion on the article talk page. If there are any content issues, discuss them on the article talk page. If discussions fail, see WP:DISCFAIL. If discussion restarts and is lengthy and inconclusive, moderated discussion can be conducted here (but only if discussion resumes and is inconclusive). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Pentecost}}

Users involved

• {{User|Seraphim System}}
• {{User|Andreas Philopater}}
• {{User|Jpbrenna}}

Dispute overview

There is unsourced biblical exegesis in this article. It has been discussed ad nauseum on talk already, but I can't seem to get the point across to Jpbrenna, who has now stepped in for another editor. I left a message on talk that unsourced exegesis needed to be removed, but the response I received doesn't address the issue, which is similar to the extensive discussion I had with Andreas Philopater some time ago Talk:Pentecost/Archive 1#Wikipedia_basics. There is also the issue that most modern translations of the Bible do not use the wording that Jpbreanna is reverting to (which is from the KJV)—his last comment on talk indicates that his position is that this is an WP:OR issue. Since this translation is sourced to both NABre and the NRSV, which are major updated translations, I don't understand why he thinks this is WP:OR and because of past experience, I don't think more one on one discussion is likely to be productive.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried talk with both editors (extensively), we have had to go to RS/n before over use of superseded sources (which was resolved there)—there have been numerous sourcing issues like this—El_C told me to try dispute resolution instead of edit warring next time, so that is what I am doing.

How do you think we can help?

I am hoping moderated discussion can keep the discussion on topic so the issue can be resolved, and the exegesis can either be adequately sourced or removed.

• Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion at Talk:Pentecost, but none of it within the past week. Discuss further at the article talk page. I am neither accepting nor declining this thread at this time, but am waiting for further discussion, and for any possible comments by the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Nocturnal781|04:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as incompletely filed. The filing editor has not listed the other editors. The filing editor is welcome to refile this request and list the other editors, or to resume discussion on the article talk page.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Islam in_France#Liberation.fr}}

Users involved

• {{User|Nocturnal781}}

Dispute overview

The issue I have is with the other editor adding that the attacker in the Finsbury Mosque was Armenian. I've seen 3-4 articles also say he the same, but they are all referencing Liberation.fr even than these are not reliable sources according to Wikipedia. Mainstream newspapers are reliable but none of the newspaper referenced are. I am looking for someone to help with dispute resolution and stating facts that are in accordance with reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines. The other issue is that the attacker is mentally ill. So this being seen as discrimination this early without even a ruling by the government is bias the least to mention it is.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion

How do you think we can help?

Adding your opinions

• Volunteer note - The filing editor has not listed the other editors in the dispute. The filing editor should list the other editors within the next 24 hours. There has been discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Rebismusic|02:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as pending in another forum. One of the editors has reported another of the editors at WP:ANI for disruptive editing of this article. This noticeboard does not handle a dispute that is also being discussed in another content forum or in a conduct forum. The WP:ANI thread should be allowed to run. If the WP:ANI dispute is closed and the content dispute has not been resolved (and there are no sanctions that would interfere with use of this forum), a new request can be made here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Marsha P._Johnson}}

Users involved

• {{User|Rebismusic}}
• {{User|BrothaTimothy}}
• {{User|FlightTime}}
• {{User|Mileyboo3}}

Dispute overview

"BrothaTimothy" believes that a person who self identifies as a "transvestite" cannot be "transgender woman" and refuses to acknowledge wiki definitions that support this. He erases aspects of Marsha P. Johnson's life story that support the concusion that she was transgender and tries to use "he" pronouns in certain circumstances to describe her. He ignores the opinions of those who knew Johnson and who uniformly identified her as transgender. His approach is transphobic and although he may be well meaning the overall effect is oppressive.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

i have written at length on Talk to try to explain to him some of the subtleties involved here but he is on his own wave length.

How do you think we can help?

Perhaps you could guide him towards the wiki definition of "transgender woman" and encourage him to stop removing that identifier for Marsha from the by-line. It is a painful misrepresentation of Johnson to describe her as someone who fits into the contemporary definition of a drag queen. I was trying to accommodate by leaving all the reference to her confusing self ID intact.

{{ping|Rebismusic}} Can you please point to all these "Wikipedia definitions" you're referring to. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - While there has been discussion on the article talk page, it has been minimal. The editors should continue discussion on the article talk page. This thread will be neither declined nor accepted for now. It can be opened for moderated discussion if discussion at the article talk page is inconclusive. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

{{V note}} {{ping|FlightTime}} Please do not start a discussion here until a volunteer opens the case. I have moved your question to your summary section. You can elaborate upon the dispute there. You have also been listed as a party to the dispute and can participate in moderated discussion if and when this case is opened. The other party is requested to file a summary if interested in dispute resolution. Yashovardhan (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Discussion at the article talk page still appears to be minimal. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page (not all of it civil). Are the editors interested in moderated discussion here? If so, please indicate in your summary section. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - {{ping|Mileyboo3|BrothaTimothy }}:--Are you interested in the doispute-resolution.If yes, post your summaries of the issue within 24 hours or this will be {{red|closed}}.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 07:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note -{{n.b.}}Meanwhile, all parties who accept to participate should:

:: {{Nay}} Not edit the topic in concern (unless reverting serious vandalism or copyvio et al.).

:: {{Nay}} Stop all discussions at all other venues related to this dispute.

:: {{Nay}} Abstain from commenting on contributors in their respective statements, comment on content instead.Winged Blades ^Godric 07:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Third-party note - I had missed the DRN and left a comment on the article talk page in an attempt to intervene after two of the users involved in this ended up being flagged for content of their comments (subsequent edits made the comments civil). As such, I had reached out to three of the involved parties seeking their contribution due to the substantial edit-warring and lack of assuming good faith occurring in the article and talkspace. Since I inadvertently involved myself, I will be assisting as a concerned editor in this matter. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 09:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Brooza|16:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as premature. The filing party states correctly that there has been discussion off and on for more than a year. However, there has only been one comment recently. Recent discussion on the talk page is a precondition to mediation here. The parties should discuss the issues on the talk page (in this case, the template talk page). If discussion is inconclusive, another request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Template talk:DC_Comics_films#DC_Cinematic_Universe}}

Users involved

• {{User|Brooza}}
• {{User|Favre1fan93}}
• {{User|Fireflyfanboy}}
• {{User|Bartallen2}}
• {{User|Robsinden}}

Dispute overview

Currently, the template is set up with Batman and Superman movies split into their own categories, with one film from the DC Extended Universe falling under "Superman" and 5 falling under "Single films". There are another 14 planned movies under the DCEU banner, so it would make sense to have them in their own section. Several users have tried making this change of their own volition, but Favre1fan93 seems to keep reverting it back

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've only just joined the debate, but it's been going ona and off for a few years. There are several discussions on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

An outside opinion or a vote.

The current layout is fit for purpose, regimented and easily compartmentalised based on character as well as year; unlike the present 'Marvel Comics' film layout which seems rather folly. The DCEU have four films released and sixteen which are planned, though until production that's simply conjecture for the time being. It's true that potentially there'll be a lot of single films in the future, however, unless a sequel is green lit - for non Batman, Superman, Swamp Thing - they shall remain as such. The current scheme is also mindful of the future when the DCEU ends. I categorically vote the current scheme remain as it is, as you'll simply have too much confusion and superfluous complexity.--Bartallen2 (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status}}

{{drn filing editor|Xaris333|19:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as already pending in another forum. The proper place for discussion is Templates for Discussion. Disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 10#Cyprus football templates}}

Users involved

• {{User|Xaris333}}
• {{User|Robsinden}}

Dispute overview

Hello. We have a disagreement with User:Robsinden. He thinks that articles like 1969–70 European Cup and 1969–70 European Cup Winners' Cup should not be included in navboxes of this kind: Template:1969–70 in Spanish football, Template:1969–70 in Scottish football, Template:1969–70 in English football, Template:1969–70 in Cypriot football. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 10#Cyprus football templates and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 28#Template:1958–59 in Cypriot football. Maybe he is correct, maybe not. But I disagree with him. I have told him to discuss the issues with other users that are familiar with sports articles and users that are familiar with templates to say their opinion. But, he continue to remove the links the templates. For example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:1969%E2%80%9370_in_Spanish_football&diff=prev&oldid=789938621], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:1963%E2%80%9364_in_Cypriot_football&diff=prev&oldid=789937963]. Is that a right behavior? It will be more correct to have a discussion first about the subject with others users before he remove the links, just because that is his opinion? Some users believe that the links must be one the templates. See the above discussions. Thank you for your time.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

No

How do you think we can help?

I just want you to convince Robsinden to stop removing the links, before the community decide about them. If we decide to remove them, he can remove them all. I have started a discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#European competitions links and country football templates.

• Volunteer note - This dispute appears to be outside the scope of this noticeboard because it is already being discussed at Templates for Discussion, which is a specialized deletion discussion forum. I will be closing this dispute unless someone persuades me within 24 hours that I am mistaken and that TFD is not itself already a dispute resolution forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

::User Robsinden is not waiting for the results of a discussion. He is deleting links, even thought some users are against this. He doesn't care about a discussion. Xaris333 (talk) 04:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Disruptive editing or editing against consensus may be reported at WP:ANI. Since this is a discussion forum, DRN is probably not a useful forum for disputes where an editor will not discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Jd02022092|06:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as withdrawn. Filing party has decided to nominate the article for deletion. Closing as per request of filing party. Filing party should be aware that Articles for Deletion can be contentious, and that it is essential to be civil during a deletion discussion. Disruptive editing during a deletion discussion may be reported to WP:ANI. Editors who are not satisfied with the results of a deletion discussion may appeal to deletion review. If the article is kept, any content disputes should be discussed on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Beau Davidson#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2017}}

Users involved

• {{User|Jd02022092}}
• {{User|MPS1992}}
• {{User|Lovetoolistentocountry}}

Dispute overview

Dispute is over the removal of a section that was apparently removed via a consensus.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have tried asking for a new consensus in another section of the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

We are looking for a compromise that can work between all parties involved as to what can be done with the subject of the dispute.

{{V note}} While there has been some discussion, one editor has not been notified about this DRN. The filer is requested to make sure all editors are notified. You may use the template {{tl|DRN-notice}} for this. Yashovardhan (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

::{{strikethrough|1=Comment: I would do this, but the last 2 times I've tried to post on Lovetoolistentocountry's Talk page, the user deleted my posts, claiming I "graffitied" their Talk page, and shooing me away the second time. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)}}

::{{done}} jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• {{ping|Yashovardhan Dhanania|Robert McClenon}} Our dispute has been resolved. We have decided instead to nominate the article for deletion, as we could find any case for notability. I am requesting closure on this resolution. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status}}

{{drn filing editor|Paulmcdonald|11:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed. The content dispute is whether to keep the article, and that is pending at Articles for Deletion. Unfortunately, incivility is very common at AFD, but is still not permitted. However, incivility, whether at AFD or elsewhere, is a conduct issue. Conduct issues can be reported at WP:ANI. I will comment that personal attacks do not affect the likelihood of keeping an article; a good AFD closer ignores them, so it is best to avoid personal attacks and be civil. Discussion at the AFD should resume and should be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gridiron Developmental Football League}}

Users involved

• {{User|Paulmcdonald}}
• {{User|Niteshift36}}

Dispute overview

An exchange in the discussion between myself and User:Niteshift36 seems to be escalating to being uncivil.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have noted that I found the comments offensive and have asked the editor to remove them.

How do you think we can help?

It is my hope that through third party assistance the other editor will voluntarily remove the uncivil remarks from the discussion. If I have done anything to provoke it I would like to be able to resolve it as well.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Mac Dreamstate|16:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed for now without prejudice to allow the editors to request a Third Opinion. After requesting a Third Opinion, the editors should discuss on the article talk page further. They may open a new request here if they think that moderated discussion to facilitate compromise is worth trying. Disruptive editing should be reported to WP:ANEW or WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|List of undefeated boxing world champions}}

Users involved

• {{User|Mac Dreamstate}}
• {{User|46.226.49.228}}

Dispute overview

IP:46.226.49.228 has introduced flagicons to this list article, but we have ended up reverting each other to a stalemate. Flagicons were not present since the list was created in 2013, and furthermore professional boxers—unlike amateurs—are famously known to fleetingly compete "under" a multitude of flags throughout their careers (born in one country; licenced by another; "feels in their heart" another; etc.)

I maintain that the use of flagicons in a professional boxing context is meaningless, and not akin to international sports such as track and field, Formula 1 or tennis, where nationalities are explicitly emphasised, and that therefore they should not be present on this list.

Although not directly related to this article, I believe that a previous RfC at WikiProject Boxing regarding flagicons should have a bearing on this: since flagicons were not present in a longstanding revision, they should not be introduced per the WP:NOCONSENSUS from the above RfC.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion at the article talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Examine whether WP:NOCONSENSUS (point #2) and MOS:FLAG would apply in this case, since the article has been sitting largely dormant without flagicons since 2013. The IP and I disagree on what counts as a "stable" article, and whether or not flagicons are informative. Or, if this should be taken to a wider audience at WT:MOSICON.

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. However, if the issue is whether to use flag icons, this is a question that does not really compromise, because it is probably a yes-no question. For yes-no questions, better options than the use of this noticeboard, where the moderator will facilitate compromise, would be either a Third Opinion or a Request for Comments. This thread is being left open, because the conditions for moderated discussion have been met, but I would suggest that either a Third Opinion or an RFC be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

:WP:3O would seem best, as many of the RfCs I've seen regarding boxing tend to be slow-moving (right now the community isn't the most vibrant when it comes to style/formatting discussions). For a low-traffic article like the one in question, I don't see any point in leaving it hanging for a long time just because of a two-editor dispute. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

::I'd point to all three articles under the See also section, as well as lists like List of boxing quintuple champions. It's not like boxers on the world stage are not representing a nation. I also fail to see how a NOCONSENSUS in another debate can be used as an argument for one side here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.226.49.232 (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Is there still an issue for which moderated discussion is being requested? If there is no reply within 24 hours, I will close this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

:Seems like the issue is too slow-paced, so I'll try 3O next. I originally brought it here because it was getting edit-warry, but the IP has "sat down" on their version—I'm not about to budge either. Close away. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Erzan|10:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as abandoned. There have been no comments by the editors or the moderator for a week. Any discussion can go back to the article talk page. Do not edit-war. If discussion at the article talk page is extensive and inconclusive, a new thread can be opened here again. Report disruptive editing to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:2017 Finsbury_Park_attack#Back_to_the_original_question_again}}

Users involved

• {{User|Erzan}}
• {{User|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi}}
• {{User|Timothyjosephwood}}
• {{User|This is Paul}}
• {{User|InedibleHulk}}
• {{User|slatersteven}}

Dispute overview

2017 Finsbury Park attack is being described as a terrorist attack by arguably many if not all credible sources, users are removing reference to 'suspected terrorist attack' and suggesting sources from the BBC, UK Prime Minister, UK security forces, the Telegraph, the Guardian, the Independent, London Metropolitan police and London Mayor are not enough to call this event simply a 'terror attack'. Some users have suggested it vital to wait for the trials verdict, however it has been explained by other users that the verdict of the suspect is not reliant upon whether this event is being treated as a terror attack. Many terror attacks are committed by individual/s who will never face trial for various reasons.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Provide many credible sources and suggested a compromise to change 'terror attack' to 'suspected terror attack'. Despite all credible sources provided simply referring to the event as a 'terror attack'.

How do you think we can help?

Suggest whether the sources from below are A) credible and B) allow the page to describe this event as a 'terror attack':

:The BBC '[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-40336848/muslims-living-in-fear-after-finsbury-park-terror-attack 'Finsbury Park terror attack']

:The Telegraph [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/27/finsbury-park-terror-attack-suspect-sits-arms-crossed-appears/ 'Finsbury Park terror attack']

:The Independent [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/finsbury-park-terror-attack-latest-makram-ali-named-victim-van-crash-darren-osborne-london-mosque-a7799006.html 'Finsbury Park terror attack']

:London Metropolitian Police force [http://news.met.police.uk/news/incident-in-seven-sisters-road-247036 'Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park']

:The Guardian [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/20/finsbury-park-terror-attack-three-people-remain-critical-care 'Finsbury Park terrorist attack']

:The Economist [http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21723798-big-fear-after-finsbury-park-new-tit-tat-cycle-terrorism-attacked-prayer 'Terrorist attack at a London mosque']

:The Financial Times [https://www.ft.com/content/2a02510a-548b-11e7-80b6-9bfa4c1f83d2?mhq5j=e1 'Terror attack near London mosque'] Erzan (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Phew. Good luck. I'm travelling and I'm definitely not going to try to hash this out via mobile, but I'll try to be around. I was playing a bit of Devils advocate, and I'm not really emotionally connected to either version. Anyway, regardless, this is an argument that can be reliably predicted to carry on for at least the next year, regardless of what version gets used in the short term. It's the same song and dance with every similar article.

There's good arguments to be had either way, and neither version is probably totally NPOV, but I'm not sure there is any obvious version that is. TimothyJosephWood 22:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The original dispute was whether to repeatedly use the phrase "suspected terror attack". The phrase is used in the lede and was then subsequently referred to as the attack. It seems unnecessary to keep using the full description throughout the text. After all, the reader is likely to know what we're talking about. Another issue seems to be whether we call this a suspected terrorist or just a terrorist attack. We need to be aware this topic is currently the subject of sub judice rules under English law, since legal proceedings have been brought against the suspect. It is possible a juror at any future trial may read our article, so it's important we say nothing that could influence their opinion. This is Paul (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

"Terror attack" is a buzzword, "terrorist attack" is a crime. If the latter is said at all, it needs a "suspected" appended, or it's prejudicial. The former would imply Osborne's guilty of the crime he's charged with, strongly enough to confuse many readers, and adding a "suspected" to that is just superfluous.

It should either be called a "suspected terrorist attack" or simply an "attack". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

As an involved edd, just not that involved at the time of this resolution I would say the problem is one of BLP, there has been no conviction and so we are saying he committed a crime of which he has not (yet) been prosecuted. It is true it is being called a terrorist attack by many, but we cannot, we are bound to say that it is an allegation only.

Also I have only seen one source that says it was a terror attack http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/19/finsbury-park-mosque-latest-terror-attack-london-live, and it goes on to say "She made her pledge as more details emerged about the suspect in the", implying the one place they say it (in connection with what Mrs May had said) is a kind of quote.

Thus I am not sure that the media is saying this was a terrorist attack in quite an unequivocal way as the OP suggests.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Addendum.

Whilst some sources have now been presented I am still unsure about listing this as a terror attack rather then alleged terror attack. The problem is that all the sources say the accused is only the "suspect" or "allegedly" carrying out the attack. Thus we need wording that does not convey guilt. It seems it is easier and less wordy to just say "alleged Terror attack" rather then say "terror attacks whose alleged perpetrator", or some such.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I am the person who most recently removed 'suspected terrorist attack', changing it to 'attack'. My reason for doing so is because the immediately preceding two sentences (in the lead) say a) that this attack is being treated as a terrorist attack by police and b) that someone has been charged with terrorist related murder, therefore both 'suspected' and 'terrorist' are superfluous at this point. The initial para of background section had 'terrorist attack' 3 times in the text, one of which was 'suspected', making the sentence very 'clunky'. Whilst I appreciate the need for accuracy, NPOV and BLP, we need to also remember that the text should be clear and readable. May I also point out that 'terrorist attack' is not synonymous with 'terror attack', the first has precise meaning in law, the second is largely meaningless journal-ese. In this case both Finsbury and the three preceding events have all been described/treated by police/authorities as 'terrorist'. Pincrete (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC) ... please ping if response needed.Pincrete (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm Steve, one of the volunteers here at DRN. My style of mediation is a little different to some of the other users here - please do feel free to discuss in this section, though please try to keep the discussion on points and directed at me, where possible. There is precedent here on how to proceed - the first that comes to mind is the article on Osama Bin Laden, paragraph 4, who, while alive, still had the article describe him in a similar fashion to how he is described now. The article does not state that he was a terrorist, but that he was designated as a terrorist by multiple sources, and that he was indicted on terrorism charges. To be neutral here, we can attribute the content to the relevant, reliable source. So while we cannot simply describe the event as a terrorist attack or suspected terrorist attack, but we can state that the event has been described as a terrorist attack/act of terrorism by BBC, Telegraph etc. This way, we stay neutral, as we are simply quoting the relevant sources for the content. I am happy to hear your thoughts, please comment below. Steven Crossin 01:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

:I think that sums up what many of us have said, that we should not say in Wikipedia's voice this was a terrorist attack. At best we should say "has been called a terror attack".Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

::I agree – "has been called a terror attack" is the most neutral term, and we need to keep this article as neutral as possible, particularly in the short term. We have to remember this matter is still under investigation, and as yet we don't fully know why the events happened. This is Paul (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear cut to me here. I'll leave this open for a few days to see if there's any additional input. I'm happy to also work on the content with the participants to ensure we get a version of the article that fits within our neutrality guidelines, as suggested. Steven Crossin 06:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

:Polite reminders, 'terror attack' is largely meaningless in law, the crime(s) are 'terrorism'. I acknowledge the BLP/sub judice considerations, and the article should not imply in any way that the accused is guilty of anything, nor indeed that a 'terrorist crime' took place, however that only needs saying ONCE clearly - that a 'terrorist offence' is alleged to have happened, allegedly committed by named suspect. Therafter it is textually much simpler to refer to 'attack', nobody doubts whether the event occurred, only its exact nature and who is legally culpable. Pincrete (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

::The problem is "largely" not not mean "not". We should not use any term that even to a small degree conveys an impression of guilt or leads the reader to make assumptions about what why or how. I agree that we could just refer to it as "attack", but if we use "terror attack" we must make it clear it is not proven.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been no discussion for six days. Should this thread be closed as abandoned? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|SVHwikieditor|17:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as conduct dispute involving filing party. The filing party is advised to read the boomerang essay. The filing party admits to a conflict of interest. Other editors are advised to report conflict of interest editing at WP:ANI. (The conflict of interest noticeboard is for determining conflict of interest, but the filing party has stated it.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Waldorf School of Baltimore}}

Users involved

• {{User|SVHwikieditor}}
• {{User|Naraht}}

Dispute overview

I am attempting to update the Waldorf School of Baltimore's page to give an accurate representation of the school. Randolph Finder (wiki user Naraht) is in disagreement with the information provided, and seeks to revert the entire page back versus specific portions. Please advise.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Clarified the numerous external and internal links to pages that have been provided.

How do you think we can help?

Communicate the guidelines for editing pages clearly.

• Comment There has been no discussion of this issue on the article talk page at all, and there is now a second editor who has undone the edit. Meters (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Response Yes, all conversation has been on the talk page of the {{u|SVHwikieditor}} who started the entry here. As my original statements involved that users Conflict of interest. WP:COIN may be more appropriate, but SVHwikieditor started this, so I responded here.Naraht (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Please discuss on the article talk page (or at the conflict of interest noticeboard). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Jeine091|18:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed. Discussion is in progress at the original research noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:List of_countries_by_median_wage}}

Users involved

• {{User|Jeine091}}
• {{User|Lneal001}}

Dispute overview

My opponent states that calculating median wages, using data from the same source for average wages and median/average ratios is OR. While I'm stating that it's done for the readers' comfort, so they won't have to calculate it themselves. The talk page provides examples and calculation methiods.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to show calculations and explain the methods.

How do you think we can help?

Decide, whether this calculation considered OR, or not.

The user is taking one set of data and combining it with another to achieve a result not explicitly mentioned in same source. In this case the user derives a median ratio, and multiplies that times mean annual wages.

The rule says:

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate prior discussion. This case can be opened by a volunteer moderator. However, have the editors considered the suggestion of User:TransporterMan to take the question of whether a particular calculation is original research to the original research noticeboard? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|failed}}

{{drn filing editor|Gouyoku|22:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|This is not going well. This noticeboard is intended for relatively simple content disputes that can be resolved in one to two weeks. It is clear that this dispute will not be resolved quickly, and that it has content and conduct aspects.

The purpose of discussion here should be to improve the article as such. However, it seems that we have editors who are focused either on how to change what is returned by a search, or on the fact that other editors are trying to change what is returned by a search.

On 14 July I advised all of the editors to read my statement of rules. Those rules included not editing the article while moderated discussion was in progress. On 17 July the article was edited, and on 18 July the edit was reverted, by editors taking part in this moderated discussion. The purpose of moderated discussion is among other things to avoid edit warring. Maybe I was too optimistic in expecting that editors would actually read a statement of rules. But I did expect that.

I am closing this discussion as failed. If the neutral editors (those who do not have a conflict of interest) want mediation, they can request formal mediation by a more experienced volunteer mediator. Undisclosed conflict of interest editing can be reported at the conflict of interest noticeboard. (One of the editors has honestly reported a conflict of interest.) Edit warring can be reported at the edit-warring noticeboard. Other disruptive editing can be reported at WP:ANI.

No matter what option is chosen, I would strongly advise all of the editors to read the applicable rules, preferably twice, before proceeding. Some of you did. Some of you didn’t.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC) }}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:FXCM#A gentleman_from_the_UK}}

Users involved

• {{User|Smallbones}}
• {{User|Nagle}}
• {{User|Lenaldinhodietmar}}
• {{User|Aglassofprosecco}}
• {{User|Lqdr}}
• {{User|Gouyoku}}
• {{User|Lenticularphoto}}

Dispute overview

Please note this DRR spans three related issues in four talk page sections. 1. Is ban of FXCM from the USA important enough that it should be the second sentence of the article? 2. Is recent court case, filed by another party indicated in the ban order disputing the main reason of the ban, relevant to FXCM after FXCM settled and waived right to appeal? 3. Should the full name of FXCM, under which it is registered, be included in the lede?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried discussing the issues on the talk page, but I am finding the same arguments being used again with no agreement in sight.

How do you think we can help?

I hope you will be able to establish answers to the three questions and settle this content dispute.

Not sure what there is to discuss here.

• the legal order is final and binding FXCM waived their right of appeal
• the court case Gokuyu just brought into the article is between 2 other parties, not part of the order. The only thing that has happened in the 2nd case is a 5 day continuance following Independence Day.
• The name FXCM was universally used by the 3 main parts of the company. Now 2 of them renamed themselves "Global Brokerage xxx" and the 3rd is still known as FXCM.

It should be noted that Goyuku tried to address this problem earlier at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive955#Disruptive_behavior_of_User:Smallbones ANI]

I've taken this to WP:COIN twice. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

FXCM has been in serious trouble with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, resulting in the company being barred from US markets. There are some editors who do not want this mentioned prominently in the article. The article has had at least 3 SPAs: {{user| Aglassofprosecco }}, {{user|Lenaldinhodietmar}}, and {{user|Tom936}} (not currently active). This raises suspicions of COI editing. Somewhat reminiscent of the Banc De Binary mess, where the article subject was also forced out of the US by the CFTC but continued to operate elsewhere, and massive efforts were made on Wikipedia to remove or de-emphasize the legal problems. John Nagle (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion as noted on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I will be opening this thread for moderated discussion. It appears that the main issue is how much emphasis to give to the company's legal difficulties in the United States. Please read the rules at User:Robert McClenon/Mediation rules that I expect everyone to follow. In particular, be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion; we know that already hasn't resolved the issue. Will each editor please state, in one or two paragraphs, what they think the issues are and how the article should be improved, or left the same? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

:Also, if any editor has an affiliation with the subject company, they must declare it in accordance with the conflict of interest policy, and they must declare it here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

1. While I agree with the sentiment, that the ban is important, it is not important enough to warrant inserting it in the middle of the company introduction. One of the proposed changes, admittedly put forward by a paid editor, put it right after description of what the company does.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FXCM&diff=789300342&oldid=789272049]. I think this will be a good solution, as long as point 2 is also included as per WP:WEIGHT.

2. FXCM has been banned from the US market by CFTC[http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr7528-17] and NFA[https://financefeeds.com/nfa-implements-permanent-bar-fxcm/]. The reason given states that FXCM controlled Effex and used them as a liquidity provider in their no dealing desk system without disclosing to the clients that they control one of the providers[https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2017/03/01/learn-why-the-nfa-barred-fxcm-and-what-it-means-for-forex-traders/#42178f61177c]. Now, Effex is suing NFA for false allegations, claiming they were never controlled by the FXCM[https://financefeeds.com/fxcm-never-ownership-interest-effex-capital-according-legal-complaint/]. Because the allegations were never presented in front of a court and FXCM did not agree to their validity in the settlement, word "alleged" should be included in the article when writing about the reason of the ban. The importance of this legal complaint to FXCM has been covered in the sources[https://financefeeds.com/nfa-admits-complexity-issues-raised-effex-capitals-complaint/]. One of the arguments brought up against this line of reasoning is that FXCM waived their right to challenge the ban order in their settlement, but it is being challenged by a third party indicated in the same ban, not FXCM.

3. "Forex Capital Markets" is the full name of "FXCM" and is used by the company (eg. copyright notice at the bottom of their homepage[https://www.fxcm.com]) and other parties (eg. Bloomberg[https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=8683962]). The name has been included in the first sentence since the article was created[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FXCM&oldid=375854510] in 2010, until it was recently removed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FXCM&diff=790015718&oldid=790015516]. The removal makes no sense and should be reinstated.

Gouyoku (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The settlement between FXCM and the CFTC is here.

[http://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/@lrenforcementactions/documents/legalpleading/enfforexcapitalorder020617.pdf] FXCM accepted the CFTC's investigation without admitting guilt, but paid $7 million and left the US. That's over and done with. No more FXCM dealing in the US, settlement paid, nothing left to litigate. So a clear statement about FCXM's ban in the lede is not inappropriate.

The remaining litigation and allegations involve other parties. FXCM was sending much of their order flow to an entity the CFTC calls "HFT Co", run by "HFT Trader". "HFT Trader" was an FXCM employee until he formed "HFT Co", which was initially located in FXCM's offices and paid 70% of its profits to FXCM. The CFTC did not take any action against "HFT Co" or "HFT Trader". The Wikipedia article doesn't name "HFT Co", but other sources identify it as "Effex Capital". Effex Capital is suing the National Futures Association for naming them as a unit of FXCM.[https://financefeeds.com/effex-capital-implicated-fxcm-us-problems-files-lawsuit-nfa/]. It appears that, while Effex was closely associated with FXCM (which is what we say in the article), they were not actually owned by them. So Effex is suing the NFA for libel. No matter who wins, FXCM stays banned in the US.

There are many lawsuits and class actions pending against FXCM and Effex by unhappy customers who lost money.[https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/06/22/1027477/0/en/Gainey-McKenna-Egleston-Announces-A-Consumer-Class-Action-Lawsuit-Has-Been-Filed-Against-FXCM-Inc-FXCM-now-known-as-Global-Brokerage-Inc-Frankfurt-YFX1-F.html][https://financefeeds.com/mega-lawsuit-fxcm-alleges-market-manipulation-fraud/] FXCM is the main defendant, but Effex is being drawn in as well. It's possible that the Effex/NFA libel litigation might affect whether Effex ends up having to pay up in those cases. But that's speculation at this point. We can just track the cases as they settle or get decided at trial.

As for the name issue in 3), that reflects the complexity of the corporate structure and a name change. The CFTC used the phrasing "Forex Capital Markets, LLC (FXCM), its parent company, FXCM Holdings, LLC (FXCM Holdings)".[http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr7528-17]. Since then, after being forced to cease operations in the US, FXCM Inc. changed its name to "Global Brokerage Inc".[http://www.reuters.com/article/fxcm-forex-idUSL1N1G60YY] There also appears to be an "FXCM Group" and a "Forex Capital Markets Limited or FXCM UK" unit, according to the Reuters link. The company web site is still "https://www.fxcm.com/", and operates as FXCM. So, despite all the reorganization, that seems to be the name under which they do business. The current first line of the article reads "FXCM is a retail foreign exchange broker owned by Global Brokerage Inc." Seems fair enough. It would take a whole paragraph to explain the corporate structure.

John Nagle (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you. Each editor has provided somewhat more than one or two paragraphs. The first issue is whether to include the ban from the US in the lede paragraph. The third is the full name and whether and where to state it. Will each of the editors please state, again, in one or two sentences, what the second issue is?

As to whether to include the US ban in the lede paragraph, please provide a one-sentence justification.

Since the editors are replying at more length than I had requested, it is possible that this case is more complicated than is appropriate for this noticeboard. If so, I may have to suggest that it be taken to formal mediation. In the meantime, please be concise. This noticeboard is for disputes that can be resolved in one to two weeks (or found not to be resolvable in one to two weeks).

Also, remember that each editor should reply to any posting by the moderator in no more than 48 hours. (That is in the rules. Please read them again.)

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

1. Location, not presence, of the ban within the lede is disputed. Proposed change would put the ban information after the introduction of the company and restore logical flow of the lede.

2. The issue is about "fraudulent misrepresentation" being a fact or allegation. Effex case against NFA shows that it is an allegation.

3. Before the removal, first sentence included both short- and long-form names: "FXCM, also known as Forex Capital Markets, is a retail foreign exchange market broker owned by Global Brokerage Inc."

Gouyoku (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

1. Exactly. The object of the proposed change is to hide the ban information which currently appears in Google search results. There is no source that says the ban didn't happen, so WP:WEIGHT is not an issue here.

2. CFTC order: "From September 4, 2009 through at least 2014 (the "Relevant Period"), FXCM and FXCM Holdings, by and through their officers, employees, and agents, including Respondents Niv and Ahdout, engaged in false and misleading solicitations of FXCM's retail foreign exchange ("forex") customers."[http://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/@lrenforcementactions/documents/legalpleading/enfforexcapitalorder020617.pdf]. FXCM agreed to that and waived review by any court. That's settled. Effex vs. the NFA is a separate issue. See above.

3. Is this an attempt to add padding to push the ban information out of Google search results? Otherwise, why does it matter? What about a third sentence in the lede covering the various units of the FXCM Group? See the bottom of this page.[https://www.fxcm.com/].

John Nagle (talk) 06:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: I must not have scrolled down far enough before to see whether this had actually opened. My apologies. The rules say that we should not edit the article during the DR. I just edited before checking here again. One of the new editors had just edited the lede to remove the fact that they were "booted out of the United States markets for illegal activity" with the misleading "FXCM have ceased trading in the United States following an order from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission." If the new editors continue to put in misleading statements in the article, especially in the lede, then I will withdraw from this DR and edit the article again. Is that ok with everybody?

1. A financial company's most important feature is the trust that its customers have in it. Phrases like "fraudulent misrepresentation" or "booted out of the US" properly convey the most important feature of the company and should be visible immediately to anybody who reads the article.

2. The CFTC banned FXCM for lying to its customers for 6 years. That's a settled legal matter. Effex Capital v. NFA at best has little to do with the CFTC order, and I don't think the trial has even opened yet. Why even include it?

3. The new editors edits to the lede have had the effect of pushing out the most important information on the company from the Google Knowledge box - multiple times without including new info into the article. Should edits like that which are pure SEO manipulation be allowed?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for being late contributing to this DR. I believe I am still within 48 hours of the last moderator comment so am OK to reply here. I am paid by FXCM as an independent PR agent so want to make this public in accordance with the conflict of interest policy.

1. The main crux of this discussion is around the opening two sentences used and how reference to the US CFTC ban in the US is included in Google's knowledge graph. One side suggests that it is severe enough to be included immediately where the other does not. While every page stands on its own merit, the inclusion of this information so early in the article (and with aggressive wording used like "booted out of the United States") seems to goes against the recentism article and simply isn't befitting of the way news like this is typically handled on Wikipedia.

There is no denying the importance of the presence of this information but the first paragraph is currently far too aggressive (in addition to being poorly cited and factually incorrect e.g. "now run from London after being booted out of the United States" - FXCM is still very much run from New York with many leading executives operating from the Financial District of Manhattan).

2. Nothing to add here

3. Not sure how the use of the full name can be in question? This was only changed so that it affected the knowledge graph. Why would Wikipedia possibly not elaborate on the abbreviated "FXCM" to "Forex Capital Markets"?

Lqdr (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

We will try to address at least the first issue, which has to do with the lede.

We will skip over the second dispute, which appears to have to do with the Effex/NFA lawsuit.

As to the first matter, the lede, why does the placement in the lede matter?

Will each editor please provide their own draft of the lede?

As to the third point, is there agreement that both the short form and the long form of the name can be provided?

Robert McClenon (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggested text: FXCM is a retail foreign exchange broker, now run from London after being banned in United States markets for illegal activity.

On ownership: It's complicated. FXCM itself writes, on their home page: The FXCM Group is headquartered at 55 Water Street, 50th Floor, New York, NY 10041 USA. Forex Capital Markets Limited ("FXCM LTD") is authorised and regulated in the UK by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registration number 217689. Registered in England and Wales with Companies House company number 04072877. FXCM Australia Pty. Limited ("FXCM AU") is regulated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, AFSL 309763. FXCM AU ACN: 121934432. FXCM Markets Limited ("FXCM Markets") is an operating subsidiary within the FXCM Group. FXCM Markets is not regulated and not subject to the regulatory oversight that govern other FXCM Group entities, which includes but is not limited to, Financial Conduct Authority, and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. FXCM Global Services, LLC is an operating subsidiary within the FXCM Group. FXCM Global Services, LLC is not regulated and not subject to regulatory oversight.[https://www.fxcm.com/] They don't even mention Global Brokerage. Global Brokerage now writes they only own 37.5% of the FXCM Group.[http://ir.globalbrokerage.info/]. "globalbrokerage.info" redirects to "fxcm.com". Some of this may have changed recently, but the Internet Archive is down today and I can't check right now. John Nagle (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

: (Minor factual update: that 37.5% ownership was 50.1% back in March 2017, so it did change.[https://web.archive.org/web/20170302101543/http://ir.globalbrokerage.info/]) John Nagle (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

1. The placement in the Wikipedia:LEDE matters significantly due to exposure from branded searches. Thousands of people across the world search for "FXCM" on a monthly basis. Using a phrase like "Booted out of the United States" instead of "ceased trading in the United States" is extremely damaging for obvious reasons (especially when people have such implicit trust in Wikipedia) and to use it in the first couple of sentences means it appears in Google's knowledge graph. Yes people have a right to know about the unlawful things some senior execs at FXCM have done but to such a great extent is too severe and again, doesn't befit the way news like this is handled on similar pages.

- As a paid moderator and in accordance with the the conflict of interest policy, I cannot change the Wikipedia:LEDE myself. But I think one of the recent edits for the LEDE is a fair balance between the inclusion of this news and factually representing what FXCM do:

FXCM, also known as Forex Capital Markets, is a retail foreign exchange market broker owned by Global Brokerage Inc.{{cite web|title=Global Brokerage? What’s in FXCM’s new name?|url=http://financefeeds.com/global-brokerage-whats-fxcms-new-name/|website=Finance Feeds|publisher=Finance Feeds}} As of February 6, 2017, FXCM ceased trading in the United States following a court order from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the subsequent sale of all their 47,000 US accounts to GAIN Capital{{cite web|title=Global Brokerage confirms completion of FXCM US assets sale to GAIN Capital|url=https://financefeeds.com/global-brokerage-confirms-completion-fxcm-us-assets-sale-gain-capital/|publisher=Finance Feeds|accessdate=1 March 2017}}. They continue to operate in other markets such as the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany and France. They do not expect market maker repercussions in their other market countries like those experienced in the USA{{cite news|title=Exclusive: FXCM UK does not expect market maker repercussions like in the US|url=https://www.leaprate.com/forex/brokers/exclusive-fxcm-uk-not-expect-market-maker-repercussions-like-us/|accessdate=May 18, 2017|publisher=LeapRate|date=May 18, 2017}}. FXCM allows retail clients to speculate on the foreign exchange market. FXCM also provides trading in contract for difference (CFDs) on major indices and commodities such as gold and crude oil.

3. Again, not sure how it's a question that the full name of FXCM is used. "FXCM, also known as Forex Capital Markets" was the introduction to the Wikipedia page for the longest time and no one had a problem with this. It was only removed to alter the knowledge graph. To remove facts to achieve this seems a bit strange.

Thanks,

Lqdr (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talk}}

1. Certainly WP:Lede should be reread by all, including

:It should "explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

The most important point about any financial business is why their customers do (or do not) trust them with their money. If there is no trust, there is no financial business. Financial business is the only business where customers "give" the business large sums of money and all they get back is a promise to return the money (under certain conditions in the case of brokerages). FXCM violated that trust for years concerning the central selling point of their business. They got caught several times on "non-core" violations. Then they got caught lying about the central selling point of their business - that unlike other retail forex brokers, they didn't have a conflict of interest with their customers.

The company was not notable before they were kicked out of the US - the article was deleted twice. Their regulatory problems are the central reason for their notability and must be included.

:"For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence" WP:Lede

2. Effex (maybe later)

3. There is general agreement here about the new editors trying to change the lede for SEO purposes. E.G Lqdr would like to push the controversies down in the Wikipedia article in order to remove it from Google Knowledge Graph. All I can say is that has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. It violates WP:NOT in so many ways: No ads, No PR, No Marketing, No Promotion. We shouldn't let the company or its paid representative dictate the placement of material within an article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

1. Placement of the recent scandal in the middle of company description is out of place. It breaks the logical flow of the lede as currently it follow this pattern: description of company, recent scandal, description of company, recent scandal. My proposal:

FXCM, also known as Forex Capital Markets, is a retail foreign exchange broker owned by Global Brokerage Inc.{{cite web|title=Global Brokerage? What’s in FXCM’s new name?|url=http://financefeeds.com/global-brokerage-whats-fxcms-new-name/|website=Finance Feeds|publisher=Finance Feeds}} FXCM allows retail clients to speculate on the foreign exchange market. FXCM also provides trading in contract for difference (CFDs) on major indices and commodities such as gold and crude oil. As of February 6, 2017, FXCM ceased trading in the United States following an order from CFTC and NFA for illegal activity{{cite web|title=Learn Why The NFA Barred FXCM And What It Means For Forex Traders|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2017/03/01/learn-why-the-nfa-barred-fxcm-and-what-it-means-for-forex-traders/#3275ffc5177c/|website=Forbes|publisher=Forbes}}. They've stated that they do not expect market maker repercussions in the UK like those experienced in the United States{{cite news|title=Exclusive: FXCM UK does not expect market maker repercussions like in the US|url=https://www.leaprate.com/forex/brokers/exclusive-fxcm-uk-not-expect-market-maker-repercussions-like-us/|accessdate=May 18, 2017|publisher=LeapRate|date=May 18, 2017}}.

2. Skipping and not including this part in the lede proposal as per request.

3. I agree that both names can be provided. As the information was present in the article since 2010, and it was removed without a good reason, it should be reinstated.

Gouyoku (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{reflist-talk}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Cagadhiig|18:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as apparently abandoned. There has been no recent discussion on the article talk page. Editors should discuss on the article talk page. If discussion is unsuccessful, see WP:DISCFAIL. A new thread can be opened here if discussion is inconclusive. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Erigavo#Demographics}}

Users involved

• {{User|Cagadhiig}}
• {{User|Kzl55}}

Dispute overview

The editor provided incorrect information on the Somali clans that inhabitant the town of Erigavo. I have endeavoured to provide tangible and credible sources to convince the editor of his incorrect assertion, however, the editor maintains his stance and will not compromise to reach a viable solution.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have talked to the user on my talk page.

How do you think we can help?

You can asses the sources i provided as well as the sources he provided and by establishing which is more credible find a solution which is in enforced.

• Volunteer note - While there has been discussion at the article talk page, it has been minimal. More discussion at the article talk page is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - There has not been any further discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Fleets|14:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as apparently not an appropriate dispute. This doesn't appear to be a dispute about a single article (or closely related articles). If it is, the filing editor hasn't said what article. (They have indicated a general subject area, rugby league, but we have many articles on rugby players and rugby teams. Also, this appears to be stated as a dispute about editor conduct. The editors are asked to discuss content issues on the appropriate article talk pages. It is better to discuss content issues than to report editor conduct, but editor conduct can be reported at WP:ANI, or at the edit-warring noticeboard if the conduct issue is edit-warring. If either of the editors has any general questions about how to edit collaboratively, they may ask at the Teahouse. Read the dispute resolution policy, which provides multiple ways to discuss and resolve issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|User talk:LibStar}}
• {{pagelinks|User talk:Fleets}}

Users involved

• {{User|Fleets}}
• {{User|LibStar}}

Dispute overview

An sole purpose editor continually removes uncited material without putting in any steps to resolve the issues. The material is removed, but nothing is put in place to improve the situation, numerous articles are gutted, with very little creative input on the positive side.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted reasoning, but user in question goes nuclear and it is impossible to engage.

How do you think we can help?

Would like to see a positive inpact that sees uncited material being escalated, not whole sections of careers removed from articles. Would like to encourage the citing of material, not simply the removal of material. Numerous editors have been scared off by Libstars bark, but I feel it best to attempt to get a third party to intervene to stop the gutting of material, and instead move forwards to having more and more material cited, not less and less on wikipedia.

I find it surprised that Fleets has come here. I thought this forum was a place for content dispute rather than an avenue where someone doesn't like another editor's edits. But I am happy to explain my side.

We both edit rugby league articles and there has been a problematic editor of {{user links|Holden V8}} who has for years been adding large amounts of uncited material on rugby league articles. In fact Holden was indefinitely blocked today for this ongoing behaviour.

A few days ago, I removed material over 4 years old uncited at {{la|Michael Hancock (rugby league)}} . Fleets comes a few days later and reinstates that and other edits including [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Hancock_%28rugby_league%29&type=revision&diff=791615359&oldid=791615179] to version he describes as last "good version" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Hancock_%28rugby_league%29&type=revision&diff=791793167&oldid=791792153]. However the characterisation of good version implies all my edits not just removal of uncited material as not good. Fleets has had a pattern of turning up to the same articles within a few hours as me and reverting my edits. He makes it out as simple wanting to edit league articles but there is a deeper motive I suspect.

Examples of appearing at same article as me to revert my edits (which are not necessarily removal of uncited material):

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max_Krilich&action=history]
• reverting my edits here when in another editor said removal of red links is acceptable [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Goddard_(rugby_league)&action=history]. In fact this specific behaviour of Fleets indicated to me he is not about my removal of uncited material but wants to get back at me at any edit even if legitimate.

All my edits have been consistent with WP policy in particular WP:BURDEN. Some of these league articles have had years of uncited material and the onus is on those adding or restoring to find the citations. Fleets chooses to blindly revert and I suspect because he simply sees it's my edits. Hence my claim of wikihounding.

2 months ago I told Fleets to stop following me as it was approaching WP:WIKIHOUNDING. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFleets&type=revision&diff=779663990&oldid=779519549] he did stop but denied it was following but returns today and wants to turn this into a dispute. LibStar (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Willard84|05:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed due to two problems. On the one hand, no one has volunteered to moderate. On the other hand, no one has said anything in a week. The original complaint involved sockpuppetry, which should be reported at SPI. Disruptive editing can be reported at Arbitration Enforcement. Otherwise, discuss at the article talk page. See WP:DISCFAIL if discussion is attempted and is unsuccessful. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|1988 Gilgit Massacre}}

Users involved

• {{User|Willard84}}
• {{User|Excelse}}

Dispute overview

A confirmed sockpuppet User:Towns Hill on 31 Dec 2016 mentions the allegation that OBL was recruited by the Pakistani Army for this. As noted on the talk page for 1988 Gilgit Massacre, User:Fredepd the allegation is sourced from only B. Raman, who was a founder of India's intelligence agency. The entire 1988 Gilgit Massacre page, however, has since that 31 Dec 2016 edit reflected the allegations only of B. Raman, a former Indian spy. Another user, as noted on talk page, also took note that the allegation was made by only Raman.

The US Institute of Peace noted that the massacre was actually in response to a rumor that Sunnis had been killed.[{{cite web|last1=Hunzai|first1=Izhar|title=Conflict Dynamics in Gilgit-Baltistan|url=https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR321.pdf|publisher=United States Institute of Peace|accessdate=5 July 2017|quote=In 1988, a rumor alleging a Sunni massacre at the hands of Shias resulted in an attack by thousands of armed tribesmen from the south, the killing of nearly four hundred Shias}} source] This is what the page had said prior to the sock puppet making his edits on 31 December 2016. Several other sources make reference to the massacre, but the only ones making reference to OBL are from Raman himself. Despite this, another user is intent on making sure the page reflects the allegations of Raman himself.

{{reflist-talk}}

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

talk page, but he keeps reverting (even re-instating large amounts of plagiarized information), and thinks the fact that the allegation was mentioned in a single other source is corroboration enough.

How do you think we can help?

Can we agree that while Raman's allegations deserve a mention, the entire page should not be just about Raman's allegations.

I wasn't copying plagiarized content but I rewrote after reverting. There is consensus now on talk page that Raman should be treated as fact for Osama, and Osama can be removed from lead. And this should also apply on Osama Bin Laden the main article, because this information has been older than Raman reliable source and has been stated by many reliable sources. Excelse (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Do not make allegations of sock puppetry here. Report sock puppetry at WP:SPI. However, the sockpuppet has already been blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|EnigmaMcmxc|22:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as no response. None of the editors replied to a request to summarize the dispute within 48 hours. The editors should resume discussion on the article talk page. Be aware that editing against consensus is disruptive. Edit-warring may be reported at the edit-warring noticeboard. Other disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI. Do not restart World War Two. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Battle for Caen}}

Users involved

• {{User|EnigmaMcmxc}}
• {{User|Wdford}}
• {{User|Damwiki1}}
• {{User|Keith-264}}

Dispute overview

Two sides are involved in a prolonged discussion (most of the current talk page and several sections in the latest archive), on how to include and how best describe the various controversies surrounding the battle. Outside opinion is requested to help move the dialogue forward towards a successful outcome.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive talk page discussion. Previously, there was a RFC. A 3rd opinion was requested, and turned down due to there being multiple editors involved. Further development of the article, and further disagreement on the talk page on how best to deal with the issue.

How do you think we can help?

Examine the discussion, and provide an outside opinion in an effort to push the conversation towards a constructive conclusion.

The article has come a long way since the beginning of my involvement, but as it stands it is still not neutral. Some of the events at the battle remain controversial, including a) Montgomery claimed everything went according to his plan, but actually a lot of things did not; b) Montgomery mislead his superiors about his intentions for certain aspects of the battle, which almost resulted in him being dismissed. This has been reported by several of the most reliable sources, and is even alluded to by Montgomery himself, although with much defensiveness. My position remains that we need to follow WP:NPOV, and include all the viewpoints of the reliable sources, without any editorial bias. Certain editors are flatly refusing to allow that to happen, and have actively edit-warred to keep this information out of the article. Apart from various ad hominem attacks, their "defenses" have included that this article is somehow the wrong place for this information; that including a few paragraphs on this aspect of the battle would distort the article via WP:UNDUE; that I am trying to convert the article into an "anti-Monty diatribe"; and even that I am trying to make it look like the Battle for Normandy was actually an Allied defeat. After much arguing the article has slowly included a few of the contended points, but still in a manner carefully worded to distort certain facts. Other aspects of the controversy are still not being allowed in at all. For weeks I have patiently ignored the ad hominem attacks and have responded with detailed extracts from reliable sources, but to no avail. Wdford (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The Article The Battle for Caen is about the series of battles that led to the capture of the city and the actual consequences of those battles. The "controversy" is about interpersonal relations between the Allied High Command revolving around Montgomery that had no actual bearing on the battle nor did it effect the way the battle was fought. In short, Monty's plan was for the Commonwealth forces to attract and pin the bulk of the German armoured divisions around Caen, while the US Army would capture Brest, and then push west into Brittany through Saint Lo and also wheel around the Commonwealth forces and drive east towards the Seine river. There is no doubt that the German army did commit the bulk of their armour against the Commonwealth forces that were pushing up against Caen, and that the US Army did not have to face these strong units while performing their part in Montgomery's plan. Wdford is trying to state that this was not Montgomery's plan and to do so he has to use authors who rely on an incredibly complex web of anecdotal evidence. Consequently, I have argued that the "controversy" needs to be explored in a separate article since the overwhelming weight of historical opinion is against what Wdford is trying to put forward. Putting in his "summary" into the article will give undue weight to a very minority position amongst historians and lead to endless edit wars as other editors will continually try to remove it, or worse, expand the article to explore it in detail until the article is no longer about the Battle for Caen but becomes an article about the "war between the generals". Another factor here is Wdford's repeated abuse of of editors, which has been ignored hitherto but it hardly inspires confidence in what he proposes. Damwiki1 (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

An editor took an interest in a dormant article, which attracted attention. Differences arose over the purpose of the article which led to revert frenzy and the attraction of two other editors, followed by a fifth. Four editors broadly agree what the article is for but the original editor enthusiastically promotes a point of view not shared by the others. Only the constraint of the 3rr rule now that that editor is outnumbered 4:1 is keeping the peace on the article page but the dispute has moved to the talk page. I fear that as soon as scrutiny diminishes, the minority version will reappear to the detriment of the article. Keith-264 (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been extensive discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I am opening this dispute for moderated discussion. Please read the ground rules at User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules. You are expected to have read them and to conduct yourself according to them. Be civil. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not edit the article while discussion here is in progress.

Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what the issues are? It is my understanding that one of the issues has to do not so much with the battle itself as with historiography of the battle and the assessment of Montgomery. Please summarize any concerns both about historiography of the battle and any other concerns. (I am not an expert on the battle and I expect the editors to provide me with the details about the battle.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Hidden Tempo|01:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed. As noted, this dispute is also being discussed at the neutral point of view noticeboard. This noticeboard will not accept a case that is also pending in another forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The comment is made that mediation might be useful. Because of the large number of editors, this dispute is unlikely to be the sort of case that can be resolved here, but could be a candidate for formal mediation if the case at NPOVN can be resolved, closed, or transferred. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The subject matter of this case falls within the American politics dispute, so that disruptive editing can be reported to Arbitration Enforcement, but it would be better to keep this dispute either at NPOVN or to take it to formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:James Comey#.22Convoluted.22_and_.22Not_neutral.22.2F.22POV.22_content_discussion}}

Users involved

• {{User|Hidden Tempo}}
• {{User|Cbs527}}
• {{User|TheTimesAreAChanging}}
• {{User|JFG}}
• {{User|Masem}}
• {{User|Volunteer Marek}}
• {{User|Power~enwiki}}
• {{User|Objective3000}}
• {{User|Slatersteven}}
• {{User|MrX}}

Dispute overview

Please note there is also an ongoing (very long) discussion going on at the NPOV noticeboard: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Who_is_to_blame_for_the_defeat_of_Hillary_Clinton_in_the_2016_election.3F]. This discussion centers around three main issues:

1) This sentence in the lead is POV and cites bloggers/journalists as "analysts": "His role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, particularly with regard to his public communications, was highly controversial.[7] His decisions are viewed by some analysts as having possibly cost Clinton the election."

2) The last paragraph of the lead regarding James Comey's dismissal is excessively long and purposefully eliminates Donald Trump's reasons that he gave for the dismissal. Additionally, the fact that Comey testified that Trump never asked him to drop the Russia investigation should go in the lead (if we can't all agree to shorten it to one or two sentences), as it is in [Dismissal of James Comey]. Otherwise it's still extremely POV.

3) Two stories reported only by the New York Times (but cited by other sources) and unverified independently by any other media outlet should be put into context accordingly, i.e. "According to the New York Times," "Trump reportedly called Comey a nut job." No other source has independently reported the two stories in question ("Trump called Comey a nut job" and "[Russia pressure] is taken off now") and it should be made clear that the New York Times is the source of this material, rather stated as fact in WikiVoice.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive talk page discussion, VERY extensive NPOV/noticeboard discussion, multiple WP:BRD cycles.

How do you think we can help?

There seems to be a lot of built-up animosity and adhering to content out of spite and WP:OWN problems. It would be very beneficial to have some mediation to help keep things cool and focused on the content, rather than the editors. We would also benefit from keeping things on track (instead of going off on side debates), and encouragement to compromise rather than a simple "my material vs. your material" type battleground situation. Thank you!

There's a pretty clear consensus on both the article's talk page and the NPOV board. HiddenTempo doesn't like this consensus and their response has been to pester people, harangue them and prolong the dispute past any reasonable point. This DR/N request is just more of the same. The dispute is pretty much HiddenTempo vs. the world (though he keeps pretending there are users who agree with them, which forces them to correct him in that regard), in other words, there really is no dispute to resolve. This isn't a WP:DRN matter,

it's a WP:DROPTHESTICK matter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any position on the content disputes yet, but I agree the discussion has gone out of control, both on the talk page and on WP:NPOV/N. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|resolved}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=They agreed to disagree.... Winged Blades ^Godric 03:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)}}

{{drn filing editor|Supermann|18:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Batman v_Superman:_Dawn_of_Justice#Plot_Summary}}

Users involved

• {{User|Supermann}}
• {{User|Bignole}}
• {{User|DonQuixote}}

Dispute overview

User: BIGNOLE said because the funeral held for Superman at Arlington National Cemetery is not directly mentioned by the film itself, like it was not in the lines uttered by some character or no on-screen caption, ecetera, then the funeral has no place in the Plot Summary. User: DonQuixote agreed as well thinking this is just fiction, why so serious. However, I think it's our duty to educate the readers if we have secondary source saying the funeral was held at Arlington. Whether it was physically filmed in Arlington is not the crux of the debate anymore. This detail is not irrelevant

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

exhausting discussion with the two editors.Redacted.

How do you think we can help?

allow me to add four little words "and Arlington National Cemetery" at the end of "A memorial is held for Superman in Metropolis" in the last paragraph of the plot summary.

• Reply to volunteer--So that's it? The involved sentences can't be modified into something like "Funerals/Memorials were held for Superman at Smallville, Arlington National Cemetery and Metropolis" (in that cinematic order)? I don't want to add my own synthesis as to why the director Zack Snyder didn't bother to identify Arlington. Could it have been that he, as an American, assumes audience or expects at least his fellow Americans to recognize the place without further ID? So when could we use IAR then? Thanks.

Supermann (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Reply to volunteer--{{ping|Winged Blades of Godric}}: Ben Kendrick, managing editor of Screenrant.com at http://screenrant.com/batman-v-superman-ending-explained-darkseid/, wrote, "the U.S army buries an empty black and silver casket (bearing a striking resemblance to the Man of Steel’s rebirth suit in “The Death of Superman”) in Arlington Cemetery." Apparently, he thinks it's important enough for him to point that out to readers. I don't know why everybody else has to be so stubborn in not allowing IAR for adding four little words. We have already exceeded the word limits for the plot summary. Four extra words won't offend the style guidelines that much. I am not stepping on predecessors to remove their contributions. I just can't get where the stubbornness comes from. The style guidelines specifically mentions exceptions are allowed. Pls let me know what other recourse I have for further appeal. Many thanks. Supermann (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• The so-called standing conventions come from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style. At the very top of that page, it says, "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." So I am beseeching you when exactly do you plan to allow the exception? If I could find the reference for Arlington as a filmed location, I would have found it already. Putting Arlington into other sections is not the exception that I am seeking. That being said, I am still waiting for the Bluray arrival to check this out. You guys have made Wikipedia not the last sanctuary from a tough economic environment for journalists. I strongly believe that back in the old days, there would have been plenty of citations for the filming locations on Arlington. But right now we just don't have enough people to write about that, leaving me with no choice other than begging you guys to put it in the plot summary. Supermann (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• {{ping|DonQuixote}}: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote."
• {{ping|DonQuixote}}: That quote is straight from the consensus policy you cited. Ctrl/Command+F to find it. I am not lying.
• {{ping|DonQuixote}}: The spirit of that quote hasn't been reflected in this resolution process.Supermann (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• {{ping|DonQuixote}}: Then you are violating that quote again.
• {{ping|Winged Blades of Godric}} You really have to give me a specific case/example on that scenario you had just introduced. I have become quite dis-heartened at this point. Thanks to you guys! Supermann (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• {{ping|Winged Blades of Godric}} So {{ping|GoldenRing}} did become an admin. Congrats. I like his answer on Q5. My paraphrase: don't let all the other rules make this place too authoritarian. Kudos to {{ping|Kudpung}} on IAR, too. As for my "personal attacks", I apologize for them to be interpreted as attacks. I was just trying to understand their background and why they thought like a stubborn lawyer. I hope movies could unite us instead of dividing us. In my eyes, Superman should be a uniting figure. I am an immigrant, not white. Yet I totally bought into the message from Superman, who is technically a white illegal immigrant. There are definitely stuff in the plot summary right now that could be trimmed and made room for Arlington. But I guess we reached a point where no concession could be made for just four little words. If I could find citation to back Arlington in a different section, I would do it and seek so-called consensus. But if the other editors just can't compromise on adding those four words in plot summary, Let's agree to disagree.Supermann (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Film plots are written based on what happens in the film. We don't include information that is not directly stated, no matter if we know better. For example, we know that Harvey Dent is actually Two-Face in The Dark Knight, but we don't call him that because the film doesn't call him there. In this case, the film never says where Superman is buried, even if keen observers know what Arlington Cemetery looks like. In addition, the location is irrelevant to the overall summary of the plot. We're trying to keep minute details out, and focus on overall story. Supermannn appears to think that somehow we are doing a disservice to the actual Arlington Cemetery and the United States by not explicitly pointing out where he was buried (ignoring the fact that the film itself doesn't even point it out).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• :The same that I thought before, it's a reviewer who says this. It isn't stated in the film that that is where he is buried, nor is there any indication other than someone saying "I know what Arlington Cemetary looks like". The problem with using this is that it's synthesis for one, because we know that filmmakers use real locations in the place of fictional films. A museum in Michigan was used for the scenes where Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot interact, but we aren't to assume they are actually in Michigan. The fact that we have to go through such lengths to identify a specific location in which a fictional character was buried and shown for a grand total of like 20 seconds, should be enough to show that the element is trivial at best. It appears that Supermannn only wants to include it because of the significance of the cemetery in real life. Given that the plot section is already over word count, I would still be against specifically identifying 1 specific cemetery (we don't specifically call out Smallville town cemetery) that is never identified in the film, simply because it has real life significance and a reviewer mentions it by name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The primary source doesn't mention Arlington Cemetery, so it probably shouldn't be mentioned in the plot summary which is implicitly citing the primary source. Also user:Supermann has tried to insert the claim that the scene was filmed in Arlington Cemetery by citing a source that doesn't say anything like that. Finding a source that actually says this should be acceptable and can be included in other, more appropriate, sections of the article. DonQuixote (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• :Ditto(of Bignole). Movies sometimes use footage of real places to represent fictional places. Unless the primary sources make their intentions clear, it shouldn't be automatically assumed to be the real place. Also, if a source says something like "filmed at ANC", then we can cite that and put it in a footnote or in the Production section. DonQuixote (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• :{{ping|Supermann}} {{tq|So I am beseeching you when exactly do you plan to allow the exception?}}
• :A good rule of thumb is when there's more than one person requesting it. That is, when you form a consensus. DonQuixote (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• :{{ping|Supermann}} Er...I don't know what you're responding to, because I never said anything like what you wrote.... DonQuixote (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• :{{ping|Supermann}} Yes, I know you were quoting it, but why? I haven't said anything of the things that that quote relates to.... DonQuixote (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• :{{ping|Supermann}} Everyone else made arguments, based on policy, that the current edit is fine as-is. You're the only one who thinks otherwise. One person doesn't make a consensus. DonQuixote (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment'--
• {{Re|Supermann}}--Keeping your own views/research/synthesis away for a while; can you point to some critical reviews in relibale sources that attach the funeral scenes with ANC and lends a non-trivial importance?Winged Blades ^Godric 18:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Much of the good things that are usually uttered at DRN have been already told to you at the talk page.Winged Blades ^Godric 18:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• And comment on content, {{red|not}} on traits of contributors.Winged Blades ^Godric 18:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• {{Re|Supermann}}-- I take the liberty to assume, from your reply, that you have failed to find any RS supporting either that it was filmed in ANC or that the funeral in ANC had any importance.Also, neither does the film points out the name--ANC ever in it's entire run-time.In such circumstances, my best advice for you would be to leave the hopes of inserting ANC in the article.Winged Blades ^Godric 09:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

::Also, ignoring all rules seems to occupy the center-stage of most of your arguments.I would thus advice you to go through this essential corollary.Winged Blades ^Godric 09:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• {{ping|Bignole|DonQuixote}}--What do you think about the quality/reliabilty of the afore-mentioned source?Winged Blades ^Godric 16:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• {{Re|Bignole|DonQuixote}}--Thanks for your opinions!Winged Blades ^Godric 08:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• {{Re|Supermann}}--
• Per standing conventions{{red|Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.}} the Plot Section houses only such details of the story-line which may be easily verified by a world-wide audience upon viewing the film, without any specialist knowledge.This is violated when ANC is inserted.I have watched the film prev. and I hardly knew about the location!To give you something of an analogy there are websites dedicated to discover importance cum significance of the trivialest of trivial scenes in GOT, Harry-potter movies et al.That hardly means all those synthesises get inserted into the concerned en.wiki articles.
• In many film(s), there is an interpretation section but that is used chiefly when a lot of critical reviews etc. have commented on a specific scene/the ending/the message and have derived their own meanings!--thus guaranteeing the notability and non-triviality of the matter.I fail to see any such importance being accorded to the case in our hand.
• Obviously, your best bet in inserting the info in some form is to find a source that states The film( or more specifically these scenes) was/were shot at ANC.
• Volunteer comment:--IAR and the phrase:--exceptions apply--hardly trump consensus.These were mainly added to avoid something of a situation like where a local group of five/six editors determined that an edit improves the quality of an article but goes against some or the other policy but a seventh person appeared and reverted the edits only because it violated a policy.That's not the case here!

:As to your other concerns, I'm but undone!And we're not some royal folks to be begged to! Never get dis-heartened!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment:--Everybody, please stop the back-and-forth.Winged Blades ^Godric 08:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment:--It may be prudential for {{U|Supermann}} to kindly read about beating a dead horse and why I don't get it style of arguments are discouraged. Further, WP is not a very good place for lawyers to try their business and it will be beneficial for you and the community in large if you shift your arguments from the IAR axis and cease to believe that you are our sole {{blue|patriotic American}} with {{blue|common-sense}}. We can take great efforts to make sure a community member understands our policies but we all have {{red|limited}} good faith attitude and it's not very prudential for anyone to tread on the border-line.Winged Blades ^Godric 08:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment:--Talking about application of WP:IAR see {{noping|Kudpung}}'s vote at this RfA but that did not meant that he had the entire chance to be correct and as it turned out--it was a close call--which favored him!Winged Blades ^Godric 08:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment:--Thanks for your understanding!If you could find a citation to insert Arlington in a different section, go for it!

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{Reflist}}

{{DR case status|resolved}}

{{drn filing editor|Supermann|21:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Apparently resolved. There has been no objection in the past 48 hours to the proposal that the current version of the article, which does not include runtime statistics, is satisfactory. If runtime is significant, it can be noted in the Notes column. While this seems to be the consensus, it is not binding. Any changes to the article can be discussed on the article talk page. If necessary, there can be a Request for Comments, which is binding. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Film censorship_in_China#Runtime_columns}}

Users involved

• {{User|Supermann}}
• {{User|TenTonParasol}}

Dispute overview

Some editors, but primarily TenTonParasol, think having a runtime column for censored films in China and adding The Mummy (2017 film) is OR, violates NPOV against Chinese Communist Party (CCP), SOAPBOXing, SYNTH and all that stuff. However, I would argue it's not since the CCP's argument on censorship has been fully documented and having the runtime column provides a quantitative approach to the page. How else could one explain the difference in runtime minutes, were it not for censorship when China does have a censor which has the final say on movie release?

As for The Mummy, even TenTonParasol admitted that "Personally, I agree with you that The Mummy is probably censored."

I would have really liked to go for mediation, since I have been invoking IAR, if not the fifth pillar: Wikipedia has no firm rules, for a legitimate reason. This is not to mention Wikipedia itself has been and still is a censorship victim in China. I shouldn't even have to invoke the late Dr. Liu Xiaobo here to beg for the consideration that censorship should be properly documented.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Exhausting discussion on the talk page primarily between us. Other editors in the so-called consensus could well flip, if TenTonParasol changes her mind.

How do you think we can help?

You can help by commenting if IAR or the fifth pillar could apply here to make that Film Censorship in China page much better by having the runtime columns and an entry regarding The Mummy. Many thanks.

The dispute is over the inclusion of runtime columns in the article noting the original runtime of the film and the runtime of the film as released in China. Supermann advocated for the inclusion of the columns as a means to present evidence that a film was censored. Multiple other editors, including myself, asserted that the presentation of a runtime difference as sole evidence of censorship is original research as it makes an interpretative statement about primary source facts; all statements of censorship should be made by a secondary source. About a month ago, consensus was formed that runtime columns should not be included and that films should be included in the tables on the basis of secondary sources stating the film has been censored by a state body. We as editors cannot put forward an explanation for why a difference in runtime exists; we must find secondary sources that do so. At this time, in a discussion between mostly myself and Supermann, Supermann challenged consensus, feeling that enough time has passed for it to shift and citing IAR allows for the exception to the runtime columns and the inclusion of certain films.

As for the quote Supermann added of me in his summary of the dispute, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Film_censorship_in_China&diff=790731821&oldid=790731285 my full quote was]: "Personally, I agree with you that The Mummy is probably censored. Does my opinion matter a damn whit? No. If there is no secondary source containing the word "censored" in it, we cannot say that it was censored." I do not appreciate being misquoted.

I maintain firmly that IAR is not grounds to ignore the verifiability and neutral point of view policies; they are also members of the five pillars and are much more core. If we can ignore verifiability policies and NPOV, it becomes a free for all. It also does not allow for pushing an article as a platform for advocacy and, though DRN is not the place to discuss editor behavior, Supermann has been editing tendentiously. The mention of Liu Xiaobo has no relevance to the topic nor how Wikipedia policies ought to be documented. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

To clarify about history of the discussion of the dispute, it was discussed a month ago at Talk:Film censorship in China#Changes, and before that briefly at the bottom of the section at Talk:Film censorship in China#Lost City of Z & Dangal. Both also deal with the inclusion of films. Editors involved in previous discussions are: {{ping|Erik|Hoverfish|Kmhkmh|CWH|Alex_Shih|p=}}, though all discussion from the past two weeks are between myself and Supermann. I am unsure if they are considered part of the dispute at hand, and so am unsure if I ought to formally add them, but I am pinging them as a means to invite them. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The other editor has been notified. This volunteer is not entirely sure what is meant by a runtime column, but it is up to the moderator to get the editors to explain the issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• :In an attempt to clarify what is meant by runtime columns at this stage, much of the article is lists of films in table format and the dispute is over whether a column should be added to the table noting differing runtime of the films. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Film_censorship_in_China&oldid=785341359 This oldid of the article] is a version in which these columns existed in the article, "Original runtime" and "Runtime in China", before they were removed. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment - I am neither accepting nor declining the case, but now I infer that the reduction in runtime of a movie indicates how much of the movie was taken out by the censor. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please read the rules in User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they believe the issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Two movie runtime columns of the prevailing release and China release, backed up by secondary sources such as BBFC, AMCTheaters for the prevailing and Douban, Maoyan for Chinese, would give a quantitative picture of the censorship issue. Once we could have those columns, then we don't necessarily need to wait for text-based secondary sources to call out if films like The Mummy (2017 film) is censored or not. Text-based secondary sources sometimes lack the will, the manpower, or budget to write such revealing articles, given the overall censoring climate of the country. On the list, for example, The Matrix Reloaded, Resident Evil: Afterlife, Prometheus (2012 film), Resident Evil: Retribution, Fury (2014 film), Resident Evil: Retribution, Rush (2013 film), Allied (film) all lack good text-based secondary sources, despite the China Film Insider citation calls them so and we could guess the censorship reason being violence and sexual content. But of course what I am trying to say is once we are aware of secondary sources writing a specific movie, we would cite them immediately as further backup to give more context and analysis. I don't think the columns would be trampling on WP policies to the extent of being outrageous. Despite the other editor say, "runtime difference does not always mean state censorship and state censorship does not always mean runtime difference", based on the list of 37 released yet edited films, only three were possibly not the direct work of state censors pre-release. But the state censors come into play once again absolutely and definitively, given the June 2017 notice to ban all complete and uncensored version. So the censorship problem based on the current population is 92% (34 divided by 37) if not 100%. Wait a minute, you know what, according to a new Chinese citation that I just discovered at https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Ju70xqyC5heBTivbD_OEiA, I have under-counted another 55 edited films from 2010-2017 that were simply not reported by western media. Runtime columns would have clearly shown this and I have independently verified the situation. But I know the other editor dislikes INDISCRIMINATE.Supermann (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Films listed as censored must be verified by secondary sources. Always, full stop. These two columns—one for the original runtime and one for the runtime in China—were used state that films were censored because "there is a ten minute difference between the two columns". The issue is not that runtimes themselves are unsourced; they are sourced. These columns and editor speculation for the difference in values were used in place of secondary sources. The fact that there was a difference between the two columns was used to say that a film was censored, often without any citation to a secondary source supporting such a statement. Regardless, runtime difference does not always mean state censorship and state censorship does not always mean runtime difference, refuting that the deduction is "apparent". Because of this, these columns were removed by consensus. Reimplementing them will reintroduce original research. We cannot make statements based on our own interpretations, then wait for secondary sources to confirm. We must always cite to secondary sources, and never insert our own interpretation. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

First, stop editing the article. That includes stop adding movies to the list. Did you read the instructions?

Second, the article currently does not have a runtime column. Is one editor saying that it should? An editor points out, correctly, that we should not be doing original research. If the runtime of the original and the runtime in China are different, can this be mentioned, if properly sourced, in the Notes? Will each editor please state, again, in one paragraph, what they think should be done differently in the article, if anything?

Indeed, Supermann is asking that the columns be reinstated. Yes, if a runtime is significant to note, contextualized, and properly sourced, current consensus is to note it in the notes column. Examples of this on the page currently include Cloud Atlas, Alien: Covenant, and Iron Man 3. I believe nothing ought to be done to the article regarding this matter. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 05:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Apologies on the continuous edits earlier, because I happened to stumble upon rare new findings. As indicated by TenTonParasol earlier at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Film_censorship_in_China&oldid=785341359, that was the version of two runtime columns that I had implemented when I initially created the page. It's a quantitative/mathematical approach to display the censorship issue. The Douban citation for the Chinese release runtime actually shows the two different runtimes on their website as well. If one doesn't understand Chinese, s/he could just use translation extension in its browser and would immediately verify what I had said is true. So in my mind, Douban, if not Maoyan has already explicitly concluded that the censorship exists by using numbers. It's not me doing original research at all. For example, at https://movie.douban.com/subject/11803087/ for Alien: Covenant. Readers would find 122 min (for prevailing release in the west) and 116 min for Mainland China release. Even uneducated readers stumbling onto the Douban citation should now understand such a difference is due to state censors pre-release and post-release! If they still don't get it, then additional text-based secondary sources might further spell out it was due to politics, sex, violence, etc. Due to the authoritarian communist party rule, Douban can't exactly spell out the word "censor" and the reason there, but it's a fact now after all the primary sources and secondary sources we have used.

{{hat|Comments on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)}}

TenTonParasol is having her head in the sand like an ostrich who doesn't want to face the fact.

{{hab}}

The so-called consensus is misplaced or shows a lack of understanding into the subject. If we don't show columns or add films simply because no text-based English secondary sources have written about due to shortage in manpower, budget, willingness, say for the additional 50+ movies which includes The November Man, Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (film), London Has Fallen, etc., we would be doing a disservice to this page, making it indirectly censored by the state censor which has been operating opaquely. Again, everything could be properly sourced at least to Chinese citations, but I have used English sources whenever I could. It's not that I don't want further contextual analysis by secondary sources to spell out the reason for censorship, but we have to understand the tough environment the media biz is in now. I'm simply appalled by the existence of those additional 50+ films. I'll stop here before they accuse me of soapboxing again.

Supermann (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Please state, in one short paragraph, what changes should be made to the article if any. Comment on content, not contributors. Also do not soapbox about the Chinese government. We already know that it censors movies, or there wouldn't be an article here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The article ought to remain as it is, no changes: no runtime columns, additions to "List of edited films" firmly supported by secondary sources, and any significant runtime differences noted in the existing notes column with contextualization and sourcing. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed }}

{{DRN archive top|reason= Mohamed958543 has been blocked for a period of 31 hours for disruptive editing. If any of the parties still needs assessment of these sources, third opinion may be requested. A new case may be filed if it is still needed after the steps above. Kostas20142 (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)}}

{{drn filing editor|Faarax200|17:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Galkayo#I.27m not_warring_over_any_page}}

Users involved

• {{User|Faarax200}}
• {{User|Mohamed958543}}

Dispute overview

This dispute is about which state controls the neighborhoods of Garsoor, Horumar in Galkayo city. This dispute is about the use of reliable source vs unreliable sources.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I used a reliable source article from UN organization of reliefweb. The UN article says neighborhoods of garsoor and horumar are part of puntland state . http://m.reliefweb.int/report/103519/ethiopia/monthly-nutrition-update-for-somalia-jun-2002http://reliefweb.int/report/somalia/inter-agency-initial-investigation-report-floods-gaalkacyo-gaalkacyo-mudug-region The user Mohamed958543 is using as a source non-english article from unreliable websitehttp://mudug24.com/2015/01/16/dhageyso-gudoomiyaha-xaafada-howl-wadaag-ee-galmudug-oo-ka-warbaxshay-suuq-cusub-oo-laga-hirgalshay-halkasi that is biased. This user is saying Galmudug state controls parts of Garsoor and Horumar neighborhoods but he has not provided any reliable source to back up his claim. Here in this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galkayo&diff=792921312&oldid=792921223 edit he replaced a UN organization reliefweb english article source with a somali language article from unreliable website.

How do you think we can help?

a Third party to review the source and verify it.

volunteer comment: have you considered Wikipedia:Third_opinion? It is the most appropriate for this kind of dispute and for the time being, in my opinion --Kostas20142 (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I am looking for a third opinion to verify which source is more reliable. Please which source do you think is more reliable? The sources above. Faarax200 (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Another volunteer comment: DRN is usually for resolving disputes between editors and finding compromise between them. What you are looking for is an assessment about the reliability of sources— that isn't really a "dispute". Disputes usually go, "I want the article to go this way and you want the article to go that way and we can't agree on which way it should go and we need help finding a compromise." Third opinions are usually simpler and take less time to obtain; consensus is often much more difficult. The question is valid; I am just not sure this is the best forum for figuring it out. KDS4444 (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Marrakech|21:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as moved to another forum. One of the editors has started a Request for Comments. A Request for Comments takes precedence over all other methods of dispute resolution. Both editors are strongly cautioned. User:Marrakech is cautioned that they do appear to have been forum shopping and forum hopping, and this is not useful. User:The Banner is cautioned against continuing to make sarcastic comments about other editors and their conduct. The dispute will be resolved by the RFC. Both editors should read the boomerang essay. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI, but do not edit disruptively. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Peacock Alley_(restaurant)}}

Users involved

• {{User|Marrakech}}
• {{User|The Banner}}

Dispute overview

In a number of articles on Dutch and Irish restaurants user The Banner has included the phrase "X is a defunct restaurant located in ..." While a majority of users has argued against that particular phrasing, nobody has so far objected to "X was a restaurant located in ...", which I think sounds more natural and logical. (If only because past and present seem to clash in "X is a defunct restaurant located in ..." - how can a restaurant that has ceased to exist still be located somewhere?) However, when I introduce the broadly supported 'was a restaurant' wording in one of 'his' restaurant articles, The Banner has a tendency to change it back to its previous state, thereby ignoring the outcome of the discussion. See for example the article The Oriel (and the discussion I started on its talk page).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reference desk/language, which has been copied to the talk page of the article Peacock Alley (restaurant).

How do you think we can help?

I hope you can persuade The Banner to accept this change to a dozen or so of his articles.

Marrakech is forumhopping and following me around. He is very flexible in his arguments to shape articles to his personal taste. The Banner talk 21:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. Is this dispute about one article, or about multiple articles? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• For clarity's sake the discussion focused on one article, but other restaurant articles include the same phrase(s). In fact, immediately after I filed this request to resolve the dispute, The Banner changed "was a restaurant located in" into the contentious "is a defunct restaurant located in" in numerous articles (see his contributions list and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Onder_de_Boompjes&diff=prev&oldid=792174564 one example] of these changes). Marrakech (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

{{collapsetop|Conduct allegation. Do not make conduct allegations at this noticeboard. We do not engage in moderated discussion while there are conduct allegations. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)}}

• It is part of an ongoing harassing campaign that started on the Dutch Wikipedia and now is exported to ENWP. The Banner talk 09:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

{{collapsebottom}}

• Volunteer note - Is User:The Banner interested in moderated discussion, or are they declining to take part in discussion because they believe that the other editor is following them and is forumhopping or forumshopping? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

:*Volunteer response Hi, I am KDS4444 and I am here to make an attempt to resolve this dispute. The last time I tried this it blew up like a pipe bomb in my face, and I am hesitant to even take a shotat this one, but what the hell— the issue seems fairly innocuous. First, I should disclose that I am already familiar with The Banner from other places on Wikipedia, and have high respect for his sense of judgement generally— I am not going to recuse myself at this point, but I felt I should make that clear before I begin. Now, with regard to the issue at hand, I'd like to hear The Banner respond to the comments regarding phrasing of "defunct" vs. "was" rather than pointing out that the other editor is forum hopping (which may be true, of course, but isn't really my concern). Banner: ad hominem feelings and behaviors aside, what are your thoughts about the phrasing "was a restaurant" vs. "is a defunct a restaurant"? You have felt strongly enough about it to revert Marrakech's attempt to rephrase it, and I must admit that at first glance (which is all I am giving right now) the phrasing "was a restaurant" does seem more direct and to the point (esp. with regard to present vs. past tense— a defunct restaurant seems like it warrants a "was" more than an "is"). I understand that this is all a bit of a tempest in a teapot, but language matters and I don't know of any existing policy one way or the other on something like this (though if either of you do, I'd be glad to hear it). Banner, can you offer some thoughts with regard to your desire to have the "defunct" phrasing? I am curious as much as anything. We don't WP:OWN these articles, of course, and sometimes other editors come up with better ways of saying things which they are then entitled to include— unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, yes? Please expound. Thanks! And pleas, no pipe bombs. Much appreciated. KDS4444 (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

::*I have already stated that Marrakech is very flexible is his arguments to enforce his personal taste. The discussion on Peacock Alley started around the phrase "is former restaurant" what I changed in "a defunct restaurant". Although prior discussion showed that that phrase was correct, Marrakech still kept changing it. He seems to read "restaurant" solely as a location, never as a company that can become defunct due to bankruptcy or any other reason. His last attempt was to change "a defunct restaurant located in" with the argument that a restaurant can not be defunct and located somewhere. So I started removing "located" out of my articles. I have made a lot of changes to suit his taste and following prior discussion, so I am not unwilling. The Banner talk 09:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

:*{{ping|The Banner}} - What you wrote above is difficult to follow. I am going to have to ask you to rephrase it so that I can understand better what it is you are saying. I think Marrakech understands that a restaurant is both a location as well as a business entity, just as I do and as you do. Business entities can become defunct, can change locations, and can disappear entirely. The phrasing, "...was a restaurant..." covers disappearance both in the physical sense as well as the business sense. Does that not make it the better choice of words here? KDS4444 (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

::* Not necessarily. In the case of Peacock Alley the location is part of a hotel. They forced Peacock Alley to close down (long story, court cases etc.) After Conrad Gallagher was gone, they brought in Kevin Thorthon with his Thornton's Restaurant. Effectively, it was only the company that disappeared. The building is still there. In contrast, you have Thermidor (restaurant). After reviewing the article I have changed that article to "was a restaurant" as both company and building are gone. The Banner talk 09:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

:::*That make sense to me now. If Marrakech agrees, we can consider this case closed. KDS4444 (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

::::*To be honest, KDS4444, it doesn't make sense to me at all. I fail to see why 'Peacock Alley was a restaurant' would not continue to be the better choice of words. How is it relevant that the building is still there and another restaurant moved in? That has no bearing on the fact that Peacock Alley doesn't exist anymore, which is the only thing that matters in this respect and why the 'was a restaurant' solution is perfectly fine. Suppose a year ago on Melrose Avenue a bar called Macy's closed down, after which another bar was opened at the same location — does that mean that the wording 'Macy's is a defunct bar on Melrose Avenue' would be preferable to' Macy's was a bar on Melrose Avenue'? I really don't think so, and still find the 'X is a defunct restaurant in such and such location' phrasing bizarrely awkward. Marrakech (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

:::::*Okay, here is what I am sensing: I get the sense that the phrase "was a restaurant" can apply to any of these situations, and that The Banner is parsing restaurant types through the use of the phrase "is a defunct restaurant" for a certain set of contexts (and as a signal or cue for that set). I don't disagree that "is a defunct restaurant" sounds somewhat odd, but neither can I say it is technically incorrect. Right now this issue is being handled through Dispute Resolution, and I am only one volunteer giving one opinion— perhaps what should be done rather is an WP:RfC on the matter. An RfC would collect a wider swathe of opinions, and the outcome of that discussion could be thought of as more or less binding: if more people really feel that "was a restaurant" is simply a better way of phrasing this, then The Banner will be obliged to accept community consensus on it and the matter can be dropped. And if the community says it doesn't care, well, that is useful too. What do you think about opening an RfC? If you like, I would be willing to do it for you if you feel this would preserve the neutrality of the presentation. I am not certain I will be able to resolve this dispute in its current context anyway (here at DRN). KDS4444 (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

::::::*It is interesting to see that the arguments of Marrakech are again largely a matter of taste ((...) phrasing bizarrely awkward.) and not content related. The Banner talk 01:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

:::::::*KDS444, I was already considering that same possibility. So yes, let's try an RfC. The question could be something like "In case a restaurant called X in city Y closed down permanently while the building it was housed in continues to exist, should we write X is a defunct restaurant in city Y instead of X was a restaurant in city Y?" Would that be neutral enough? And I think a link to this discussion would be helpful. Marrakech (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

:::::::*On second thought, maybe we should keep it simple and ask whether, in whichever context, 'X is a defunct restaurant in city Y' is preferable to 'X was a restaurant in city Y'. Marrakech (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

::::::::*Am glad you like the RfC idea. Let's make the RfC specific to this particular article (rather than try to address all articles on non-existent but formerly notable restaurants) and have it maybe go something like this: "Which phrasing is preferable in the article lead: '...was a restaurant...' or '...is a defunct restaurant...'?" Then below this we can have a link to this discussion and you can make a brief argument about the one vs. the other. Banner can then respond, and the RfC and run its course. If you feel confident in doing this yourself, go ahead and do so and I can then close this dispute as unresolved (and get it off my plate). KDS4444 (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

:::::::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peacock_Alley_(restaurant)&oldid=793094932#Request_for_comment_on_phrasing_of_article_lead I opened the request for comment]. Thanks for the mediation attempt. Marrakech (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

::::::::::*And with this RfC, he makes the whole Dispute Resolution page to a joke. Just another forum he is hopping to. Just to get what he wants. The Banner talk 16:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Yavorescu|07:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as premature. While there has been discussion on the article talk page, none of it has been recent. The next step in resolving the dispute is simply to discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:PFC Cherno More Varna}}

Users involved

• {{User|Yavorescu}}
• {{User|Rebelheartous}}
• {{User|Okalinov}}
• {{User|Dino Rediferro}}

Dispute overview

The dispute concerns the foundation date of the Bulgarian football club PFC Cherno More Varna and dates back to 2013. Most of the discussions took place at the Bulgarian article talk page.

In 1945, two football clubs were forcibly merged by the communist regime: Ticha and SC Vladislav Varna formed TV-45, which was later renamed to Cherno More. One party of the dispute claims that Cherno More is successor to both Ticha and Vladislav and should be considered as founded in 1913 (the foundation year of Ticha), similar to Hamburger SV. The "honours" section of the article should include the honours won by Ticha and Vladislav, with prominent notices that they were won by Cherno More's predecessors. The other party of the dispute claims that the foundation year is 1945 -- the year when Ticha and Vladislav merged.

Sources provided for the eariler foundation date: [http://chernomorepfc.bg club's official website], official publications by the Bulgarian Federation of Football (predecessor of Bulgarian Football Union), an honorary diploma issued to :bg:Иван Моканов by BFU, [http://bfunion.bg/about/history/champions BFU's list of football champions] (replicated at List of Bulgarian football champions), various news from different media in 2013 regarding the 100th anniversary of the club.

The other party of the dispute is insisting on the content of the [http://bgclubs.eu/teams/Chernomore(Varna) club's article at bgclubs.eu]. This website contains basic information for many Bulgarian football clubs and is widely used in Wikipedia articles.

At the bg wiki talk page, I have pointed out several inconsistencies and incorrect information at bgclubs.eu regarding other football clubs and my opinion that it is a useful site but cannot be considered as authoritative/reliable source for clubs' history.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked for advice at WT:FOOTY. The discussion there was archived recently without comment by another user or administrator.

How do you think we can help?

Examine the discussions held and give advice for further steps in resolving the dispute.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|open}}

{{drn filing editor|Bellerophon5685|22:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1501713663}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Thompson submachine gun}}

Users involved

• {{User|Bellerophon5685}}
• {{User|Trekphiler}}

Dispute overview

This is the first time I have used mediation, so I might be posting this in the wrong place. This dispute has actually been over the category links in a number of articles and has been discussed extensively here.

I was creating narrower introductions by year page and created cats for weapons introduced by year. After User:Trekphiler reverted the edit for .22 Remington Automatic because it was ammunition I expanded the cats to "Weapons and ammunition introduced by year" User:Trekphiler has continued to revert the edits on the reasoning that items such as the Thomson machine gun do not count as ammunition and therefore the :Category:Weapons and ammunition introduced in 1919 was incorrect. I feel that any reasonable person looking at the cat and page would see that the tommy gun, and other items User:Trekphiler fell into the "weapons" part of the cat and that not every item in the cat supposed to be both a weapon AND ammunition.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to resolve this on the talk page at the Firearms project, to no avail.

How do you think we can help?

Clarify that the meaning of the wording in Category:Weapons and ammunition introduced in X year is inclusive, meaning it includes BOTH weapons AND ammunition. NOT items that are both weapons AND ammunition. I feel this should be obvious to any reasonable person.

• This dispute is not solely, or even mostly, about the Tommy gun. It is a dispute between two editors that has been going on across multiple pages. The Tommy gun was just a representative example. This is there first time I have gone to mediation, so I am not sure what the precise procedure is. From what I read on the dispure resolution page, this seemed like the most appropriate forum.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Transposed.Was posted in reply to Vol. note 1.
• It is a dispute over categories - I created several new cats under the introductions by year - typefaces and fonts by year of introduction, flags by year of introduction etc. I created the cat weapons by year and included an ammunition cartridge. User:Trekphiler reverted this because it was ammunition. I amended the name of the cat to weapons and ammunition. Trekphiler has repreated undone these cats because the articles I put the cats in, such as the Tompson machine gun, ar not ammunition and other articles, such as .22 cartridge, are not weapons. I would think it would be obvious to any reasonable viewer that the cat is meant to include both ammo and weapons and that not each item is supposed to be both. I do not think Trekphiler is harassing me, because I think he is editing in good faith, but I think he is wrong to keep on undoing these edits.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Transposed.Was posted in reply to Vol. note 2.
• I never said that. I used it as a representative example of the dispute we have been having.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Transposed.Was posted in reply to comment 1 by Trekphiler.

• This didn't start with the Thompson. I find categorizing weapons & ammunition together, as if they are the same thing, absurd. Moreover, categorizing guided bombs (Fritz X) in a "weapons & ammunition" category is ridiculous. Is Tallboy "ammunition"? What, exactly, is wrong with categorizing them separately? And notice, this "joint category" was following categorizing ammunition as "weapon", which strikes me as an effort to demonize; claiming this all started with the Thompson is, at best, disingenuous. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Redacted 196.52.16.16 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

::"User:Trekphiler fell into the "weapons" part of the cat and that not every item in the cat supposed to be both a weapon AND ammunition." I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't presume to know what I was thinking. And if you'd bothered to pay the slightest attention to my remarks on the Firearms Project page, you'd realize it's the lumping together of two things that are in no way alike, not to mention adding things that are in no way "ammunition", into a common category, that has been, & is, what troubles me.

::"Trekphiler is just here for an argument." I repeat, I'd appreciate not having presumptions of my thinking. I am frustrated by Bellerophon5685's unwillingness to address my concerns about using the same category for disparate items. I've offered numerous examples of things that, by the same reasoning, should be categorized together, but aren't & won't be. For instance, do you intend gasoline & cars to be jointly categorized, by this rationale? Why not? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion at a WikiProject talk page, but not at the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - This noticeboard is for disputes about article content. There isn't any single proper forum for a dispute between two editors that is going on across multiple pages. If there are disputes about the content of multiple articles, they can be discussed at multiple talk pages. If an editor is harassing, hounding, or bullying another editor, that is a conduct dispute that can go to WP:ANI, but not every claim of harassment, hounding, or bullying is what it is stated to be. Please state more clearly what the nature and substance of the dispute is. It might be appropriate to ask for advice at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment--Please do not reply to other's questions/comments irrespective of the truth-value.You are here because the usual back and forth has failed.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment---- I am going through the contents of the dispute and will prob. be the moderator.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Blackgaia02|05:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 05:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Neon Genesis Evangelion}}

Users involved

• {{User|Blackgaia02}}
• {{User|UnknownUsername480}}
• {{User|Diogatari}}
• {{User|151.35.129.246}}

Dispute overview

Well it's an issue about the picture represented to the article. I replaced that logo with a BluRay box cover because it needs to be updated. And also its an anime series article in particular, not a company. But suddenly someone actually reverted it and replaced it with a small, unreadable low resolution logo of the anime that even people would need glasses to read it. It's 2017, articles sometimes needs to be up to date including pictures and I removed it and put the cover back. Though three people are just too clingy over it that they keep on reverting it. I don't even like that small logo and it doesn't belong to wikipedia in the first place.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None so far, but talked to Diogatari about on refraining on reverting my reversions.

How do you think we can help?

It's either the low resolution logo must go and accept that sometimes header pictures needs to be updated, or just remove all pictures alltogether.

{{DRN archive bottom}}