Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 158#iOS 11

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Jax 0677|14:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed. This appears to be a move discussion that is under review at Move Review, which is the proper forum for a move review. This noticeboard does not accept a topic that is also being discussed in another forum, especially in the specific forum for such a topic. Please continue discussion at Move Review. Disruptive editing involving a contested move may be reported at WP:ANI, but it is better to keep the discussion at Move Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 3 November 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:Move review/Log/2017 November}}

Users involved

• {{User|Jax 0677}}
• {{User|Lugnuts}}
• {{User|SmokeyJoe}}
• Refer Wikipedia_talk:Move_review/Archive_2013#Questions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• {{User|Jenks24}}

Dispute overview

Should the {{tl|move review}} tag not be placed on 2017 Lower Manhattan attack as is standard practice?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I placed the tag on the page, and stated my position according to the template.

How do you think we can help?

Put template back on 2017 Lower Manhattan attack

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|Closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Jtrevor99|14:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Closed as withdrawn in favor of RFC. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:24, 4 November 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:Jesus}}

Users involved

• {{User|Plumber}}
• {{User|Potato muffin}}
• {{User|ShrimpHeavenNow}}
• {{User|Stamboliyski}}
• {{User|Objective3000}}
• {{User|Smeat75}}
• {{User|FutureTrillionaire}}
• {{User|Ian.thomson}}
• {{User|Katolophyromai}}
• {{User|Jtrevor99}}
• {{User|Jeppiz}}
• {{User|Hemavati}}
• {{User|Lipsquid}}
• {{User|Isambard Kingdom}}
• {{User|Erp}}
• {{User|Eperoton}}
• {{User|Cookie Monster}}

Dispute overview

Disagreement regarding the lead section, and whether it is too Christ/Christian-centric (i.e. whether it is giving sufficient attention to Jesus' role in Islam and/or other religions).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A Talk page discussion has been ongoing for 2+ months with no resolution. WP:BOLD changes by Plumber and other users are repeatedly reverted back to status quo by other well-established authors. Most authors have agreed to working on a modified Lead within the talk page but this has not occurred yet. Hopefully it will here.

How do you think we can help?

We suggest presenting the Lead, as it currently exists, here, and then having all involved authors work collectively (along with any uninvolved volunteers) to establish an appropriate consensus.

Jesus, also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth and or Jesus Christ, was a Jewish preacher and religious leader who became the central figure of Christianity and a major figure in Islam. He is the central figure of Christianity. Christians and Muslims believe him Jesus is the Messiah; Christians believe the Messiah to be the Son of God (Christ) and the awaited Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament whose New Testament complements the Old Testament, while Muslims hold him as God's penultimate prophet and messenger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrevor99 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - This does not seem like a good candidate for moderated discussion here. There are too many editors identified for it to be likely that this can be resolved in a few weeks by moderated discussion here. On the other hand, since a proposed lede has been drafted, a Request for Comments to accept the proposed lede might be an option. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

:Good suggestion. I will embarrassingly admit that I was not aware of that option. Unless anyone objects, we can close this. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Rubyangel131|05:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as apparently abandoned. There has been no further discussion in the past 48 hours since the two editors came off their block for edit-warring. Please resume discussion on the article talk page. Avoid edit-warring. Request page-protection at Requests for Page Protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 4 November 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:Made World_Tour}}

Users involved

• {{User|Rubyangel131}}
• {{User|Emily88sq}}
• {{User|41.249.224.140}}

Dispute overview

The other user has been attempting to make changes to the Big Bang Made Tour page, focusing on tour attendance. Over the past few days she made several errors and added incorrect data. I've fixed these mistakes and explain why she had the wrong numbers but she's continued to try and change the numbers to be higher than what they actually are.

If you look on her personal talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Made_World_Tour) and the Big Bang page you can see that they seem to believe I'm trying to manipulate the numbers to make another band look better.

This has now lead to her trying to make changes to the BTS Tour wiki page that add no information and exist only to try to make their information appear incorrect or fake (such as adding a "claimed" sales figure to the BTS Wings Tour page after I presented her with one example of certified ticket sales for Big Bang).

41.249.224.140 = Emily88sq (she has posted under both depending on if she is logged in or not).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I added in the grand total for the North American Tour under commercial so we could keep the individual stops with specific numbers but also provide the overall sales number like she wanted.

How do you think we can help?

I was hoping a third party that is neutral would help since she seems to be under the assumption that I am trying to sabotage the page (despite the fact I've changed no numbers and added in her new information).

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editor of this filing. Are the editors asking for an impartial third opinion, in which case Third Opinion may be appropriate, or for moderated discussion leading to compromise? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=I fail to see a "dispute" among the editors here. I see one user who is not adhering to the established consensus on the talk page or listening to the opinions of other users. Nihlus 22:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)}}

{{drn filing editor|Equilibrium103|14:55, 8 November 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:Unite the_Right_rally#Deliberate_deletion_of_counter-opinions_re:_Unite_The_Right_Rally}}

Users involved

• {{User|Equilibrium103}}
• {{User|Grayfell}}
• {{User|ValarianB}}
• {{User|TheValeyard}}
• {{User|ScratchMarshall}}

Dispute overview

Over the course of more than a month, the subject lead has contained a summery of media opinion consisting solely of an editorial by the New York Times.

When examples of countervailing published opinion in another journal were introduced, they were deemed unacceptably non-notable by a user, so additional citations were provided, including editorials in The Washington Post, The Hill, Newsweek and others.

These have been repeatedly deleted citing a "lack of consensus" and a consensus consisting mostly of two or three users engaged in a concerted effort of POV-pushing.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I filed an RfC as directed by Admin "Huon", and it was deemed too lengthy in it's summary of the issue.

The ensuing talk thread has lasted over a month and has been met solely with combative dismissal and personal attacks. A previous thread dominated by said consensus devolved into referring to dissenting users as "civil-tards".

How do you think we can help?

To my observation, this appears to be as overt a case of WP:TE as I've ever seen, and I have little faith that the parties involved will willingly desist from continuing as they have absent of arbitration. But as it stands, no attempt at mediation has been made, and if nothing else, the assertions to a consensus with no reference to any other Wikipedia policy could at least be answered by an actual cross-section of editors outside of an edit-warring clique.

I thought this was a settled matter, so I just went and tallied this. User Equilibrium103 has made the same or similar edit to the Unite the Right rally nine times over a span of five weeks. Eight different editors reverted him (I was not one). User made his arguments on the talk page, did not achieve consensus, and IMO that is that. Zir is a sole voice arguing for one point of view, which has met near-unanimous rejection. User has cherry-picked 3 opponents when there are many more than that. ValarianB (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

After reading what this forum is about above, this ain't the proper venue, I personally have nothing to say that has not been said previously. Consensus on the talk page is sharply and plainly against Equilibrium's proposed edit. I'd say his last, best recourse is to file a Request for Comment on the article talk page, let's see if a wider audience can nail this puppy down for good. TheValeyard (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - Discussion has occurred on the talk page. This is a contentious topic, please only focus on content. The filing editor notified most of the editors, I was notifying the remainder when I noticed. Apologies if I ninja'd. Seems good fit for DRN. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 15:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - I concur with the comments of the previous volunteer that the editors should focus exclusively on content, and stop criticizing each other. The editors are reminded that ArbCom discretionary sanctions apply to disruptive editing of American politics. Due to the prominence of the topic and the number of editors, formal mediation might be appropriate. (However, I am not declining this case from discussion at this noticeboard.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|failed}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=The filing editor has no plans on accepting compromise in this situation and thought that the DRN could be used to force his position through against the consensus of other editors. Both positions are troublesome, and I will not waste the other's or my own time any further. If you want to discuss this more, please open an RfC. Nihlus 17:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)}}

{{drn filing editor|Fellow007|17:11, 31 October 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|iOS 11}}

Users involved

• {{User|Darius robin}}
• {{User|Fellow007}}
• {{User|Guy Harris}}

Dispute overview

Dear Wiki admin - Recent release and update of iOS 11 for iPhone 6, 6s, and 7 have generated a lot of issues for iPhone users

and widely reported in news media including BBC UK, The Telegraph, The Independent, The Australian, Business Insider, etc.

A paragraph describing the issues reported and citations to sources were provided by me earlier on.

Editor Guy Harris reviewed, edited and approved the writeup. But, Darius robin has repeatedly removed the whole section.

His action contributes to censorship, and taking sides with APPLE. Wikipedia is for the public and Wikipedia does not

take sides on any companies. One would expect his improvement on the article, not total censorship.

As such, I would like to request help from Wiki admin to look at this case and allow the public information pertaining

to iOS 11 issues to be presented in iOS 11 wikipedia page and block further censorship from editor Darius Robin

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Can’t get to a conclusion.

How do you think we can help?

Comment your thoughts.

{{reply to|Fellow007}} Firstly, I’m not taking sides with Apple, so get that out of your brains.

Second, whatever "write-up" you added is already mentioned on the page. I removed it to avoid double-mentioning the issues. Whatever else I removed is just unsourced info. Example, the battery problems people are suffering is already mentioned here. Whatever else (about that sudden shutdowns etc.) are unsourced.

So please stop blaming me of being an Apple employee. Darius robin (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

{{reply to|Darius_robin}} Darius, I think you have to stay courteous and polite in your language. Secondly, you have removed the whole content, which contributes to total censorship.

I would like to discuss each and every bit you objected to and why. Why are sources from BBC UK, The Independent, The Telepgrah UK, The Australian, Business Insider, etc., not

included? You mentioned double-mentioning. I don't think so. Please go through each item and tell us how specifically it is same or double-mentioned with those you had written.

Have you read the sources from the news media. If not, can you read it first before you jump into conclusions? Thanks. Fellow007 (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The claim that I "reviewed, edited and approved the writeup" is overstated. I "reviewed" it in the sense that I looked at it and cleaned up some things in the edits in question, but I didn't "approve" of it in the sense that I would object to its removal, so it's not as if I'm on one side of this dispute at this point. Guy Harris (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The "double-mentioning" is precisely what Darius Robin stated - the new section mentioned the battery drain issue, but that was already in the Problems section. Guy Harris (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer's note: I am neither taking this request nor opening it up for discussion, but I think we need a couple of things cleared up before a DRN volunteer considers taking it.

• First, Fellow007, this is not an administrator's noticeboard and no administrator will respond to you request here. Please read the header to see what this board does do. (Let me note, however, that Wikipedia administrators have no right to determine or judge content; their sole role is to judge conduct and, on occasion, help determine whether consensus has been reached.) In light of that information, do you want to continue here at this noticeboard? Unless a positive response is received by 18:30 UTC on November 1, this request will be closed as abandoned.
• Second, could someone please provide a link to the article or articles directly affected by this dispute? I'm sure you all know what you're talking about, but we here at DRN do not.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC) PS: One more thing: If this case does go forward, we don't discuss conduct here. So henceforth please only discuss the edits in dispute and do not say a word about the other editor or editors. Not about their motives, biases, conflicts of interest, skills, habits, competence, POV, POV-pushing, accusations, or anything else at all, period. If you really feel the need to discuss those things, make a filing at ANI and this request will be closed, but if you take part here, only discuss content. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

:{{reply to|TransporterMan}} Yes, I would like the discussion to continue here. I would like to focus on content. Thanks. Fellow007 (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

;{{reply to|TransporterMan}} Yes, the web is iOS 11 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_11 ) and please a look at the history ( View history ) and you can see past edits and removal. Fellow007 (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

:{{reply to|TransporterMan}} Thanks for your note. The articles in question are iOS 11 and iOS version history. Thanks. Darius robin (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Note to volunteers: This appears to be ready for acceptance with all disputants present and adequate discussion. Having been so involved administratively up to this point, I'm going to ask a different volunteer to take it from here. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|Darius robin|Fellow007|Guy Harris}} I will act as the moderator in this discussion. A reminder to those involved that we all have the goal of improving the article. Please familiarize yourself with my rules; your involvement in this discussion implies your agreement to follow them. As there has been some inappropriate remarks made on different pages, I will remind everyone that comments about another editor or their intentions or accusations of censorship will not be tolerated and will be removed. Now, will each editor please state, in one or two paragraphs, why the phone problem information should be included or excluded, to what extent it should be included or excluded, and how it adheres to WP:UNDUE? As a reminder, do not engage in back-and-forth discussion with one another. Nihlus 06:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Here’s everything:

{{u|Fellow007}} asked {{u|Guy Harris}} if he could add some information to the iOS 11 article, to which Guy Harris said he could do so, without asking for permisssion. He added the info to the article, which Guy Harris further refined and improved.

1. Fellow007 had a misunderstanding that Guy Harris "approved" his edits.

2. I went through whatever he had written and found out that the most of that information is already present further down the page.

3. He wrote about various problems people are facing, although the tradition with these iOS articles is that we only mention widespread problems.

4. He provided many sources, but all of them seem to mention the same thing—the battery problems. The sources did not mention other problems he wrote about, like sudden shutdowns etc.

5. The format in which he wrote is not how we mention the problems in the article. He listed out the issues in bullet points. We always make a sub-section for each problem and write a paragraph on it, which he didn’t do.

This made me rv his edits. Darius robin (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

{{reply to|Nihlus}} : The parts that I had contributed can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOS_11&diff=807987980&oldid=807961162

There are publicly reported issues with iOS 11, which is why I updated the wikipedia iOS 11 page.

1. These references cited iOS slows down the apps and performance issues:

• a. https://www.macrumors.com/2017/09/25/ios-11-app-slowdowns-performance-issues
• b. https://thenextweb.com/apple/2017/09/25/iphone-users-ios-11-complain/|title=iPhone users complain iOS 11 slows down their apps
• c. https://www.fastcodesign.com/90143457/ios-11-sucks|title=iOS 11 Sucks - When it comes to software, Apple’s attention to detail is crumbling away, Co-Design, Sept., 2017
• d. http://osxdaily.com/2017/10/06/ios-11-slow-speed-up-performance/

2. There are also complains from iphone users about reboots, freezes, crashes, etc., the apple.com web links I provided work previously but now they no longer point to the right articles.

• a. https://discussions.apple.com/thread/8112767|title=Lots of bugs in ios 11.0.3 on iPhone 6s - Apple discussion forum
• b. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201264|title=Problems in iOS version 11
• c. http://www.zdnet.com/article/ios-11-0-1-update-causes-havoc-for-some-iphone-and-ipad-users/
• d. http://thenewdaily.com.au/life/tech/2017/09/26/ios-11-problems/
• e. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4935062/Apple-releases-beta-iOS-11-1-complaints-continue.html
• f. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4922738/Apple-forced-issue-update-iOS-11-just-WEEK.html
• g. http://bgr.com/2017/10/18/ios-11-problems-battery-charging-phone-calls/
• h. https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/ios-11-problems/
• i. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/tech/news/647116/Facebook-Messenger-Crashing-iPhone-iOS-11
• j. https://www.dailydot.com/debug/ios-11-bugs/

3. Cracking audio and email problems and other bugs

• a. http://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/apple-confirms-ios-bugs-issues-11243872
• b. http://www.businessinsider.com/apples-latest-ios-11-update-fixes-the-crackling-sound-problem-2017-10
• c. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/09/20/ios-11-update-blocks-microsoft-accounts-sending-emails/
• d. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/09/21/ios_11_screws_up_outlook/
• e. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/2017/09/26/apple-ios-11-battery-and-outlook-problems-how-fix-them/703106001/
• f. https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2017/10/29/apple-ios-11-0-3-problems-battery-life-iphone-ipad-crashing-apps-crash/#44b94cbd5522

4. Roll back from v11 to v10 iOS impossible

• a. https://9to5mac.com/2017/10/04/downgrade-from-ios-11-back-to-ios-10/

Thank you. Fellow007 (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

OK:

"1. These references cited iOS slows down the apps and performance issues". "Slows down the apps" is a "performance issue", not a separate issue. They appear to be referenced by reliable sources, so I'd say they should be put into a section of their own, separate from the existing sections and any other new sections, in the "Problems" section.

"2. There are also complains from iphone users about reboots, freezes, crashes, etc., the apple.com web links I provided work previously but now they no longer point to the right articles." They appear to be referenced by reliable sources, so I'd say they should be put into a section of their own, separate from the existing sections and any other new sections, in the "Problems" section. Do not use the Apple forums as references.

"3. Cracking audio and email problems and other bugs" They appear to be referenced by reliable sources, so I'd say they should be put into a section of their own, separate from the existing sections and any other new sections, in the "Problems" section.

"4. Roll back from v11 to v10 iOS impossible" That's standard, intentional Apple behavior; they eventually stop signing the older releases. It's not unique to iOS 11, and not a bug, even if people wish they could have rolled back from v11 to v10 or from v10 to v9 or from v9 to v8 or from v8 to v7 or.... This one does not belong in the "Problems" section.

Do not put 1, 2, and 3 into a single "complaints" section, and do not put them at the top of the section; put them all under separate subsections, with a title reflecting the particular problem.

NOTE: this is only my personal opinion. Others may disagree. Guy Harris (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Here are my second round questions for each one of you. Please answer it if the question is directed to you.

• {{ping|Darius robin|Fellow007|Guy Harris}} Are these sources reliable? Using Apple forums and TheDailyMail/Star/Dot seems to be problematic.
• {{ping|Darius robin|Guy Harris}} Can each one of you go through the sources provided by Fellow007 and select the ones which you consider to be reliable? You can also provide other ones if you would like.
• {{ping|Fellow007}} Can you speak to how each problem and their related sources adheres to WP:UNDUE? You provided the sources but didn't speak to how each "problem" adheres to that policy. Additionally, the standard format is to have a sub-topic under "Problems" for each prominent problem that the iPhone has. Do you agree to follow this format going forward? Also, some of the sources you provided don't even mention the topic in which you categorized them in. Why are you using those sources for incorrect reasons?

Thanks. Nihlus 21:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|Fellow007|Guy Harris}} Please make sure to place your comments in the correct section. Nihlus 23:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|Fellow007}} I can tell you right now that all the sources that you said are reliable aren't actually reliable. For each topic (1-3), can you pick two that you believe are the most reliable of the group? It seems it has been agreed by all participants that problem 4 isn't to be included. Once I have your reply, we can move on to round 3. Thanks. Nihlus 07:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

"Are these sources reliable?" As I said, "Do not use the Apple forums as references.", so I wouldn't count them as reliable sources. If one doesn't want to count the Daily Fail as an RS, item 2 may have Daily Mail citations, but it also has other sites. It's the one with the weakest citations (several forum posts, articles mainly pointing to forum posts), so that's the one that's most in need of better sources. (It's also, perhaps not coincidentally, the one that's a bunch of complaints about a bunch of issues, rather than complaints about specific issues.)

"Can each one of you go through the sources provided by Fellow007 and select the ones which you consider to be reliable?" I'll go through that when I have time. Guy Harris (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

:I'd say that at least some of the references for 1 and 2 don't seem any less reliable than some of the references for existing problems reported in the "Problems" section; [http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/856993/iOS-11-Battery-Life-Problem-Slow-iPhone the Daily Express reference for the battery life problem] cites social media posts by users, which doesn't seem any better to me than citing Reddit posts. Guy Harris (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

{{reply to|Nihlus}} : Nihlus, I agree to the standard format of having a sub-topic under "Problems". For the sources on WP:UNDUE, I will go through them and provide feedback. I think sub-topic 2 and sub-topic 3 are "clear" to put. sub-topic 4 on iOS 11 revert back to iOS 10 can be skipped. I think sub-topic 1 is ok to include. Will go through sources to tell you which sources point to which topics and where the discussion resides . Thanks. Fellow007 (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

{{reply to|Nihlus}} From point 1, none of the sources are reliable, I went through the MacRumors one, but found that it is just built upon a Reddit thread. In point 2, it’s the same case, I went through the BGR one, but their post is also built upon a Reddit thread. The third one is a minor problem (only affecting Microsoft Exchange users, has been patched) and is already mentioned in iOS version history, and the fourth one is not a problem, as Guy Harris said earlier. Darius robin (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

{{reply to|Nihlus}} Nihlus - Here are my review of the sources again for the 4 points raised, with the last problem intended to be dropped.

1. These references cited iOS slows down the apps and performance issues:

• a. Reference on “Thenextweb.com” mention app performance, slow, and crashes with 1,398 shares on that topic. I think this is good reference. (ok)
• b. Reference on “fastcodesign.com” mention software crumble lack of details which is not so focused on apps and performance and I think this reference can be left out (x)
• c. Reference on “macrumors” – points to apps problems and performance and it also cited sources to Reddit. I think it is ok to include. (ok)
• d. Reference “Osxdaily” – is a site focused on Mac OS , iphone, iPad, etc reporting. It was founded in 2006 and run by Apple experts. (ok)

2. There are also complains from iphone users about reboots, freezes, crashes, etc.,

• a. Will skip the apple.com forum sources
• b. ZDNET is a respectable news source with many readers (ok)
• c. THENEWDAILY – This Australian news http://thenewdaily.com.au/about/ trusted source (ok)
• d. DAILYMAIL UK – UK Daily Mail newspaper with 1.49Million circulation (ok)
• e. BGR - http://bgr.com/about-bgr/ American #1 source of breaking mobile news (ok)
• f. DIGITALTRENDS - https://www.digitaltrends.com/about/ seems reliable news teams (ok)
• g. DAILYSTAR – UK Daily Star newspaper with 429,000 circulation (ok)
• h. DAILYDOT – 23M visits, https://www.dailydot.com/about/ - respectable source (ok)

3. 3. Cracking audio and email problems and other bugs

• a. DAILY MIRROR UK is a UK Daily Mirror newspaper with 717,000 circulation (ok)
• b. Business Insider is an American news website with wide readership (ok)
• c. The Telegraph is a respectable UK newspaper with wide readership (ok)
• d. The register UK has a readership of 9.5million in 2013 (ok)
• e. The USA Today has 958,000 circulation (ok)
• f. The Forbes has 931,000 circulation (ok)

Await to hear your comments and recommendations before proceeding forward.

Thanks. Fellow007 (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

:{{reply to|Fellow007}} The email Problems was a minor issue that was fixed in 11.0.1. And the Daily Mail and Daily Star newspapers are tabloids and cannot be included by Wiki rules. Darius robin (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

{{reply to|Nihlus}} Nihlus - Would like to hear your explanation on your thinking about sources. Here are my pick on 2 sources for

each sub-topic, as per your suggestion:

1. These references cited iOS slows down the apps and performance issues:

• reference "a" and "d"

2. There are also complains from iphone users about reboots, freezes, crashes, etc.,

• reference "b" and "c"

3. 3. Cracking audio and email problems and other bugs

• reference "c", "e"

Also, is there a restriction on the number of sources for the article? I would like to include

more than 2 sources if possible especially when the specific issue was covered by several major news media.

Fellow007 (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|Darius robin|Fellow007|Guy Harris}} Since Fellow007 asked for my opinion, I will provide it, so let's now take a look at the sources:

;Slows down the apps and has performance issues

1. [https://www.macrumors.com/2017/09/25/ios-11-app-slowdowns-performance-issues MacRumors]
2. :"Not all customers who upgraded to iOS 11 are seeing these issues but based on the reddit thread, it seems a fair number of people are having problems." A post that uses reddit as its main source is not completely appropriate for Wikipedia. If this source is to be used, it should reference the source of the content as "users on reddit", which tells me it isn't a good source (see below).
3. [http://osxdaily.com/2017/10/06/ios-11-slow-speed-up-performance/ OSXDaily]
4. :"There are mixed reports that updating to iOS 11 has slowed down some iPhone and iPad hardware..." That's all the source says about the issue.
5. :I'm not seeing enough reliable sources here to really warrant inclusion outside a single sentence, if that.

;Reboots, freezes, and crashes (we won't be using Apple support as it would be WP:OR)

:*These are all tabloid websites like DailyMail and DailyStar or they all use their main source as reddit. They fail to be WP:SECONDARY as they just spit out the information and provide no additional analysis, so they fall under the WP:PRIMARY banner (aka WP:SELFPUB). The Calculator bug seemingly would fall under this, except for the comment from Apple itself.

;Crackling and email problems

1. [https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/2017/09/26/apple-ios-11-battery-and-outlook-problems-how-fix-them/703106001/ USA Today]
2. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/09/20/ios-11-update-blocks-microsoft-accounts-sending-emails/ Telegraph]
3. :While the issue with email seems to be verified, we should definitely keep WP:10YT in mind. Something that is not widely reported and was quickly fixed seems like it would be trivial ten years from now.(This can be applied to any bug as a measure of its need to be included.) However, there doesn't seem to be much comment on whether the issue was with Apple or Microsoft, as both of them came out to acknowledge the problem.

So it appears to me that the second and third problems should be excluded, while the first problem should be limited to one sentence if included at all. Do you agree with this assessment? Nihlus 22:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|Fellow007}} I did not mistake anything. I advised you to put forward two sources as I was struggling to even find two out of the list that would even approach being reliable. This was addressed in my comment directly above. The source "thenextweb" falls under the usage of reddit as a primary source of information. My response to this is above. Please do not ask me to "focus on facts", as you are implying that I am not. I have pointed to you WP:RS, and I will do so again. The number of readers does not imply reliability. Millions of people read The New York Times Op-eds, but that doesn't make them reliable on their own. The problem here seems to be your inability to compromise and fully discuss established policies and apply them to this scenario. The purpose of this noticeboard is not to use it to validate your proposals to the page: the point is to reach a conclusion with all editors involved. So, I will ask you to attempt to compromise on this situation or I will just close this post as to not waste the other two editor's time. Thanks. Nihlus 22:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|Fellow007}} Please do not continually ask me to close this. It will be closed when a solution is either reached or there is no point in continuing. I am still waiting on the input from Darius robin. Nihlus 01:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|Nihlus|Guy Harris}} Nihlus - I don't agree with your suggestion. I also want to know why we can only consider putting 2 sources and you have yet to reply me on it.

Coming back,

1. These references cited iOS slows down the apps and performance issues:

• I am referring to references “Thenextweb.com” and “Osxdaily” . You have mistaken these for others. Please correct.

2. There are also complains from iphone users about reboots, freezes, crashes, etc.,

• reference "b" and "c" refer to ZDNET and THENEWDALIY. Again, you have mistaken these for others. Please correct.

3. 3. Cracking audio and email problems and other bugs

• reference "c", "e" refer to TELEGRAPH and USATODAY. I disagree your own views about "trivial 10 years from now". I would like to focus on facts. These newspapers are reliable sources and widely read and they do not report minor issues. These are published, and already read by over 1 million readers (combined). We are here to update Wikipedia with public facts.

As such, I think I go like to suggest going ahead with creating subtopics for 1, 2, and 3 and append sources to it.

Thanks.

Fellow007 (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|Nihlus|Guy Harris}} Based on past discussions shown above, there is consensus between me and Guy Harris already. And Guy has suggested the 3 points in sub-topics to which I also agreed. As

a DRN coordinator, can you accept what Guy and myself have suggested? If so, we can close this DRN. Thanks. Fellow007 (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

For 1, the Thenextweb.com reference cites Reddit and Twitter, so it's not clear that it's any better than the MacRumors one. The osxdaily.com one doesn't cite anything - it says "There are mixed reports that updating to iOS 11 has slowed down some iPhone and iPad hardware, or that performance of tasks like opening and interacting with apps is slower after installing iOS 11." and then spends the rest of the article giving tips for how to speed iOS 11 up.

For 2, the ZDNet reference cites Reddit, Twitter, and Apple support forums. The The New Daily reference, however, cites, in addition to the usual social media suspects, [https://www.wandera.com/blog/ios-11-battery-drain/ a blog post from a security company], where they measured faster battery drain on "a subset of 50,000 moderate to heavy iPhone and iPad users in our network running iOS 10 and iOS 11", so that one might be a bit better. Then again, the battery issue is already in the Problems section, so that particular problem, the battery life, doesn't need to be added.

For 3, I haven't voiced any opinion on whether those problems are noteworthy. Guy Harris (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|Guy Harris|Nihlus}} I am alright to omit the battery issues since it is already documented in the existing article. I would like to agree and proceed on following Guy's suggestion dated 20:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC) - and request our DRN coordinator to close this discussion. Thanks Fellow007 (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

:{{reply to|Fellow007}} See, I’m running iOS 11 on 3 devices, and am facing none (not even 1) of these issues. Those websites are not very well known and those issues are minor. I’d say that Verge, Engadget, Android Central, 9toMac, Forbes, will be considered trustable sources, somehow no one seems to be reporting this. Darius robin (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

:Unsure why Fellow007 is involving me here, have very little to no opinion on this beyond an ongoing concern about some editors having a serious slant towards Apple products when writing problems sections... Especially if you compare their contributions on other technology articles. And just a note, the "I'm not having this issue" argument is pointless, its about as good as the "climate change isn't real because its cold outside" so you can get rid of that EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 05:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

::{{reply to|EoRdE6}} You’re behaving very childish, and so is Fellow007. He’s inviting you here because he thinks you will take his side after the previous disagreement, and then you think that he’s right because of some of my other contributions outside this article.

::I just said that as those issues are not reported by any "major" publication. Some few people face a problem and we have to mention it? Seems like a bad idea. Darius robin (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

::: Didn't say I thought he was right, in this situation he/she probably isn't... I suggest you calm down and remember the point of Wikipedia is not to go arguing with everyone you meet... I was just adding my background knowledge for the moderator. Personally I think a compromise with a small quantity of the issues is the best solution, however this is not the location for threaded discussion or public comments so I will excuse myself now, sorry to the moderator for interrupting. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 16:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

::::{{reply to|EoRdE6}} Guess you’re right. Fellow007 has gone a bit overboard with the complaint against the moderator, Nihlus. Darius robin (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|VickAmaze|07:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed for multiple reasons. The filer has also filed a thread at the neutral point of view noticeboard, so that this filing here is taking place while another thread is in progress in another forum, and the filer is forumshopping. Also, it appears that the real issue is that the filer is trying to insert link spam, and is being reverted; in other words, this is a conduct dispute, but about the conduct of the filer, not another party. The filing part is advised either to stop inserting the links, or to discuss them in accordance with appropriate guidelines. The other editor, User:GermanJoe, is thanked. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 10 November 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:VickAmaze#November_2017}}

Users involved

• {{User|VickAmaze}}
• {{User|GermanJoe}}

Dispute overview

I had added relevant links and information to Acts (Laws / Amendments) to certain Wiki's related to Indian law. These were from reliable websites such as Commonlii.org, IndianKanoon.org, NearLaw.com, all of which are both available for free and provide reliable legal documents from the Courts, Judicial forums and the Executive (Parliament, etc.).

The legal articles on Wikipedia are lacking the reference to the original documents that are made freely available on Commonlii.org, IndianKanoon.org and NearLaw.com and a variety of other websites, therefore the links were added. These original documents are the laws, amendments or primary legal resources, to which everyone should have access. Some of the Article pages themselves have a note asking for citations and external sources to substantiate the content provided.

As per [6] "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." The content I have added is detailed and documented in multitude of sections, so it is detailed and can't be reproduced as verbatim within the article. The content is not indiscriminate, I would argue it is relevant, meaningful and suitable. Conversely, the practice of removing all referenced content without paying heed to the individual contributions is an indiscriminate practice on your part. I have specific knowledge regarding the content being posted. As a proponent of the Free Access to Law movement, I don't think publishing free content on Wikipedia should be a shunned or ostracized practice.

As a political activist and journalist, by contributing to Wikipedia's Indian law-related pages, As a political activist and legal editor, I'm fighting to open up access to Indian law on Wikipedia.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried reasoning with the user, GermanJoe but he refuses to consider the merit of my argument. However all of my edits were undone indiscriminately by said user. If there was any issue with any of the edits, it could have been discussed and debated and then remedial action could have been initiated. However, all edits were summarily and indiscriminately rejected and reversed, without any talk / discussion. This is unfair and undemocratic for which I'm lodging this dispute resolution request.

How do you think we can help?

Please reinstate the diff's that are within the policy framework of Wikipedia. Please do not allow administrator/ editors such as GermanJoe to reverse changes indiscriminately without providing ample justification for the same.

A thread about this question has already been opened by the filer at WP:NPOVN less than 3 days ago ("Commonlii.org, IndianKanoon.org ..."), but hasn't had any input from uninvolved editors yet. A full-scale duplicate discussion doesn't make sense imo. But in short: I have removed several link additions in law-related articles for a personal website, that is likely maintained by the contributor. The site (nearlaw.com with a sister blog at kanoon.nearlaw.com, domains registered in September 2016) also serves as lawyer database and legal consultation forum, and fails our criteria for a reliable source. Multiple additions of such links by likely involved editors violate Wikipedia's spam guidelines (specifically WP:CITESPAM). Also, Wikipedia is no venue for advocacy of any kind. GermanJoe (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - It isn't clear what article or articles this is about. Is this about the content of one or more articles? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=The parties have not had extensive discussion of the issue on a talk page. Nihlus 14:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)}}

{{drn filing editor|Aboudaqn|14:05, 13 November 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|David Stove}}

Users involved

• {{User|FreeKnowledgeCreator}}
• {{User|Alastair Haines}}
• {{User|Dbachmann}}
• {{User|Unsigned IP}}
• {{User|Thehumancontraband}}
• {{User|Dr satsuma}}
• {{User|Dextux}}
• {{User|Respighi}}
• {{User|Calamus}}

Dispute overview

Several contributors have taken offense from unsubstantiated claims. I heard about the situation, restored the article per Wikipedia guidance, and let others know I would work on the article this week to help substantiate it, etc. Earlier contributors continued to take offense and would not listen. Frankly, I'm not particularly interested in the article and definitely not interested in working with highly involved individuals who want to have it their way or the highway. So, I'm escalating to Wikipedia to resolve, please.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I don't know how to "notify them of this discussion": can someone involved in resolution please do so?

How do you think we can help?

I was going to rewrite the article. Me, I like to see a whole tree before I prune it, but people already involved would not afford me the week I requested to do so. Recommendation? I would freeze the article and then have someone take a shot at (1) reusing any good material with citations and (2) expanding it with citations. However, this is merely my suggestion, as requested by "How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?"

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Iteemh|09:17, 14 November 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 other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:50, 14 November 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|Ghalib bin_Ali}}

Users involved

• {{User|Iteemh}}

Dispute overview

In the link provided in the location, I have been facing difficulties with another editor, {{u|Chrissymad}}, this user does not seem to want any edits to be done on the page mentioned. I have been constantly contributing to the page by making many edits. However, all edits, without explanation or even proper validation, are reverted. I have added edits with reliable resources, such as CNN, however, the editor insists on reverting the page to its original format. This user does not provide any explanation, except for saying, "enough already". Also, this user does not provide constructive criticism, even though he/she seems to be empowered by Wikipedia. I do not think that his/her approach coincides with Wikipedia's vision to allow and encourage anyone to edit pages and help contribute building an informative platform for free. This user claims on his/her page that they only provide "suggestions" to other editors, however, this is not really the case, as this user constantly "deletes" other people's edits.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to discuss this issue directly with the editor on his/her talk page, however, no response has taken place from his/her end.

How do you think we can help?

I think this user should first of all provide constructive criticism to any revert that he/she makes. I also think that this user should take a little more time and really think through the edits that have been made and whether they are valid or not. The user should not simply revert everything and write "enough already" to other users as if the user is taking things personally. I really hope that this user can change her/his attitude to be a little more open and accepting other people's edits.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Dhsert|01:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=No dispute between editors, no other parties stated. The editor's general complaint is hard to parse out, but the editor is advised that they might get more help at the Wikipedia Teahouse which exists to help newcomers. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:57, 14 November 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|Special:Contributions/2601:47:4101:58D1:69E4:E062:E3C8:393C}}

Users involved

• {{User|Dhsert}}

Dispute overview

Long ago I had attempted to ask for disability access, learning that wikimedia despises that prospect. I had returned briefly to ask about misleading advertizing, receiving inconclusive responses. Then, having given up entirely, for the umpteenth time, I receive spam. I now wonder whether this is only an individual, or a systemic policy.

This entity is an atrocity. < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:47:4101:58D1:69E4:E062:E3C8:393C >

I do expect nothing but abuse from you; however, I have said what is necessary.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None.

How do you think we can help?

You only abuse me, so you shall not.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Xuxo|19:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed. The filing editor hasn't edited in a week since filing. I'm not going to put this case on hold, but simply to close it without prejudice, that is, so that it can be opened again later if this dispute recurs. In the meantime, the editors should discuss any disagreements on the article talk page. There is a request for another editor to offer an opinion at WikiProject Brazil. Do not edit-war. Be civil. If discussion on the article talk page is inconclusive, a new thread can be opened here, or a Request for Comments can be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 15 November 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:Arab Brazilians}}

Users involved

• {{User|Xuxo}}
• {{User|Sarah Canbel}}
• {{User|Iryna Harpy}}

Dispute overview

I have added sourced information about the size of Brazilians who report Family ancestry in the Middle-East. The research was conducted by IBGE, which is the official organ for demographics in Brazil. According to the source, 0.9% of White Brazilians reported to have Middle-Eastern ancestors, (less than 1 million people). However, User:Sarah Canbel is removing the source, giving no reason for that. She is trying to own the article and acts as if she could decide what stays or not in the article.

The information I included is well-sourced and there is no reason for its removal.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to argue with the other user, but she keeps removing the information.

How do you think we can help?

We must include any reliable source in the article, not only the ones the other user seems to prefer.

I'm responding here briefly simply because Robert McClenon has requested that I do so. I have no idea of why Xuxo has opened a DRN so quickly over this matter. That the number of Lebanese Brazilians alone is reliably sourced as being between 7 to 10 million ([http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7223:lebanese-republic&catid=155&lang=en&Itemid=478 here] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20080529005221/http://www.libano.org.br/olibano_geografia.htm here]) would suggest that removing content and replacing it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_Brazilians&diff=808235013&oldid=799304634 with misleading content], and introducing inappropriate WP:SYNTH, as has occurred [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_Brazilians&diff=next&oldid=808880735 here], in comparison with the 'discussion' on the article's talk page, does not meet with WP:BRD for the purposes of improving the article content. The article may need to be slightly tweaked, but there's a vast difference between tweaking and OR interpretation of figures which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lebanese_people&diff=682159709&oldid=682091778 appears to be an ongoing theme]. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

:{{ping|Robert McClenon}} I'd be predisposed to some form of reasonably worded compromise in order to depict the disparate figures, but certainly not the loaded language/WP:WORDS currently being pushed. This isn't the first time, however, that picking, choosing, and parsing IBGE stats has come up with regards to Brazilian demographics of the 'ethnic group' variety have been brought up. Honestly, I'd like to have an uninvolved Portuguese speaker read the IBGE report and verify that the interpretation of the report is accurate. Yes, I know it's expected that I err heavily towards AGF, but the methodology and conclusions have been a sticking point before... and will continue to be so until the nature of the reports is properly quantified. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

::{{ping|Robert McClenon}} Well, this is certainly a strange position to be left in. I'm not sure as to whether I'm expected to carry this through on my own. The filing party hasn't even been active since lodging their case with the expectation (one imagines) of some form of action/mediation to take place, and the other party hasn't responded. Where to from here? The linchpin is over the veracity of Xuxo's interpretation of the IBGE report which is, at best, weak. The research wasn't based on national results - merely taking samples from 6 of the 27 federal districts of Brazil - nor does Xuxo take into account the fact that approximately a third of the respondents did not respond to the question of their 'ethnic' descent. While the higher figures seem escalated, the minuscule numbers do not strike me as meeting with any rational usage of WP:CALC. On the contrary, I'm only seeing CHERRY and a breach of WP:NOR. This is not to say that Xuxo is intentionally trying to mislead the reader, but that there are inherent problems in stretching to disprove reliably sourced figures. Could we please hear from the other two parties before dragging in a third party? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. I have added an editor. The editors have been notified. The next step is for the editors to reply, since participation here is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - We are still waiting for the other editors to reply. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - The purpose of this noticeboard is voluntary moderated discussion, which is intended to lead to compromise. Are at least two of the editors willing to engage in moderated discussion with the intention of compromise, or do we have a situation where a choice needs to be made between one of two unlike views (less than 0.9% vs 7 to 10 million or more)? If this is simply a need to choose between two unlike views, then a Request for Comments may be a better option. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I will act as moderator, but will be taking up the suggestion of User:Iryna Harpy. Please read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation rules and follow the rules. I suggest that we reach out on WP:WikiProject Brazil for an uninvolved Lusophone editor to offer their opinion, and see if we can work something out. Will each editor please provide a one-paragraph statement while this reach-out is in progress? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Are the editors willing to put this case on hold while we wait for a comment by an uninvolved Lusophone editor as to whether the IBGE report is being read correctly?

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Friendly Lobotomy|23:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed, apparently abandoned. The filing editor has not notified the other editors a week after filing the case, and has not asked what the next step is. Please take any further discussion to the article talk page. Do not edit-war. Another thread may be opened here if necessary with proper notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 16 November 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 (1989_film)}}

Users involved

• {{User|Friendly Lobotomy}}
• {{User|Betty Logan}}
• {{User|Shallowgravy}}
• {{User|Bignole}}
• {{User|Sjones23}}

Dispute overview

In the page's infobox a credit is given to the creator of the Batman character - in the box only one creator is listed (Bob Kane) - at the time of the film's release this information was accurate (as the other creator, Bill Finger, was not given proper credit); but since the films release the other creator's name now appears in all Batman related media. It seems that it is commonplace on other articles to list uncredited contributors in the infobox and it seems that it would be accurate to list the now acknowledged co-creator. An argument has been made that the infobox should reflect the film's credits however inaccurate they may be - but this doesn't seem to be the case in most pages on Wikipedia.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have discussed it heavily in the talk page, but little is done expect for reverts.

How do you think we can help?

I think as long as the credit is properly given to both creators on the page the dispute would be resolved. Maybe it doesn't have to be in the infobox, but both names need to appear on the page somewhere and it needs to noted that the credit in the film was inaccurate at the time.

Though true that Bill Finger and Bob Kane had no direct involvement in the the Batman films they have every right to be included the same as any creator. The film Nosferatu comes to mind where Bram Stoker and his work Dracula were not credited in the film but clearly the movie is based on his work so the page lists Dracula by Bram Stoker in the based on section (not only that it had a similar legal battle forcing the hand of the film makers to acknowledge its source). Other works have examples where the film is not a direct adaption of the work of the creators but writers like Arthur Conan Doyle non direct adaptions of Sherlock Holmes or Charles Dicken' Christmas Carol being adapted into Scrooged and while these films do credit those creators in their work unlike Batman or Nosferatu they are just a few of many examples of films that follow a fair example of crediting their source. In the end while it may not be true that Bill Finger wrote any of the movie itself they directly adapted stories that he wrote himself such as Joker and Batman's origins (specifically Man Under the Red Hood and Detective #33) being near perfectly lifted from comics written by Finger. Being a comic book writer rather than a novelist or what not shouldn't exclude Finger from his proper acknowledgement of his work as others have on similar pages, merely noting that he was uncredited should be enough. 16:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Shallowgravy (talk)

The argument that we retroactively "give credit" to other films is only because that is for people that actually worked on the film that were denied credit. Subsequent printings of those films are ultimately changed to reflect said credit. THIS is not the same. This is about the film crediting the source material and at the time, Finger wasn't considered a creator of Batman. Although DC has since acknowledged him, they have NOT backdated credits (exception only going to a limited edition reprinting of the first Batman comic that they did to help honor him on Batman's birthday). Even if they did, it has no bearing on this film itself, because Finger didn't contribute to this film (nor did Kane). It is a matter of source crediting, and no subsequent printings of Batman (and they have been new releases for the film on Blu-Ray, etc. since decision to give him credit) changes the fact that Kane is the only one listed. The film infobox is a reflection of what the actual film says (exceptions only to when an actual crew member is denied credit and given later). The film has always and will always say just Kane as the creator of Batman. We're not denying Finger's work, just reflecting that the film doesn't list him.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. I have added an editor. The filing party has not yet notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - The filing editor hasn't notified the other editors, and it is now five days after this case was filed. There doesn't seem to have been any further discussion, so maybe this dispute can be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Saadkhan12345|17:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed. A request for a Third Opinion is being used in place of the request here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 18 November 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:Operation Searchlight}}

Users involved

• {{User|Saadkhan12345}}
• {{User|Aditya Kabir}}

Dispute overview

Whether Independent research claim of 300,000 dead should be added to the article Operation Searchlight in the lead section.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have discussed the issue.

How do you think we can help?

You can help by providing a third opinion and see who's point makes more sense.

There are two different death tolls for Bangladesh Liberation War, one claimed by Bangladesh government, and another by BBC, who mentions "independent researchers" as their source. It is prudent, and meets WP:N and WP:V if we write something like - "Bangladesh government and majority of Bangladesh sources claim ... died. However, BBC claims, citing unnamed independent researchers, that it was ...". Thank you. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe the lead becomes biased and non-neutral with one sided claim and therefore we should add independent figure claim.

Aditya mentions on Talk:Operation Searchlight

• 1. If BBC claims a number, then do write "BBC claims..."

I believe this is wrong here and we shouldn't write BBC claims here because BBC doesn't claim the figure 300,000 dead but Independent researchers do.

• 2. If someone says there is "independent research" and then does not cite the research, then do not write "independent research".

I believe we don't have to cite the research and check whether the claim is true because we don't do this for reliable sources.

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion, but not really enough to warrant resolving it with moderated discussion. It appears that a request for a Third Opinion is really what is wanted by the editors, which will be quicker than moderated discussion. Please post the Third Opinion request at that noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status}}

{{drn filing editor|Wikipediaeditperson|16:54, 14 November 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 FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship#Order_of_Toro_Rosso_drivers}}

Users involved

• {{User|Abdotorg}}
• {{User|Zwerg Nase}}
• {{User|Corvus tristis}}
• {{User|Deaþe gecweald}}
• {{User|Joseph2302}}
• {{User|Bbb2007}}
• {{User|DH85868993}}
• {{User|Sketchmoose}}
• {{User|WikiEditorAU}}
• {{User|Waysiders}}
• {{User|Wikipediaeditperson}}
• {{User|FactualCollector7d1}}
• {{User|Prisonermonkeys}}
• {{User|QueenCake}}
• {{User|cherkash}}
• {{User|Tvx1}}

Dispute overview

There has been quite a few editors who have shown displeasure to the current format of the 'Teams and Drivers' table in the article.

Much of the opposition towards it has stemmed from the fact that it was confusing to us as editors, and therefore is also likely to be confusing to readers as well.

We have extensively discussed this on the talk page, with several proposals being put forward, but no concensus has formed in support of 1 single proposal. However, proposals by {{u|QueenCake}} and {{u|Tvx1}} have proven to be 2 of the more popular proposals.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Several editors, including myself, have put forward proposals with the aim being to achieve a compramise. However, we have failed to agree on which proposal should be taken forward.

Also, we have discussed this in great detail on the talk page, trying to explain our opposing viewpoints. However, most editors have not changed from their original viewpoint.

How do you think we can help?

I fear that most editors in this discussion have been backing their preferred proposal and there has been a divide between the editors, based on their preferred proposal. This divide has made it difficult to work collaboratively with other editors, so I feel an external viewpoint may be needed to help us decide which route is best to take forward.

This is a long dispute caused by Toro Rosso messing around a lot with their drivers. It's a unique situation, but I don't feel strongly enough about this to be involved in this DRN discussion. Frankly we should spend less time having recursive arguments like this, and more time spent building the encyclopedia. This will be my only contribution to this DRN. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The issue arises from the fact that Toro Rosso has used four drivers over the course of the year. However, instead of directly replacing one driver with another in a straightforward fashion, some drivers have come back to the team and replaced the driver of the other car, and not the one they had driven before. Additionally, for the first time since 1994, Toro Rosso has fielded two completely different driver lineups in consecutive races. While in the past when such situations were more common teams were assigned numbers to their cars, making such situations relatively straightforward to discern as the replacement driver would carry the same number as the original driver, since 2014 drivers have been able to select their own number, meaning that this is no longer the case. Additionally, one driver (Hartley) has raced with two distinct numbers as he was originally given the team's reserve driver number for his first race before picking his own.

As this is the first time such a situation like this has occurred since 2014, their is no real precedent for how to format the teams and drivers table, and given the complexity of the matter, two popular proposals along different schools of thought have emerged for the organisation of the table. {{U|QueenCake}}'s proposal calls for the drivers to be listed such that each driver number is listed once, and the table is ordered in such a way that a replacement driver is listed directly under the driver that they replaced in the first instance. The perceived downsides to this proposal is that the drivers are not listed chronologically by round and that there is a lack of clarity on which driver was being replaced by whom in some circumstances. This second point is important as the replacement driver maintains the original drivers allocation of power unit components, gearboxes, and tyres, all aspects of the sport that are fundamentally important as they can affect reliability, performance, strategy, and starting position (through grid penalties). {{U|Tvx1}}'s proposal makes this clear by sorting the two allocations chronologically, one after another, and putting a line in between them, solving both of the issues that the first proposal faced. However, it necessarily includes some drivers twice, as some have raced at some point using both allocations. Some editors have been opposed to this proposal for this reason, claiming that it creates confusion as to why drivers are listed twice, specifically among those who don't understand the concepts of parts allocations. This proposal would also require some modifications to the all existing season tables between 2014 and 2017 for continuity.

While originally in support of {{U|QueenCake}}'s proposal, I now support {{U|Tvx1}}'s proposal due to how the chronological sorting by rounds it provides, the belief that any issues of confusion arising from drivers being listed twice could be eliminated though a brief explanation above the table, and because in my opinion it is simply a more elegant solution for all instances. As such, I would also be willing to help make the modifications to the existing tables should it be selected. I would also like to point out that the format currently in is nearly universally unpopular, with little support. Thank you and apologies for the length. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I promise I'll be brief:

Prior to 2014, Formula 1 used a system where numbers were assigned to cars based on the team's championship position the previous year. Starting in 2014, drivers were allowed to adopt their own personalised number. This necessitated a change in the way the entry table was organised. Where previously it was organised by number, now it is organised alphabetically by constructor name. Drivers within each team are organised by number when they contest the same rounds. In the event of a mid-season change, the rounds column takes priority. This was to prevent a situation where a driver who raced mid-season was listed before a driver (or drivers) who started the championship. Hence in 2016, Ocon (#31) is listed after Haryanto (#88).

Now to the 2017 article:

Daniil Kvyat contested the first 14 rounds, then left the team. He returned for round 17. However, he did not resume his position in the team. Instead, he replaced Carlos Sainz, Jr. We can prove this through reliable sources: the rules governing engine use assign engines to cars, not to drivers (to stop teams swapping drivers to get fresh engines). When he returned to the team, Kvyat inherited Sainz's engine allocation. The same goes for Pierre Gasly, who replaced Kvyat in his original car, then later replavcd Kvyat in Sainz's original car. Compare that to Fernando Alonso, who missed one race but returned to his original car. The question that is up for debate is to how best represent this in the table given that the rounds column takes priority.

One final note:

This is a very unusual situation. I have been following the sport for over 20 years, and I cannot recall the last time a team rotated drivers between seats like this. I am concerned that the outcome of the discussion will have negative effects on other championship articles. If a perfect solution cannot be found, I would prefer to settle for an imperfect solution here if it meant preserving the integrity of other championship articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer's notes: I'm neither taking this nor opening it for discussion, but I am informing the filing party ‎Wikipediaeditperson that it is his/her obligation to notify all the other listed participants by leaving a notice on their user talk pages. This tag can be used for that purpose: {{drn-notice|Talk:2017 FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship#Order_of_Toro_Rosso_drivers}} A notice on the article talk page will not suffice to fulfill this obligation. If all other listed participants have not been notified by 16 November 2017, 18:00 UTC then this listing will likely be closed as abandoned. The discussion on the article talk page appears to be sufficient to satisfy our requirements. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

:@{{u|TransporterMan}}, It's all done now - I have left a message on each of the users' talk pages. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

::To quote Eric Cartman, kewl. But let me ask you this: Do you really feel that moderated discussion can achieve consensus on this problem? We don't here at DRN just pass judgments, we attempt to "grease" the discussion process to help editors come to consensus by avoidance of incivility and structuring discussion to focus on the real issue and avoid rabbit trails and side issues. Is that what this dispute needs, or does it really need something closer to (gasp) voting? If it really needs the latter, then the best route might be a RFC filed at the article talk page (which would result in this DRN filing being closed). Just 'sayin and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

:::@{{u|TransporterMan}} Weighing in here as one of the participants, albeit not the main three or four, I am not sure DRN is the correct process. The discussion has become bloated and repetitive, but there is a consensus that the current table is inadequate, and all participating editors have expressed their own opinions as to how to improve it. What is needed is an ending, perhaps the oft-maligned vote that simply picks an option and then everyone moves on. RFC is probably the correct venue. QueenCake (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

::::As another irregular participant, I'd just like to concur with this. Happy to help the proceedings along, but I'm holding back until the DRN/RFC wrangling is concluded. Waysiders (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

:::::If I am being honest, I would also agree with @{{u|QueenCake}} - I think it may have been a mistake taking this discussion to DRN, as I fear the discussion will merely continue here. This probably will mean we continue to make little or no progress. Perhaps RFC will give us a more conclusive outcome. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - I don't speak for other volunteers, but I know that I don't intend to try to moderate a discussion with such a large number of editors. I think that some other volunteers feel the same way, that trying to moderate a discussion with so many participants would be like trying to herd half a dozen cats and half a dozen dogs and three rabbits. I would suggest that the editors follow the advice of User:TransporterMan, although if someone wants to try to lead a discussion, I will stay out of the way (rather than get run over by the cats and dogs). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

:::@{{u|TransporterMan}}, I felt that the talk page was just going round in circles, with many of us editors simply regurgitating arguments brought up several comments ago and no real progress being made. I am hoping that this DRN will help us all converge on a single proposal, whether this be one of the current proposals or something in between. I am a little bit fearful that even with this DRN, we may still continue to make no progress, and an RFC would then be the only option. However, I feel a moderated discussion may help us all to work together. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

::::@{{u|TransporterMan}} — although there are a large number of editors involved, not all of them are particularly active in the discussion. Only about half of them have been regularly contributing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

:::::As @{{u|Prisonermonkeys}} has said, not all of the editors have been regularly active in the discussion. However, I fear that some of them may have stopped contributing, as they may have felt a bit fed up that their contributions were going unnoticed, as the discussion was not making any progress. This is why I have included all the editors from the discussion in this list - clearly they all had their reasons to make a contribution, and I wanted to give everyone who had an opinion the opportunity to contribute at DRN. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - I have re-opened this case. DRN doesn't seem like an effective way to resolve this dispute, but if the editors want moderated discussion and a volunteer is willing to moderate, there can be moderated discussion. (I still think that it may be like herding half a dozen cats, half a dozen dogs, and three rabbits.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

{{DR case status|open}}

{{drn filing editor|David A|18:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1511289171}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Nyheter Idag}}

Users involved

• {{User|David A}}
• {{User|Liftarn}}

Dispute overview

I have inserted a POV tag to the page, as I think that it uses several highly unreliable sources in order to unfairly character-assassinate the news website.

I and Liftarn have a long history of arguments, and they always result in that I feel like I am talking with a fact-resistant stonewall, which turns me increasingly angry, as I am overworked in general, and do not have the time and energy to properly deal with this. I need an uninvolved party to attempt to mediate between us so we can reach some conclusions.

We also have another discussion here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crime_in_Sweden

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We talked about this at length at the reliable sources noticeboard, but did not get satisfactory input.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=797834788#Source_for_calling_Nyheter_Idag_xenophobic — Preceding unsigned comment added by David A (talk • contribs)

How do you think we can help?

It would be very helpful if you could evaluate whether or not the sources in question are reliable, or should be removed for a NPOV encyclopaedic overview.

I have on multiple occasions tried to educate {{user|David A}} about the use of reliable sources, but the problem appears to be that if a source says something he disagrees with it's an "opinion" that can be deleted at will. He demands to use primary sources ("proof" he calls it) instead. // Liftarn (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page, and the filing editor has notified the other editor. I will again remind both editors that they should focus their comments on article content, not on each other. The next step is to wait for a response from the other editor, since participation is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• As the other editor has responded, I'm going togo ahead and open this. Please provide your answers to the following questions, as I think it could be a good starting point.

1. What information should or should not be in this article?
2. What sources demonstrate this information is accurate and notable?
3. Is there anything else you believe the other editor fails to acknowledge or understand?

ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 21:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

1. Preferably only the ones that treat Nyheter Idag as a primary subject of analysis, and offer examples supporting the claims, not the ones that simply mention it in passing with an unproven accusation.
2. Resumé, Expressen, Expo
3. Liftarn keeps inserting extremely slanted references in order to character-assassinate the news site, to further his political agenda. He has shown no compunctions from using 1-sentence offhanded mentions as somehow being encyclopaedic, while elsewhere repeatedly berating reliable statistics from official institutions and cited by reliable newspapers, if the facts of reality contradict his personal ideology.

David A (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

1. The core issue is regarding the description of Nyheter Idag as a racist site. I think it should be described using WP:RS and avoid WP:ALLEGED. We have several reliable sources from two different countries supporting it. As it's the defining characteristic of the site it should be next to their own description, not downplayed or hidden away.
2. [http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/sd-mejl-avslojar-dubbelspelet/ Expressen], [http://ng.se/artiklar/brakrecap-metro Nöjesguiden], [http://omni.se/lo-svenskar-sprider-mindre-fran-rasistiska-sajter/a/36lxv Omni], [https://svenska.yle.fi/artikel/2016/10/02/varning-lita-inte-pa-de-har-sa-kallade-nyhetssajterna YLE], [http://ng.se/artiklar/snart-inga-artister-kvar-till-sds-sommarfestival Nöjesguiden], [http://www.dagensarena.se/innehall/sa-har-rasistsajterna-rasat-i-sociala-medier/ Dagens Arena]
3. I think the main problem is that he wants to use primary sources (what he calls "proof") and not what reliable sources say (what he calls "opinions").

// Liftarn (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

{{u|David A}}, please do not comment on {{u|Liftarn}}'s personal "philosophy". While POV-pushing is a problem, this is a fairly loaded accusation, and it does not belong on DRN because we do not deal with editor behaviour, only content disputes.

Also: I don't really like the term character-assassinate either. It implies some form of wrongdoing, whereas this issue is over whether or not it should be included -- a content dispute.

So, the key issue is to whether reliable sources describe the website as racist. I am not familiar with the Swedish press, and I'm unsure which news sources are considered reliable. So, here are the questions I think need to be answered:

{{u|David A}}: are the sources that Liftarn provided in his response reliable, in your opinion?

^{(All editors:)} Is the website's defining characteristic racism, is it a significant part of it/is it well known for being racist, or is it a minor issue{{efn|Of course, racism is always a major issue. What I mean is, was it in some controversy where it published one racist article, had a racist editor resign, etc}}?

How much weight do you feel should be given to the allegations of racism?

Thanks, ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 17:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

{{notelist}}

Understood. I will try to keep my irritation and autistic lack of mental filters in check.

I do not mind most of the sources as such, as long as they are used to reference news, or contain columns that treat Nyheter Idag as a primary focus of examination. As I mentioned earlier, what I mind is that the cited sources only feature subjective accusations of the variety "the racist site Nyheter Idag interviewed a certain person". This is an offhanded subjective mention very unbefitting of an encyclopaedia.

I am not overly familiar with the website, but the articles that I have read have not contained any outright racist material, no, and there have been no such incidents mentioned in major newspapers that I know of. They generally seem to attempt to hold a high journalistic standard in their reporting, and handle a variety of topics.

David A (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

David A did give a rather good summary. We have reliable sources saying the site is racist, but since David A have done some WP:OR (he read some texts on the site) he don't want to include it in the article. // Liftarn (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

{{hat|Please stop this kind of back-and-forth snapping at one another. Nihlus 13:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)}}

As I have mentioned earlier, my main concern is that including offhanded unproven accusations into an encyclopaedia is not remotely reliable. I am fine with including articles that genuinely examine Nyheter Idag indepth as proof. David A (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

: What you call "offhanded unproven accusations" we on Wikipedia call reliable sources. What you call "proof" we call primary research or original research. We both agree that reliable sources says the site is racist. The difference is that you don't want to include it so please explain why. // Liftarn (talk) 09:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

::I do not consider offhanded casually mentioned opinions that do not even attempt to rationally evaluate a subject indepth, or handle it as a primary focus of an article, as reliable encyclopaedic evidence. That is all.

::It is possible to find a mention of anybody having an unfounded opinion about anything in prominent newspapers, but unless they at least give indepth explanations regarding the logical foundation for why exactly they think something, it seems irrelevant and misrepresentative to give too prominent undue weight.

::Why exactly do you think the site is racist anyway? Can you give any examples of prominent incidents or articles that spewed hatred based on skin colour, because I have not noticed any examples in any of the sources that you provided. David A (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

::: My own views don't matter. What matter are reliable sources and we have those. I understand that you may not like what they say, but that is still not a reason to ignore or downplay them. // Liftarn (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

::::As I keep attempting to explain, I do not mind if you add sources that are both reliable and actually examine Nyheter Idag as a main topic. What I mind are at most 1-sentence accusations that have no logic or explanation behind them, and come from articles that are mainly about something else. David A (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

:::: And as I repeatedly have stated your personal and arbitrary rules for when something may be used or not are a problem and I urge you to read up on WP:RS. // Liftarn (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

:::::Well, I would much prefer if experienced neutral parties evaluate that. David A (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

{{hab}}

{{u|David A}} has posted this at WP:3O. If he could remove that request or respond saying he'd rather go the 3O route, that'd be great. In the meantime:

1. How much coverage of the alleged racism is appropriate, in your opinion, for this article?
2. Are the sources provided by the editors conflicting? Is there competing sources as to whether or not the site is racist?

Sorry I was awol over the weekend, I do other things then. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 16:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the third opinion and request for comments requests. They can wait until later, if this option does not reach a solution.

1. I do not mind coverage, if the articles in question actually analyse Nyheter Idag as a main subject. I just find it insane for an encyclopaedia to include offhanded unfounded 1-sentence accusations that come from articles that are mainly about other topics.
2. I do not think that the site is mentioned much in regular newspapers, other than when they break a news story, and regular media later pick it up and occasionally give them credit. Regardless, mindless slander does not sit well with me.

No problem, we can continue from here. However, what I really need is a judgement regarding Wikipedia policy for these types of situations. David A (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

1. It's main claim to fame is that the site it's a part of the far right web milieu so I'd say that racism is quite central. It was founded by a member of the far right party Sverigedemokraterna who also have worked on Avpixlat and Politiskt Inkorrekt. The site was registered by Kent Ekeroth in 2011.
2. It has also been described as "right-wing populist and far right alternative media", but not as not being racist. So I'd say the only conflict is between the sources and David A and how the site describes themselves. When mentioned in mainstream media it's usually as far-right, right populist or racist.

// Liftarn (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=This really isn't suitable for DRN, consensus has already been established against the filing editor on the article's talk page, and having a discussion here is unnecessary. If the filing editor is still unhappy, I ask that he discuss it further or open an RfC. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 15:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)}}

{{drn filing editor|Shaded0|15:17, 9 November 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:AR-15 (disambiguation)}}

Users involved

• {{User|Shaded0}}, {{User|Niteshift36}}, {{User|RAF910}}, {{User|wbm1058}}, {{User|Limpscash}}

Dispute overview

Discussion on AR-15 over current redirects and argument regarding copyright versus common usage in respect to Wikipedia policy. Please see the page discussion on Talk:AR-15_(disambiguation)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Proposals for new redirect format - adjusting article content.

How do you think we can help?

Additional opinions requested regarding feedback over trademark of AR-15 rifles on this topic.

Volunteer note: Hello, {{u|Shaded0}}. Could you please include any other editors who may have been involved. Thank you. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 15:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose- This issue has been discussed at other locations and on the DAB talk page. Now this editor comes in, opens a new discussion, 4 editors oppose it, none come to support it and his next step is to come here after only 2-3 days of the discussion being open? We shouldn't be here yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|76.169.78.241|06:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|There has not been extensive discussion on the article talk page. Even they filing party admits that, saying "None of them are discussing anything in talk". Editors should discuss on the article talk page. If no one is willing to discuss, see WP:DISCFAIL. The filing party is strongly advised that registering an account is helpful if one wishes to engage in dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:51, 22 November 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|Judenhut}}

Users involved

• {{User|76.169.78.241}}
• {{User|Johnbod}}
• {{User|Ewulp}}

Dispute overview

Multiple editors descending to revert an action I know to be correct. None of them are discussing anything in talk, just showing up to revert me. Subject is of racial and/or religious nature and may be sensitive.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing in talk.

How do you think we can help?

Please let other editors know to discuss things in talk first, or preferably to provide reliable sources.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Mnnlaxer|19:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed for several reasons. This case is already pending at the External Links Noticeboard, and this noticeboard does not handle disputes that are pending in another forum, and trying to transfer this dispute from another noticeboard is forum shopping. Also, a discussion of a general policy issue should be taken to Village Pump (policy). Resume discussion at the External Links Noticeboard or at the Village Pump. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI. The article talk page itself is also a reasonable place to discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:00, 22 November 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:External links/Noticeboard#Carleton Knights football}}

Users involved

• {{User|Mnnlaxer}}
• {{User|Jweiss11}}
• {{User|Corkythehornetfan}}
• {{User|Beetstra}}
• {{User|Ronz}}
• {{User|BronHiggs}}

Dispute overview

I want to include an external link to a historical video about Carleton's 1992 season ({{cite web |title=Carleton Football Highlights |url=https://archivedb.carleton.edu/index.php?p=digitallibrary/digitalcontent&id=83097 |publisher=Carleton College Archives |date=1992}}) to the Carleton Knights football article. The others don't think it is justified by policy, although the main dispute is with Beetstra. My case is it meets ELYES #3 and doesn't fit in any ELNO. It increases the encyclopedic knowledge of the subject, but does not lend itself to inclusion as a cited reference.

If I can try to summarize the others' views: 1) ELPOINTS #4 suggests not linking to a second webpage on the subject's official website. 2) The subject of the video is the 1992 season while the article's subject is the team. 3) The 1992 season is not notable enough to deserve an external link. 4) Using the video as a citation in the text is preferred.

Outside of this specific case, I think there is a problem with how frequent contributors to the EL noticeboard interpret policy, and I am very interested in clarifying the policy going forward. User:Number 57 noted on my talk page that EL is "one of those policy areas where a very small number of editors dominate with their own personal take on a guideline and stonewall anything that goes against their view".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I filed a request for a general administrative closure, as the EL noticeboard does not have a closure process of its own. There is currently a back log of closure requests.

How do you think we can help?

As an outside party to decide whether the link should be allowed. I will abide by the decision.

Mnnlaxer has been including the link while other editors have been removing it several times.

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carleton_Knights_football&diff=806765766&oldid=806765514 insertion] (original?) by User:Mnnlaxer - "added External Links"
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carleton_Knights_football&diff=808642727&oldid=808619249 insertion] (original?) by User:Mnnlaxer - "add video"
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carleton_Knights_football&diff=808919469&oldid=808914371 removal] by User:Jweiss11 - "add official website, rem unneeded links"
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carleton_Knights_football&diff=808945546&oldid=808944276 reinsertion] by User:Mnnlaxer - "restore 2 external links"
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carleton_Knights_football&diff=808945927&oldid=808945546 removal] by User:Jweiss11 - "Undid revision 808945546 by Mnnlaxer (talk) restore standard link, remove unneeded links"
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carleton_Knights_football&diff=808948367&oldid=808947122 reinsertion] by User:Mnnlaxer - "he article is better with these links, important content that should be easily identifiable and accessible, not buried in a ref"
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carleton_Knights_football&diff=809027575&oldid=809027526 removal] by User:Corkythehornetfan - "website in wikidata, WP:ELNO"

Mnnlaxer then brought the discussion to WP:ELN (presumably to get the opinion of editors who are knowledgeable in external links) where the same editors and I commented that the links do not belong. During the discussion (after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard&diff=810533660&oldid=810195208 self-close] by User:Mnnlaxer - "Marked by original poster. There is a benefit to posting the link to the 1992 season video, the cost is very low, it fits WP:ELYES #3 and does not fit WP:ELNO #1. The best argument below is that we should "try to avoid" two external links to the same site. The video link is a part of Carleton's archives and is hard to find without this direct link. So I'm posting it again."):

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carleton_Knights_football&diff=810533766&oldid=809594427 reinsertion] by User:Mnnlaxer - "post link to 1992 season video"
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carleton_Knights_football&diff=810597512&oldid=810533766 removal] by me User:Beetstra - "no, there was no consensus to include it on WP:ELN (though arguably also no consensus to exclude) - still: WP:ELBURDEN"

When in the end the discussion still did not give the result he wanted, and failing to drop the stick, he decides to come here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC) (statement expanded --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC))

I stand with the evaluation of the people in the thread at WP:ELN, nothing to add to that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Noting: having now [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=811529807 sorted the editors in time], the first two editors (User:Jweiss11 and User:Corkythehornetfan) that removed the link, are not regulars at WP:EL/WP:ELN (I don't recall if I had ever interaction with them at . --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Noting: none of the editors in this dispute have been made aware of this discussion, I have done so. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Pending in other dispute resolution forum (Third Opinion). - TransporterMan (TALK) 22:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)}}

{{drn filing editor|CalinicoFire|21:12, 24 November 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:Pythagoras}}

Users involved

• {{User|CalinicoFire}}

Dispute overview

According to the oppossing editor of the discussion. Pythagoras's father origins are uncertain and debated. I have proved that more than 90% of the biographers of Pythagoras have said he is originally from Tyre. The editor still disagrees and says his origins are "hotly debated". He agrees that most authors say so in a way but decides to take away my the edit that says that and instead wants to make it into a note that is easy to be missed by readers for unknown/strange reasons.

Since his fellow meatpuppet editor friend Dr. K removed my last entry on the discussion please look at the full version of the dispute here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=811537461

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have taken the issue into the Talk Page and just requested a third opinion as per WP:3

How do you think we can help?

By looking at the sources I have provided and my analysis on the source his has provided (which leaves out plenty of ancient biographers that state Pythagoras's father was from Tyre) and bringing objective views into the discussion. I would also like you to look into this editors behaviors as him and fellow editor friends (Dr K and Khirurg) seem to be meatpuppets as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed for at least two reasons. First, there has been no discussion on the article talk page, only a statement by the filing editor that they are not satisfied. Second, this is not being formulated as a content dispute, but as a complaint about an editor, and that is not what this noticeboard is for. The filing party may wait for an answer at the article talk page, or may report a conflict of interest at the conflict of interest noticeboard. If the other editor does not discuss at the article talk page, see WP:DISCFAIL. If there is a content dispute, consider Third Opinion or Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)}}

{{drn filing editor|Pinkbeast|01:58, 25 November 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:Jesse L. Brown#Addition of second book by obvious COI account}}

Users involved

• {{User|Pinkbeast}}
• {{User|JesseBrownFan}}

Dispute overview

A mention of a biography has been added to this page (by an SPA) but whether or not it merits inclusion is disputed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've described my view of the question on the talk page on Tuesday. There has been no reply as yet.

How do you think we can help?

Comment on whether or not this biography merits inclusion. I will abide by the consensus view and I hope the other involved editor will do so also.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{DRN archive top|The parties have not had extensive discussion of the issue on a talk page. Dispute resolution is not appropriate at this time. Additionally, this has been taken to AN3 by the other party. Nihlus 01:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)}}

{{drn filing editor|BlueandWhite2017|00:33, 27 November 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|Awdal}}

Users involved

• {{User|BlueandWhite2017}}
• {{User|Koodbuur}}

Dispute overview

The region of Awda is part of Somalia. Where as my opponent USER Koodbuur insists that is part of a self-declared state called "Somaliland". I have provided links from the US State Department and UK Foreign showing that neither governments recognise "Somaliland". Somalia's territorial integrity is recognised by the US and the UK.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have attempted to communicate with USER Koodbuur, and left messages on his OR her talk page

How do you think we can help?

He must recognoise that "Somaliland" is not recognised as a state, and that Somalia's territorial integrity is recognised by the US, UK and the UN. The City of Dontesk is part of Ukraine not part of the self-proclaimed Dontessk People's Republic - wikipedia recognises that even though that city is under separatist control.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|PasterofMuppets|10:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed for two related reasons. First, when a dispute involves more than two editors, consciously listing less than all of the editors, and so stating, is not helpful, because it tries to treat a content dispute like a conduct dispute. If this is a content dispute, all of the editors should be involved. Second, if an editor states that mediation will not be helpful, as User:Nishidani did, mediation is not worth trying. Nishidani has the right to decline mediation and has declined mediation. All editors should reread the dispute resolution policy and read WP:DISCFAIL. They may choose to use a Request for Comments. Resume discussion on the article talk page. Comment on content, not contributors. If there is disruptive editing, it may be reported at Arbitration Enforcement, but read the boomerang essay first. Robert McClenon (talk) }}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Im Tirtzu#Changing_the_Intro}}

Users involved

• {{User|PasterofMuppets}}
• {{User|Nishidani}}

Dispute overview

Dispute regarding the lead section. One side believes that the criticism should be a general criticism, while other side believes it should be a specific criticism taken from certain individuals.

Also, dispute in the lead regarding relevance of sentence describing the organization's stated goals upon its establishment.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Although 4 editors appear in the discussion, in reality the dispute is between Nishidani and I. I requested a third opinion, but given the fact that other editors were involved it was declined.

How do you think we can help?

By objectively assessing the dispute as people who have no familiarity with the organization in question.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Im_Tirtzu&diff=807884871&oldid=807878833 Apparently this innocuous edit] upset PasterofMuppets. A [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Im_Tirtzu#Changing_the_Intro long discussion took place], and I took in some of PasterofMuppets objections by adding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Im_Tirtzu&diff=808550558&oldid=808547926 new] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Im_Tirtzu&diff=808547926&oldid=808532583 material, all academically sourced,] clarifying the historical origins of the term to correct a false statement in the lead, i.e. Herzl did not coin the term ‘Im Tirtzu’. It was the Hebrew rendering in translation of a phrase he used, which can be however translated in various ways. PasterofMuppetrs objected, asking me for a source. So I added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Im_Tirtzu&diff=808979614&oldid=808550558 the sourcing] he asked for. PoM's version let stand the false claim in the lead about the term, and was hostile to an independent source stating what the organization's declared foundational aim was, preferring to that the organisations own more recent self-redescription.

Throughout these improvements, in good part responsive to PoM's complaints on the talk page, and thus satisfying PasterofMuppets, meeting her halfway, the plaintiff kept reverting to the lead version they had written, ignoring warnings by another editor on the page to listen to what was being said, and stop reverting to the version PoM preferred.

I think the talk page indicates that PoM will not listen, is an inexperienced editor, with perhaps a WP:COI problem, giving the limited range of his edits, and in denial over what reputable sources state multiply about that organization, whose positions the editor seems to share. I see no point in mediation here. One cannot mediate between editors with an WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT approach, and editors who, demonstrably, show themselves receptive to tweaking the text in order to address what seems a fair request from their interlocutor. As PoM kept reverting, insisting on stale prose of his personal preference, I added five academic sources to a rather poorly sourced article. Disputes are not just stylistic games: they are resolved by casting one's net wide to see what RS say, not nitpicking over how to restitch one minor hole in the net.Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

{{v note}} Discussion has been more than adequate. The second party has been notified and provided a statement. --Kostas20142 (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Butdavid|13:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as not getting anywhere because only one editor is participating. Participation here is voluntary. Since only one editor is participating, we will reduce the number of participants to zero. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If there are any questions, a Request for Comments may be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 27 November 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:Hallam FM}}

Users involved

• {{User|Butdavid}}
• {{User|Davey2010}}

Dispute overview

An ongoing dispute in regards to what is deemed to be considered as a 'Notable Presenter'. A Dispute Resolution Notice request was filed by myself, dated 5 June, 2014, in regards to 'Notable Presenters'. User: 'Doniago' mediated at that time. I have included a number of past presenters in the 'Notable Presenters' section of the Hallam FM article, that sadly do not have their own Wiki article to link to, but were undeniably regarded as 'notable presenters', in the sense that they played a huge part in the early years of the station. I cited these names with what I considered as reliable sources. ie Sheffield Newspaper article; YouTube Yorkshire TV video; a website set up by a former presenter of the station, which included recordings and genuine photo's; a forum showing original photos of presenters and a correct LinkedIn source. I am also from the city where the radio station was born and can verify that everything is accurate in relation to the presenters added to the 'Notable Presenter's' section. User:Davey2010 is still arguing that the presenters are only 'Notable' if they have their own Wiki article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Dispute Resolution Request, June 2014; and previous to that discussion via the Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Mediate in the matter. Assist us in determining what is to be deemed as a 'Notable Presenter' - Is it one with a Wiki article linked to it only?

In short there was a discussion in 2014 which rather annoyingly I closed as "Not Done - Having a huge long list of notable presenters is fine, Having a huge list of non notables is not" - I will say here and now the discussion should never have been closed by me but in my defense I was more or less a newbie at the time,

Anyway a Few weeks to a month ago I removed the presenters from the article (completely forgetting there was ever a discussion on this) which Butdavid objected too - Although the list was sourced the sources were "YouTube, LinkedIn, BlogSpot, hallammemories, family-announcements.co.uk and sheffieldhistory.co.uk (forum)" which are obviously not reliable sources and I stated this on the talkpage, Butdavid disagreed and so here we are,

It seems to be a common thing on all radio stations - If they're not wikilinked then they're not included however if they're actually notable for working on the station and there's sources to establish this then unlinked but reliably sourced presenters can be added. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hi {{u|ProgrammingGeek}}, I did mention 30, DRN and RFC to the editor however I'm more than happy to go with 30 or RFC :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer note: This seems a fairly minor dispute. {{u|Davey2010}} and {{u|Butdavid}}, if you want mediation at DRN, that will happen. Have you considered a WP:3O? I feel that is a possibility. If that's already been requested, then I'm sure someone will open your case. Thanks. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 14:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

:ProgrammingGeek Thank you for your kind intervention. With respect, I would prefer mediation at DRN as it has not previously been resolved through talk page discussion. The dispute may seem 'minor', but in my view it is not. What I would consider as very notable presenters from the early days when Hallam FM was known as Radio Hallam, who were around well before the internet could document them are not receiving the recognition they deserve.

:The sources cited for a number of well liked and very popular influential presenters are in fact extremely reliable. These sources are not necessarily relying on the odd mention of a particular dj, but numerous verifications and some coming with official photo's etc. Official videos and recordings uploaded also reliably show without doubt certain presenters who were major personalities at the station back in the 1970's and 80's. Davey2010 states that "It seems to be a common thing on all radio stations -If they're not wikilinked then they're not included..."

:My response to this is that one of the reasons why Wiki radio stations have only wikilinked presenters is very likely down to the likes of Davey2010 deciding this by trawling through all the stations and editing out all presenters who are not wikilinked.

:There are no rules on this by Wikipedia as far as I am aware, that names have to be wikilinked; so editors are just taking it upon themselves to lay the rules down like Davey2010. I started a thread on this subject on Sheffield Forum earlier on this year, which I feel that Davey 2010 should at least have a read of.https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1499143

:I am not as familiar with Wikipedia as Davey2010 is and he says he has done about 80,000 edits. If he was a "newbie" back in 2014, then since then he has roughly edited 50 plus times every day since then until now. I feel that is a lot of editing by one person. With respect to Davey2010, I am far more knowledgeable on 'Radio Hallam' than he will ever be. I lived and breathed it, so I know who the presenters were and who were well known or even iconic ie Roger Moffat. Ask people over 45/50 years of age in Sheffield who Roger was and they would tell you. He was an iconic figure in Sheffield. The sources I have cited are as reliable as you will ever get. I have not included in the 'Notable Presenters' section all the great names from the early days, but the names that graced the airwaves the most and who were the most popular with the listener.

:Wikipedia's purpose is to "benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge." I think that Davey2010 really is all about being 'neat and tidy' on Wikipedia, but Wiki is not about being neat and tidy, but informative. Butdavid (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

• That is long, but please limit your comments to article content and not to comments about other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

::I'm not all about neat and tidy at all - My entire objective or goal on this site is to help our readers and to make them read informative and encyclopedic information - A long pointless list of nobodies is not informative nor encyclopedic information, I absolutely agree I will never know Hallam like you will and that's obvious but that doesn't mean pointless lists should exists purely because you know them,

::The edit count part is off-topic however if you have issues with this you're more than welcome to ask on my talkpage but for the time being we should keep this about presenters etc and not about me (Yes I did in some sense make it about me on the talkpage however I was trying to justify my bad actions in 2014), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

:::Davey2010 With respect, we need to once and for all determine what 'Notable' means.

:::What is Wikipedia's stance on what 'notable' means?

:::To me, 'notable' means something or someone who was well known, significant, unforgettable, memorable. That does not mean they need to be Wikilinked to be any of these.

:::The presenters I added were indeed these terms and should be recognised. Nobody surely can deny as accurate an official video, a radio recording that actually went out on air or official radio photo's of presenters with their names and radio station logo attached?

:::I had added or included a small number of presenters from the station when it was known as 'Radio Hallam.' There were many more, but I limited it to the most significant.

:::What we have got is just one presenter from the original line-up of presenters back then, in the 'Notable Presenter' section of the Hallam FM article, who is Wikilinked. This is not a true reflection of who was 'notable' back then in the 1970's and needs to be addressed, corrected and improved on.

:::It may not look neat having names in black rather than blue, but so long as these presenters come with unarguable information about them, such as what I have mentioned, then they should not be disputed as being reliable and the information that goes with them not to be trusted.

:::I trust we can come to some kind of agreement here, Davey 2010, and make the 'Notable Presenter' section more of a true reflection of who were in fact the most well known, significant, unforgettable and memorable presenters or disc jockey's, at the station over its lifetime. Butdavid (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

{{V note}} I would request both parties to kindly keep discussion here to a minimum until a volunteer opens the case. You both have already presented your views. Please wait for a willing volunteer to open the case and help you reach a resolution. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

::::Yashovardhan Many thanks. Butdavid (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

:::::Yashovardhan Just to inform that I feel it would be best for me, if I continue to discuss on the talk page in regards to 'Presenters', to further lay out my case there. Hopefully, myself and Davey2010, can come to some kind of agreement and certain names can then be included in the 'Notable Presenter' section of the article. Many thanks for your assistance. Butdavid (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

::::::Hi {{u|Butdavid}}, I think it's probably best we wait this out and failing that we start an RFC on the talkpage - Even I didn't realise this would take this long however being realistic we won't come to an agreement by ourselves - WP:30 is kinda pointless as it's just one editor offering their opinion whereas with RFC you get a whole bunch of random editors, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

:::::::Hello {{u|Davey2010}}... In the 'summary of dispute', you clearly state the following: "...however if they're actually notable for working on the station and there's sources to establish this then unlinked but reliably sourced presenters can be added."

:::::::The dispute was previously resolved successfully in 2014, with the reasoning suggesting that: "List should be narrowed down to significant presenters based on reliable sources, with option to link to full list." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_94#Talk:Hallam_FM It did not reason that presenter's had to be Wikilinked to be added or included.

:::::::I therefore propose acceptance of book/annual citations with a credited author, against any presenters I wish to add to the 'Notable Presenter' section of the article. Also citations for newspaper article/s, which also will have gone through editorial processes to be also accepted.

:::::::W:IRS definition of a reliable source states: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

:::::::I trust this will resolve the dispute and we can close.

:::::::Yashovardhan Please note that I have attempted to keep this to a minimum. Thank you. Butdavid (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It appears that we may have resolution, but I don't know. I am willing to moderate. Will the editors please read the rules and follow them? Be civil and concise. (Previous discussion at this noticeboard has not been concise. Overly long statements do not clarify the issues, even if they make the editors feel better.) It appears that the issue has to do with who are the Notable Presenters. Will each editor please state, in one or two paragraphs, what they think are the issues involving article content? (If you have issues about other editors, don't bother with them.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I've already stated above but screw it, Restored, Not going to repeat myself again and again. –Davey2010^Talk 23:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

:*The issues involving article content are: that presenters, not having their own Wiki article to link to, who undeniably played an essential part in the early years of the station, are being removed from the 'Notable Presenter' section.

::The purpose of the discussion is to allow inclusion of 'significant' notable presenters, who don't have their own Wiki article to link to, thus improving the article. Butdavid (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

The filing party has stated their position, but they haven't stated it concisely. If you either can't or don't want to state your opinion concisely, then it is difficult to resolve the content dispute. A Request for Comments also requires concise statements of the question or the two or more choices. Bad-mouthing DRN in an edit summary doesn't help the content dispute, even if it makes you feel better.

Please do not refer to Wikipedia as Wiki. There are many wikis. Referring to Wikipedia as Wiki is sloppy.

One editor thinks that significant presenters who do not have their own articles should be listed, as well as those who do (and so will be blue-linked). Does the other editor mean that the list of notable presenters should not have black or red links? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• I am finding it very difficult to state my case or opinion more concisely.

:I believe the most significant presenters from the early years of the station, who do not have their own articles should be listed based on reliable sources.

:It appears the other editor feels that a presenter is only 'notable' if they have their own article, although the editor has clearly stated earlier in the 'summary of dispute' that: "if they're actually notable for working on the station and there's sources to establish this then unlinked but reliably sourced presenters can be added."

:I find the other editors comments in the 'Hallam FM: Revision history', where he has 'reverted to revision', disrespectful to the process of Wikipedia dispute resolution, and also his use of language here. Butdavid (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Is the real issue whether to list presenters who do not have their own articles? If so, it is consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines to have a few names listed in red, which in effect requests that their articles be written. Is there any other issue than whether to list presenters who do not have articles? If so, please state the issue concisely, about content and not about other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon You asked the following questions:

• Is the real issue whether to list presenters who do not have their own articles? Yes

• Is there any other issue than whether to list presenters who do not have articles? No

Butdavid (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Are the "notable presenters" who do not have articles ones who have independent third-party coverage by reliable sources, or are they only covered by sources on Hallam? In the first case, can they be listed in red? In the second case, is there agreement that that is not notability? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I am unsure what you mean.

• What do you mean by "independent third-party coverage by reliable sources" and "sources of Hallam"?

The 'most significant' presenters, who do not have their own article, but come with sources cited, are in black not red. They are are only in red if no citations are added.

I would like again to propose that presenter names who do not have articles, be accepted or allowed, as long as they come with reliable sources such as the source has gone through an editorial process like a newspaper article or book.

I have come across an Independent Radio Annual Local Station Edition, titled 'Radio Hallam', published by Stanford Publishing.

I therefore wish to use this book and a newspaper article already used, as my reliable sources for the notable presenters without articles I feel should be included. Butdavid (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

This is an asymmetric situation. I have been trying to mediate between one editor and myself for more than a week. If the other editor doesn't respond within 24 hours, I will close this thread. In that case, the discussion or non-discussion can go back to the article talk page, and bold editing can resume, with discussion when there is disagreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

In any sort of list, a name is listed in black if it is simply included in text. It is listed in blue if it is enclosed in brackets and there is an article. It is listed in red if it is enclosed in brackets but there is no article. This serves as a note that an article would be a good addition to Wikipedia. If any significant presenters are listed and do not have articles, they should be red-linked to indicate that articles are requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon

Many thanks for your assistance in this. Would you be able to add a note to the articles talk page in regards to what you have added here? This should help towards future editors removing names who do not have their own articles.

I am not an experienced editor, and thank you for clarifying the differences between names in black and those in red. It has also explained that names in red show that they do not have articles encouraging an article to be written.

I am planning on writing two articles for two of the most significant presenters - Roger Moffat and Johnny Moran, who both were big named presenters working for the likes of Radio One and Two. It is hard to believe neither have articles. These two keep being removed as well as other significant named presenters.

Unfortunately, the other editor has not helped in this dispute by refusing to continue, making your intervention difficult.

I think it would now be best to close unless the other editor makes comment, and ask if you would be in a position to add a note to the articles talk page outlining your thoughts.

Many thanks for your time. Butdavid (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|failed}}

{{drn filing editor|Xargaga|21:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as failed. This discussion is indeed going around in circles and is getting nowhere, and we are back to whether to say "almost exclusively", when I had already advised against saying that. This won't be resolved in the two weeks that we normally take to deal with cases at DRN. The editors may consider formal mediation, with a more experienced mediator who will get them to narrow their differences, or a Request for Comments. Please do not edit-war, and try to resolve the issue by a dispute resolution mechanism rather than by reverting. Disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 29 November 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:Somaliland#Clans sub-section}}

Users involved

• {{User|Xargaga}}
• {{User|Kzl55}}
• {{User|Koodbuur}}

Dispute overview

This dispute is between User:Kzl55 and User:Koodbuur on one-side and User:Xargaga on the other. The first mentioned side is stating that it is not appropriate to write "Sool region is almost exclusively inhabited by the Dhulbahante" in the Somaliland article (In the clans sub-section). They are more specifically the against the term "almost exclusively". However I have cited three reliable source which all use the term 'almost exclusively' when referring to the Dhulbahante settling in the sool region. Both User:Kzl55 and User:Koodbuur agree that the sources are credible and reliable (as they have themselves cited them in other articles). The editors have not themselves brought forward any significant sources which clarify why the term 'almost exclusively' can not be used. Therefore, I have maintained that in order to give a neutral point of view for the readers, these source which we all agree are reliable should be used, because you can not simply pick and choose text from a document and disregard the parts you do not favour. I reminded them Wikipedia is about neutrality and tendentious editing is not allowed. In order to reach a comprise i proposed that the word exclusively could be changed to predominantly, however, I suggested since they believe that some of the information contained within the source is wrong, the entire document should be disregard and removed from other articles which it has been used on. The editors, refused this comprised and have not suggested any other progress steps to conclude the dispute. Therefore, have reached an impasse.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Apart from suggesting compromise, no other steps have been taken to resolve the dispute.

How do you think we can help?

This dispute can be resolved if administrator who is more familiar with Wikipedia guidelines, adjudicates and considers the arguments and sources brought forward by sides, judges whether the term 'almost exclusively' is appropriate to be used.

The dispute is over a contentious edit by editor Xargaga to the Somaliland page. They have changed the stable and neutral wording within a section from "Eastern Sool region's residents mainly hail from the Dhulbahante.... to "Sool region's residents almost exclusively hail from the Dhulbahante....". I have explained in the talk page why this change is neither neutral nor helpful to Wikipedia readership, and suggested keeping the original wording. Editor Xargaga's addition is problematic for many reasons, one being that it is misleading to readers of the article, implying Dhulbahante are the "almost exclusive" inhabitants of this region when reliable sources clearly state that other groups (Isaaq) inhabit three out of four districts of that region [https://www.ecoi.net/file_upload/1226_1457606427_easo-somalia-security-feb-2016.pdf], and that one of these districts is predominantly inhabited not by Dhulbahante but by Isaaq. This alone is enough not to use "almost exclusively" as a description because of the presence of significant other groups. Their use of sources is also problematic, for instance, their first source is reliant on an non-expert informant, who bases her statement of the region being "almost exclusively" occupied by Dhulbahante on an erroneous figure (99,9% of inhabitants belonging to Dhulbahante, editor Xargaga is in agreement her figure is inaccurate [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Somaliland&diff=811003982&oldid=811003769]) yet somehow they still accept her use of 'almost exclusive'. There is also the ambiguity of such use of 'exclusive' in relation to a diverse region where multiple groups reside, especially as pertaining to how the demographic divide (between Isaaqs in the west of the region and Dhulbahante in the east) expressing itself historically in a political divide (see Khatumo, Somaliland/Somalia dispute..etc). Lastly there is the support of reputable, reliable sources all using the distinction of east/west Sool in reference to demographics/political situation in Sool region. These include University of York/UNICEF [https://www.york.ac.uk/media/prdu/documents/publications/Beyond%20Fragility-a%20conflict%20and%20education%20analysis%20of%20the%20Somali%20context.pdf], reputable international media such as the BBC [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=m_MsAQAAIAAJ&q=%22A+pressing+concern+will+be+the+troubled%C2%A0eastern%C2%A0Sool+and%C2%A0Sanaag%C2%A0regions,+where+there+are+mixed+views+about+joining+a+breakaway+republic%22&dq=%22A+pressing+concern+will+be+the+troubled%C2%A0eastern%C2%A0Sool+and%C2%A0Sanaag%C2%A0regions,+where+there+are+mixed+views+about+joining+a+breakaway+republic%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1_YXPmMjXAhXBDMAKHa8zDdMQ6AEIKDAA%7C], as well as published scholarly work [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-39892-1_8] to name a few. I have suggested a compromise using the word "predominantly" as suggest by editor Xargaga, but in the context of eastern Sool, so it becomes "Eastern Sool is predominantly inhabited by members of the Dhulbahante subclan", or keep the current wording in the interest of neutrality and nuance and for the benefit WP readership. This suggestion has been endorsed by editor Kodbuur.--Kzl55 (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned on the Somaliland talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Somaliland&diff=prev&oldid=810948845][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Somaliland&diff=prev&oldid=810961372][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Somaliland&diff=prev&oldid=810980337][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Somaliland&diff=prev&oldid=810995595] and as well on my talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koodbuur&diff=prev&oldid=810950686][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koodbuur&diff=prev&oldid=810996838] I have mentioned to User:Xargaga that the phrase "Dhulbahante almost exclusively inhabit Sool region" can have multiple interpretations, and that using the interpretation that it suggests that Dhulbahante are the almost absolute majority, while at the same time acknowledging the presence of other clans in 3 of the 4 districts in the province is not neutral and misleading to readers. I suggested keeping the current wording that breaks down Sool into Eastern and Western Sool, because this is something that is used in reputable media such as the BBC [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=m_MsAQAAIAAJ&q=%22A+pressing+concern+will+be+the+troubled%C2%A0eastern%C2%A0Sool+and%C2%A0Sanaag%C2%A0regions,+where+there+are+mixed+views+about+joining+a+breakaway+republic%22&dq=%22A+pressing+concern+will+be+the+troubled%C2%A0eastern%C2%A0Sool+and%C2%A0Sanaag%C2%A0regions,+where+there+are+mixed+views+about+joining+a+breakaway+republic%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1_YXPmMjXAhXBDMAKHa8zDdMQ6AEIKDAA%7C] and scholarly work [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-modern-african-studies/article/political-identity-emerging-state-structures-and-conflict-in-northern-somalia/D83CE322E68038588DC3736E8166FDDF] in order to describe the divide in political views in the province that are directly based on demographics. In short, Xargaga's suggestion to describe Sool as an almost majority Dhulbahante based on an ambiguous statement is not neutral and is misleading. As mentioned previously, I support User:Kzl55's suggestion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASomaliland&type=revision&diff=810986428&oldid=810985307] of using the almost exclusively phrase to describe East Sool. Koodbuur (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editors. Do the editors want moderated discussion? This might be a special case where a moderator here might provide an opinion rather than act as a mediator, since there are more than two editors but the request appears to want an opinion rather than mediation, but only if all of the editors agree to an opinion rather than to mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

:*I accept the opinion proposal Robert, the discussion is going in circles and it is already overextended, and arguably not a productive use of time given the context and the fact that it is over a word. Many thanks for taking this on --Kzl55 (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

:*I support the opinion proposal as well. Koodbuur (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

:*I accept the offer of an opinion Robert. As User:Kzl55 has rightly put it, the discussion has rather been going in circles. Thank You. Xargaga (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

My comment at this point, without going into the dispute in detail, is that the phrase "almost exclusively" should really be avoided unless it is a quote, because different English-writers may have different ideas of what it means (85%, 95%, 99.9%), and also because, as used, it was ambiguous. If there is more that I am being asked to rule on, I will ask the editors to state their positions and what they want briefly. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comment Robert. The phrase is used in three sources which both User:Koodbuur and User:Kzl55 agree are reliable [http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?page=search&docid=3ae6a5bf0&skip=0&query=Erigavo%20clans&coi=SOM][https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/111689/P200.pdf][https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231828696_Political_Identity_Emerging_State_Structures_and_Conflict_in_Northern_Somalia] at P.7, P.10, P.405 respectively. Nonetheless, as you suggest the phrase could be included as a direct quote from the three sources. So, for example a sentence can be structured to say - 'According to Markus Hoehne the Sool region is almost exclusively inhabited by the Dhulbahante'

:or alternatively the word 'predominantly' could be used instead. As it is used here [http://www.c-r.org/downloads/Accord%2021_10Political%20representation%20in%20Somalia_2010_ENG.pdf] by the academic Markus Hoehne (a noted scholar who has authored many publications on the region). Xargaga (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• In complete agreement with editor Robert McClenon there. The use of "almost exclusively" adds ambiguity and does not help WP readership nor improve the article. It detracts from the diverse nature of the region and goes to create a contradiction within the same paragraph which describes other groups having significant presence in three (out of four) districts within the region (a fact editor Xargaga accepts), that alone makes the use of "almost exclusive" very problematic. Its addition lacks nuance, this is especially important when dealing with a demographic divide (between Isaaqs in west Sool and Dhulbahante in east) which has historically manifested itself in political divides (see Khatumo for instance, or the Somaliland-Somalia dispute). Due to this in addition to problematic sourcing by Xargaga (as outlined in the summary of dispute above), the original wording of east/west Sool is more appropriate, descriptive, and geo-politically accurate, as used by the reputable sources as outlined in the summary above and in the talk page. I suggest we keep the original wording " Eastern Sool's residents mainly hail from the Dhulbahante" or a compromise inclusion of "predominantly" as suggested by Xargaga, but in the context of eastern Sool, so it becomes "Eastern Sool is predominantly inhabited by members of the Dhulbahante subclan", it is a fair, clear and neutral description. Many thanks again Robert. Kzl55 (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Are the editors willing to accept my suggestion to use the wording either "mainly" or "predominantly"? If so, can we close this thread? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• I am happy to accept the use of "mainly" or "predominantly" but in the context of east/west Sool. This is actually the current wording and has been stable for quite some time. Reference to east/west Sool is seen in many reliable sources such as University of York/UNICEF [https://www.york.ac.uk/media/prdu/documents/publications/Beyond%20Fragility-a%20conflict%20and%20education%20analysis%20of%20the%20Somali%20context.pdf], academic scholarship [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-39892-1_8], as well as in research by the London School of Economics [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/9994903.pdf]. In fact you will find this usage even within the source cited by Xargaga in their first statement: "Puntland State of Somalia was established at the Garowe Community Constitutional Conference in mid-1998 as a voluntary union of the communities inhabiting the regions of North Mudug, Nugal, Bari, Eastern Sanag, and Eastern Sool" [http://www.c-r.org/downloads/21_Somalia_2010_ENG_F.pdf] (Puntland only claims eastern Sool, and not western Sool, due to tribal affiliation with Dhulbahante). Thus it is important to maintain that clarity of east/west Sool due to how it affects the politics of the region, in addition to being more neutral in tone. Kzl55 (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• I am willing to accept your suggestion Robert. I agree using the word predominantly OR even mainly (in the context of the whole region) instead of the phrase 'almost exclusively' is sufficient and would provide readers with a neutral and informative understanding - I've suggested this to User:Koodbuur and User:Kzl55 before, who both do not disagree that the overwhelming majority of the population hails from the Dhulbahante group, despite there being other minority clans present in the region as well. Xargaga (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

::Please refrain from attributing positions to editors when they have not done so personally. Nowhere did I say the overwhelming majority of the population hails from any group, if that were the case we would not be having this discussion. In the absence of any population data, the closest thing we have to a census is the recent (2016) voter registration numbers [http://www.somalilandlaw.com/SNEC_Liiska_horudhaca_Diiwaangelinta_0317.pdf], and whilst these cant be used to infer exact population figures, they clearly show an even demographic divide within the region between the predominantly Isaaq district (Caynaba) with 31,052 voters and the predominantly Dhulbahante district (Laascaanood) with 29,558 voters. Kzl55 (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

:::I do apologise for that, but the vast majority of the population belong to the Dhulbahante clan - I think that much is indisputably clear. However, you have attributed positions to myself such stating that i agree that the Isaaq inhabit three out of the four districts, although I have not suggested that anywhere. Nonetheless, for the sake of moving on and settling this trivial point, I would ask you to please agree to the compromise or at least suggest an alternative method that you could agree to. So far you have not put forward anything apart from re-stating what it says in the article already. Dividng the region into east and west is not sufficient because the Dhulbahante settle in all parts of the region. Additionally, as I said before you can't deduce information from sources and present your conclusions as facts its OR and not allowed in wikipedia.Xargaga (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

:::: I have raised the fact other groups (Isaaq) inhabiting three out of four districts in Sool several times in the course of this discussion, at one point directly asking if you disputed it, which you didnt (e.g [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Somaliland&diff=810942579&oldid=810936025], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Somaliland&diff=810986428&oldid=810985307]). I do agree this entire thing is trivial, but I am not the one insisting on adding "almost exclusively" when everyone involved agrees this inclusion is not appropriate. I might also add that this section of the article has been stable for a very long time with the current wording. As a compromise I have suggested the use of "predominantly" (as you have suggested) but within the context of east/west Sool, it is a very neutral description and takes into account the demographic and political landscape of the region, as used by multitude of reliable sources as seen in statement above, but you continue to insist on the application of "almost exclusive" or "predominantly" to the entire region, which is very ambiguous and not helpful to readership, given that other groups inhabit three out of four districts and make up an equal number of registered voters in the region. --Kzl55 (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

:::: You and I both know that the Isaaq do not settle in the Las Anod district, they settle in one village in the Xudun district (Bohol) and most of the Caynaba district, however, overall the vast majority of the region is settled by the Dhulbahante. This is no different to Togdheer were it is stated in the paragraph that the majority of the region is settled by Isaaq clans - which is true. I would suggest following that, and structure a sentence to say, 'The majority of the Sool region is inhabited by the Dhulbahante clan, however, the Caynaba district and some parts of Xudun district is settled by Isaaq clans'. I think that would be an accurate and neutral information for readers. If you can't agree with this and don't wish to make a compromise, I think we shoud leave this to Robert so he can reach a final decision. Xargaga (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

:::::That is both inaccurate and inappropriate, Isaaq do settle Las Anod district, within the region of Sool they settle Caynabo, Xudun, and Las Anod districts, we have already gone over this both above in the summary of dispute and subsequent statements as well as the talk page, with reliable sources provided. For the sake of ending this discussion I have offered to adapt your suggestion of using "predominantly" within the geographically/politically/demographically accurate context of east/west Sool. The description of east/west Sool is more accurate and neutral due to the demographic and political expressions of this divide, some of which are discussed within the article itself as well as other WP articles (see Khatumo, border disputes). If we can not agree on this then I too am happy to await Robert's opinion. --Kzl55 (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Please read the rules. In particular, please do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Maybe we do need mediation, since I thought that I was asked for an opinion, and it doesn't seem to resolve the matter. Will each party please state, one more time, what they think the passage in question should say? Do not argue. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments Robert. With regards to your first statement, I also agree that the use of "almost exclusively" is ambiguous and misleading to readers. With regards to your second statement, I disagree that the use of "mainly" or "predominately" would be suitable to describe the entirety of Sool province, given the diverse nature of the province. I agree with Kzl55's suggestion of using "mainly" or "predominately" in the context of Eastern/Western Sool, as they have shown that many scholarly work use this wording to describe the province. My final say on this discussion is that the passage in question should be kept as it is right now, or that we implement the usage of "mainly" or "predominately" in the context of Eastern/Western Sool. I would also urge Xargaga to refrain from speaking on my behalf, or on anyone's behalf. I have never stated that the overwhelming majority of Sool province is Dhulbahante. Koodbuur (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• I appreciate your comment Robert, I was not aware of the rules. I want the passage in question to say "The Sool region is almost exclusively inhabited by the Dhulbahante clan". This is explicitly stated in three reliable sources which you can find here [http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?page=search&docid=3ae6a5bf0&skip=0&query=Erigavo%20clans&coi=SOM][https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/111689/P200.pdf][https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231828696_Political_Identity_Emerging_State_Structures_and_Conflict_in_Northern_Somalia] at P.7, P.10, P.405 respectively. However, I'm willing to compromise and instead use the word predominantly, so the passage would say "The sool region is predominantly inhabited by the Dhulbahnte clan". Xargaga (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• I believe the use of "exclusively" or "almost exclusively" in this contest is very ambiguous and of little value to WP readership, the first source cited by Xargaga bases that usage on a bogus figure (99,9%) that even editor Xargaga accepts to be inaccurate. The use of "predominantly" is also problematic when applied to the entirety of the region due to the diverse nature of its demographics; we have previously established that other groups (Isaaq) live in three out of four of its districts [https://www.ecoi.net/file_upload/1226_1457606427_easo-somalia-security-feb-2016.pdf] (p.74), and constitute around half of registered voters of the region [http://www.somalilandlaw.com/SNEC_Liiska_horudhaca_Diiwaangelinta_0317.pdf]. Furthermore, generalising over the whole region is inappropriate due to the geopolitical context, and disputes which are discussed within the same article. Reliable sources are sensitive to the demographic divide in the region, and hence use east/west Sool to provide a more accurate and neutral commentary, examples of this usage include University of York/UNICEF: "[Isaaq clan is] situated in the central Somaliland districts, especially Maroodijeex, Sahil and Togdheer, but also in Eastern Awdal and Western Sool and Sanaag", references in academic scholarship: "a critical role in Puntland's founding conference, legitimating the Garowe administration's subsequent claims to parts of eastern Sanaag and Sool regions" [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781403981011_11], another example of usage in academic scholarship: "Puntland State of Somalia was established at the Garowe Community Constitutional Conference in mid-1998 as a voluntary union of the communities inhabiting the regions of North Mudug, Nugal, Bari, Eastern Sanag, and Eastern Sool" [http://www.c-r.org/downloads/21_Somalia_2010_ENG_F.pdf] (Puntland only claims eastern Sool, and not western Sool, due to tribal affiliation with Dhulbahante). Thus the most accurate and neutral description is that of east/west Sool, as seen in the article (which has been stable for quite some time), which is "Eastern Sool's residents mainly hail from the Dhulbahante, a subdivision of the Harti confederation of Darod sub-clans, and are concentrated at Las Anod", as a compromise I have suggested adding "predominantly" (as suggested by Xargaga) but in the context of east/west Sool, so the phrasing becomes "Eastern Sool is predominantly inhabited by members of the Dhulbahante subclan, a subdivision of the Harti confederation of Darod sub-clans, and are concentrated at Las Anod", this provides an accurate, neutral description, does not compromise the paragraph and is helpful to readership should they be interested in disputes with Puntland/Somalia. --Kzl55 (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. It seems that we are starting this mediation over. This doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so let's start over. Please read the rules and follow the rules. Stop commenting on contributors, which is becoming tiresome. Stop arguing for a particular wording as the "stable" wording; after months of asking what policy gives special weight to "stable" versions, no one has showed it to me. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think should be said in the article and why? Be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• I want the passage in question to say "The Sool region is almost exclusively inhabited by the Dhulbahante clan". This is explicitly stated in three reliable sources which you can find here [http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?page=search&docid=3ae6a5bf0&skip=0&query=Erigavo%20clans&coi=SOM][https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/111689/P200.pdf][https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231828696_Political_Identity_Emerging_State_Structures_and_Conflict_in_Northern_Somalia] at P.7, P.10, P.405 respectively. I think this is an accurate description and an appropriate one, since the other groups in the region are numerically insignificant and it would be trivial to mention them.Xargaga (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• The wording should be "Eastern Sool is inhabited by members of the Dhulbahante subclan". This is a very accurate and clear description for WP readership unlike "almost exclusive" which is ambiguous. The region of Sool is diverse with other groups (Isaaq) living in three out of four districts of the region, and inhabiting one specific district exclusively [https://www.ecoi.net/file_upload/1226_1457606427_easo-somalia-security-feb-2016.pdf] (p.74), they also constitute half of the registered voters within the region [http://www.somalilandlaw.com/SNEC_Liiska_horudhaca_Diiwaangelinta_0317.pdf], these facts alone render the use of "almost exclusively" or "predominantly" (when applied to the entirety of the region) moot. This diversity necessitates the use of east/west Sool due to the real life political manifestations of this demographic divide, these are important and are discussed within the article itself and elsewhere. The use of east and west Sool is inline with published scholarship on the subject e.g. The University of York/UNICEF [https://www.york.ac.uk/media/prdu/documents/publications/Beyond%20Fragility-a%20conflict%20and%20education%20analysis%20of%20the%20Somali%20context.pdf] (p.112), London School of Economics [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/9994903.pdf] (p.197, 206) and many others [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-39892-1_8], [http://www.c-r.org/downloads/21_Somalia_2010_ENG_F.pdf]. --Kzl55 (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• The wording of the passage should be something along the lines of "The Dhulbahante subclan almost exclusively inhabit Eastern Sool". The usage of Eastern Sool as opposed to Sool province as a whole is more accurate, as scholarly sources that have been cited in this DRN, as well as in Talk:Somaliland, use Eastern and Western Sool to distinguish the political differences in the area that are rooted in demographics. Secondly, the use of "almost exclusively" to describe the entire province suggests to the reader that the region is homogenous and that non-Dhulbahante clans are negligible in number. This is inaccurate and not neutral, as scholarly sources indicate that the Isaaq clan inhabit three of the four districts of Sool [https://www.ecoi.net/file_upload/1226_1457606427_easo-somalia-security-feb-2016.pdf], and that the Habar Jeclo subclan of the Isaaq are the predominate majority of the district capital of Caynabo [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-modern-african-studies/article/political-identity-emerging-state-structures-and-conflict-in-northern-somalia/D83CE322E68038588DC3736E8166FDDF]. When taking into consideration the presence of Isaaq in the area, it is inappropriate to describe the entirety of Sool province as "almost exclusively" Dhulbahante; and therefore the wording of the passage should indicate that "Dhulbahante almost exclusively inhabit Eastern Sool." Koodbuur (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{DRN archive top|The proper place for discussion is the article talk page, Talk:The League of Gentlemen. There has been no article talk page discussion, and little discussion on the specified user talk page. Discussions of article content should be on article talk pages, because they may be watched by other editors who are interested in the article. Discussions on user talk pages are often useful, but not as good as article talk page discussions when article content is the subject. Please discuss on the article talk page. Also, the filing unregistered editor is strongly advised that it is helpful to create an account if one wishes to engage in content dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)}}

{{drn filing editor|86.26.127.234|16:15, 3 December 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:ScrapIronIV#League_of_gentlemen}}

Users involved

• {{User|ScrapIronIV}}

Dispute overview

Content in article about specials in 2019/2020 badly sourced, makes strong claim where this unjustified - no other sources which support this claim.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

talk, which has come to nothing, feels like scrapiron hasn't listened to points, and is somewhat adamant that he is right, when sources in fact don't support this interpretation; similarly edit warring has been used in both sides, to an unhelpful degree

How do you think we can help?

Looking into the source, and seeing if a third opinion finds it to be source 4 a particularly reliable source which justifies the claim "In April 2017, Gatiss confirmed that the show would return for an anniversary special which was expected to air between 2019 and 2020.", on the League of Gentlemen article page.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as declined by a majority of the editors. Participation in this noticeboard is voluntary, and the non-filing editors have both stated that they do not think that further discussion is needed. There was already a Request for Comments in August 2017. The filing editor is advised that bludgeoning the dispute resolution process is not useful, and has been cautioned that Arbitration Enforcement may be requested as a last resort if necessary. It appears that consensus is that the filing editor should drop the subject. They are permitted to continue discussion on the article talk page (although not to edit-war the article page), and the other editors are permitted to ignore them. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)}}

{{drn filing editor|Keith Johnston|22:26, 3 December 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:White privilege#Critique-_-white_privilege_as_white_guilt_etc}}

Users involved

• {{User|Keith Johnston}}
• {{User|MShabazz}}
• {{User|Grayfell}}

Dispute overview

I have been engaged in a long running discussion to introduce critique which can be supported by RS on the White Privilege page.

My editorial changes, supported by what I believe valid RS, have been rejected by a number of editors for different reasons which I believe are largely spurious. Even where the general thrust of the critique has been accepted the typical response is to engage in destructive editorial practices, namely deleting content in its entirety rather than trying to improve it.

In addition to extensive discussion on the talk pages, I raised a RfC on the principle of having a critique section and this was rejected, which I accept.

However, editors are now using the rejection of the principle of a critique section as an excuse to reject specific criticism supported by RS without further debate. I contend that the rejection of the principle of a critique section is not sufficient to reject the criticism itself, and each edit must be taken on its merits.

In addition editors are now rejecting RS which was not even raised in the context of the original RfC, making their argument that it has already been discussed and rejected doubly incorrect.

My further edits are not being considered on their merits, and editors are not engaging in reasonable debate about RS, and are deleting this without any further attempt to justify their changes. Editor MShabazz is being offhand, rude and is threatening me on my talk page. Constructive debate has become impossible in this atmosphere.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

• WP:Requests for mediation/White Privilege -rejected by @Malik Shabazz
• Talk:White privilege#Critique- -white_privilege as white guilt etc
• Talk:White privilege#White Privilege as ad hominem attack
• Talk:White privilege/Archive 11#RfC should this article contain a "Critique section"
• Talk:White privilege/Archive 11#RfC about creating a "Reception" section
• Talk:White privilege/Archive 11#Criticism Sub-Section
• Talk:White privilege/Archive 10#can there be a criticism of the theory section?

How do you think we can help?

I'm afraid its impossible to conduct a discussion and reach a consensus unless editors are willing to engage with the RS. We need to asses the quality of each RS on its merits.

Therefore i would like you to advise myself and editors of a constructive way forward.

Note: As permitted by policy, I edit as User:Malik Shabazz from my desktop computer and as User:MShabazz from my smartphone.

This is a simple case of an editor who refuses to get the point. As evidenced in the multiple links above, Keith Johnston has started many discussions since July in which his argument has been discussed by many editors and refuted. He started an RfC, in which more than 15 editors participated, where consensus was against his argument. His solution has been to ignore all that and periodically add material to the article, contra consensus, and challenge other editors to describe their specific objections to the individual sources in the latest addition. In my opinion, there is no point in trying to resolve a dispute when history shows that one party will ignore the resolution. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Many editors participated in the RFC for what is basically the exact same issue: Talk:White privilege/Archive 11#RfC should this article contain a "Critique section". Consensus is against these changes, as demonstrated by over a dozen !votes. In this specific case, I don't feel this is a productive venue for further discussion. Thank. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}