Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 202#Anocracy

{{DR case status|FAILED}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1612085765}}

{{drn filing editor|Serv181920|09:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Editors were unable to find a compromise Nightenbelle (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Baháʼí Faith in Azerbaijan}}

Users involved

• {{User|Serv181920}}
• {{User|Tarikhejtemai}}
• {{User|Cuñado}}

Dispute overview

Hello, i am engaged in a dispute at this page. Baha'i editors claim that one prominent Azerbaijani billionaire, Musa Nagiyev, was a Baha'i. The source they are citing is a website www.caucaz.com, which is now defunct and this website states in its about-us page (available on archive.org) that it accepts synopsis from individuals. Apart from this, the article on that website is written by one Baha'i, Azer Jafarov - and he cites his own book as a source for that claim. This person (Azer Jafarov) works in the National Office of the Baha'i faith in Azerbaijan and he does not have any academic record. In his book he does not provide any sources for his claims about Musa Nagiyev. Baha'i editors on the talk page insist that it should be kept because it has appeared in caucaz.com. I believe it should be removed because the source seem fishy and unacademic. Would appreciate assistance and guidance in this regard. Thank you.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Bah%C3%A1%CA%BC%C3%AD_Faith_in_Azerbaijan#Musa_Nagiyev_was_a_Muslim, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_324#Is_www.caucaz.com_(now_defunct)_a_reliable_source?

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please provide your opinion, if this claim about Musa Nagiyev deserves a place in the article or No.

In this edit Serv181920 claims that Nagiev was a Muslim without providing any evidence and his argument in the talk page here is just original research and synthesis in my opinion, he is inferring something from a few sources that is not clearly stated in any of them. On a different note accusing users of a religious affiliation (in this case Baha'i) in order to discredit them is against the no personal attacks rule. History of Serv181920's edits shows that his account is a single-purpose account pushing for a very specific/marginal point of view in Baha'i articles by adding undue weighted criticism sections and trying to delete many Baha'i-related articles. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Serv181920 is leaving out a few key pieces of information:

1. Baha'is publishing have a requirement for peer-review through their national organization.
2. The reference to Musa Naghiyev is in a published book and claims that he was a member of a Baha'i local assembly and regarded himself as a Baha'i. The article on caucaz.com is merely the same author repeating the claim in another source that appears to have had its own review process.
3. It seems reasonable to assume the author had access to records at the national Baha'i office that are not public.
4. In the time period we're talking about (~1900) early Baha'is were converts who retained some identity with their former religion and tended to only marry within their cultural group (e.g. Shia-Baha'is, Sunni-Baha'is). This changed later in the 1920s.
5. Serv181920 started this off with what is clearly original research on the talk page. His evidence to dispute the point was, for example, that Musa Naghiyev wanted to be buried in Karbala. There is absolutely no reliable source disputing that he was a Baha'i, just Serv181920's original (and not convincing) research.
6. Serv181920 insinuates that Baha'i editors are POV-pushing or that Baha'i authors are suspect of fraud. He also forgot to mention his own bias. His 6-month old account has done almost nothing but elevate criticism and otherwise disparage anything related to the Baha'i Faith on Wikipedia, and the ideas he pushes are often repeated on an external trollish blog attacking the Baha'i Faith. I've been on Wikipedia for 15 years and follow policies closely, and this seems to be a clear case of WP:OR.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

{{collapsetop|Do not continue discussing until a moderator agrees to take this case. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)}}Replying {{U|Cuñado}}

1. The writer of the book is not an academic, he is an employee of the National Office of the Baha'is in Azerbaijan. See https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://femida.az/az/news/41110
2. Yes, Baha'i publishing is reviewed, but this review cannot be compared with academic peer-review. Some Baha'i scholars have left the faith due to this so-called "review". Their criticism of Baha'i-review can be read here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baháʼí_review#Criticism_and_commentary
3. As stated earlier, www.caucaz.com in its about-us page clearly states that it accepts synopsis from individuals. Please check : https://web.archive.org/web/20110209111815/http://www.caucaz.com/home_eng/contact-georgie.php - I cannot say anything about the review-process of this source. The same writer who writes and book, which is "reviewed" by the Baha'i office, publishes an article on this website giving a source of his own book! I am relatively new to wiki-editing, so I am not able to grasp how this source is WP:RS!
4. Why wiki editors should trust the "Baha'i review system" when long time Baha'i scholars like Juan Cole and Denis MacEoin have left the faith because of this very so-called "review"?
5. If a prominent billionaire like Musa Nagiyev was ever a Baha'i, can Baha'i editors share any piece of information from their official Baha'i news magazines that publishes even minor incidents! There are 1000s of pages of news articles on http://bahai-news.info/ • http://starofthewest.info/ • https://bahai.works/Bah%C3%A1%E2%80%99%C3%AD_World
6. There is not a single mention of this person in any of their international newsletters. Moreover, can Baha'i editors show the contribution of this billionaire towards their community? He has made a Mosque, donated a building to Islamic Charity, buried his son in Karbala (Iraq), made a will that he himself be buried in Karbala, Got buried 35 poor family members in Islamic holy city due to their desire (sources given on talk page). What has he done for the Baha'is? Why there are only 2 sentences about him in that book and from that one person only!?
7. There are POV issues with many Baha'i articles and Cuñado has himself admitted that at one of the talk pages. And I don't know what blog he is talking about.

Such a claim about a prominent person from weak sources should be kept or removed?

Serv181920 (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

::Here is a summary of sources about Musa Nagiyev. Google translate used for Azeri language sources.

::#[https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.azerbaycan-bahai-kitabxana.org/copy-of-b-haullah-bu-guenuen-ilahi--1 Baha'i Religion] - book by Azer Jafarov (2005): "Millionaire Musa Nagiyev (1849-1919) and Mirza Abdulkhalig Yusif, a teacher of the national poet Aliaga Vahid, known as a "master poet" among the Caucasian Turks, were also members of the Baku community. Musa Nagiyev also served as a member of the Baku Spiritual Assembly for many years. The millionaire's personal reputation played a special role in preventing open pressure on the Baha'is."

::#[https://bahai-library.com/balci_jafarov_bahais_caucasus The Baha’is of the Caucasus] - published by weekly magazine Caucaz.com (21 February 2007). Caucaz had an [https://web.archive.org/web/20101125070150/http://www.caucaz.com/home_eng/redaction.php editorial staff] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20101124145514/http://www.caucaz.com/home_eng/caucase.php editorial policy]. The magazine had a "[https://web.archive.org/web/20110209111815/http://www.caucaz.com/home_eng/contact-georgie.php contact us] page that could be used to send synopsis of proposed articles, just like any publisher with peer review. It was not a self-publishing site. "the major millionaire and oil magnate, patron of the arts and philanthropist Musa Naghiyev (1849-1919), was part of the Baha’i faith community. A member of the Spiritual Council of Baku, he helped the community confront external attacks."

::#[https://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/1571 19. The Baha'is of the Caucasus] - chapter written by Azer Jafarov and Bayram Balcı. Published in BALCI, Bayram (ed.); MOTIKA, Raoul (ed.). Religion and Politics in the Post-Soviet Caucasus (2007). Published by French Institute for Anatolian Studies, İstanbul. "Finally, the great millionaire and oil magnate, patron and philanthropist, Musa Naghiyev (1849-1919), was part of the Baha'i community. Member of the Spiritual Council of Baku, he was able to help the community to better cope with external aggressions."

::#[https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/bahaism-in-azerbaijan BAHAISM IN AZERBAIJAN] - Article in The Caucasus and Globalization, Vol 1 (5), 2007. By Leyla Melikova, Junior research fellow at the Academician Buniyatov Institute of Oriental Studies, National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan (Baku, Azerbaijan). "Musa Nagiev (1849-1919), a rich oil industrialist and patron of arts, was a member of the Spiritual Meeting of Baku. His personal authority raised the Bahai community prestige as well. (See: A. Jafarov, Bahai Faith in Azerbaijan, Baku, 2004, p. 21)"

::#[https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://femida.az/az/news/41110 Interview with Ramazan Asgarli] (07 November 2016): "It is said that Baha'i symbols are reflected in the Ismailiyya building. Both Musa Nagiyev and his wife, who built the building, were Baha'is. Musa Nagiyev was also a member of the Baha'i Council."

::As you can see, Caucaz was not a self-publishing site, and there are two other independent sources (besides Caucaz) repeating the claim that Musa Nagiyev was a Baha'i. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

:::#The first source at Baha'i Kitabkhana (Baha'i Book House), is a book written by the employee of the Baha'i Office, Azer Jafarov, and published by the Baha'i administration, it has no source for the claimed statement.

:::#The second source is an article published by Caucaz.com and written by same Azer Jaforov, for the claim he cites his own book! The linked editorial policy of caucaz.com does not say anywhere that the editors review the submitted synopses.

:::#The third source is again by Azer Jafarov, the same employee of the Baha'i office. Again he cites no sources!

:::#The fourth source again cites the same Baha'i book authored by the same Azer Jafarov.

:::#The fifth source is also a claim by Azer Jafarov, same Baha'i person with no further sources.

:::All these sources take this claim from one individual, Azer Jafarov, who is an employee of the Baha'i office and who provides no source for his clam and who has no academic record whatsoever. And there is no evidence of this claim from any published sources (Baha'i or non-Baha'i) of that era! Musa Nagiyev is reported to be a Baha'i after some 100 years of his passing!! That seems very strange to me.Serv181920 (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

::::You did not accurately summarize the sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Replying {{U|Tarikhejtemai}}

I am only interested in knowing if the "Baha'i reviewed" sources are considered as WP:RS and what if those sources are cited by a website like caucaz.com? I have not attacked any editor, mentioning their religious affiliation was necessary because both of them were somehow pushing me to believe and trust the "Baha'i review process".Serv181920 (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

:Your reasoning has changed now, initially you were saying that Nagiyev was Muslim by citing a few sources that none of them said he was, and inferring a new conclusion which is considered original research. Now you are questioning the validity of the source you tried to remove. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

::From the very beginning, I am not convinced that Naqiyev was a Baha'i. AFAIK, no Baha'i sources of that era claims that. It is after some 100 years of his passing, that one Baha'i, Azer Jafarov claims that in his book without citing any sources and other "handful of sources" took it from his book. I am not at all interested, at this time, in proving that he was a Muslim. I am suggesting to provide better sources or remove the claim.Serv181920 (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

:::You have no basis to remove it according to policies. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

{{collapsebottom}}

Volunteer Question Is this a request for a 3rd opinion or for mediation? Nightenbelle (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• I had removed the claim, but two of the Baha'i editors have reverted it and are pushing for a keep. Mediation, please.Serv181920 (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I will volunteer to mediate this discussion- but before I do- I need to know that all involved editors have read the rules of this forum and agree to participate in good faith. Please respond here indicating this. User:Serv181920, User:Tarikhejtemai, User:Cuñado. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

:I have read the rules and will participate in good faith. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

:I have also read the rules and will participate in good faith.Serv181920 (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

:Me too, I have read the rules and will participate in good faith. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, then lets begin. I've read the back and forth here and on the talk page. to me, the easist solution would be adding a statement, "Baha'i sources claim " ahead of the statement about Nagiyev. Would that be acceptable? That at least indicates to the reader that the sources are close to the subject. If not acceptable- I ask that you tell me what you think I fair compromise that also is supported by policy would be.

• Thank you for your time in helping out with this. That was the easy way to compromise and I thought of doing that in the beginning. I brought this case here because I was not sure if these kinds of sources are considered as reliable. If it is so, then anyone can publish a book claiming anything, and if such claims (from such books) are reported by 2-3 other sources also then does it becomes acceptable for the wikipedia? If that is the policy, then please guide me to the policy suggesting so and I would be happy to accept it. Thank you again.Serv181920 (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

:So what you are saying is you have a question about WP:RS? Because if that is all you need- I will happily direct you to the correct board. But since you agreed to a good faith effort at mediation- I assumed you were interested in finding a compromise. This response does not indicate an intent to compromise- "Then anyone can publish a book claiming anything." is a statement that does not foster cooperation at all. The policy you are looking for is WP:SELFSOURCE BTW. And this case is a grey area of that policy. While the sources in question are of the faith they are writing about- they are not the official pages about the faith. IE- a catholic school newspaper writing an article on the Catholic faith- not necessarily biased, but to be closely examined because its definitely possible. Some of the most biting critique comes from inside sometimes. But I digress. The short answer is- there is not a clear policy in this case which is why this process is designed to mediate. If all you want is a policy question answered- there's your answer. Not every potential issue has been already solved on WP. We are an ever evolving body of editors. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Here's a brief review of sources. Azer Jafarov is a Baha'i who has worked for the national office of Baha'is of Azerbaijan. He published [https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.azerbaycan-bahai-kitabxana.org/copy-of-b-haullah-bu-guenuen-ilahi--1 a book] in 2005 (publication data is difficult to analyze through translators) covering the history of the Baha'i Faith in Azerbaijan and mentioned that Musa Nagiyev was a member of the early Baha'i community of Baku. This was also mentioned in [https://web.archive.org/web/20120219032306/http://www.bahai.az/lib/articles/histofaz/history_en.shtml this] archived official page on the history of the Baha'is in Azerbaijan (accessed 2012), and mentioned in a [https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://femida.az/az/news/41110 2016 interview] with another employee of the national Baha'i office. In 2007 three sources that all seem reliable ([https://bahai-library.com/balci_jafarov_bahais_caucasus], [https://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/1571], [https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/bahaism-in-azerbaijan]) and all independent of Baha'is repeated the mention of Musa Nagiyev being a Baha'i, the first is co-written by Azer Jafarov with editorial review, and the others cite him for the mention.

:Regarding policy... I don't think the statement is self-published, but it could be considered borderline WP:QUESTIONABLE because there is a self-serving nature of the Baha'i office making their own history look good, though they are a century removed from the people they are talking about. It's also reasonable to assume that they have access to non-public records, and I wouldn't expect them to provide convincing evidence of Musa Nagiyev unless it was contested. The fact that the claim was repeated in three independent reliable sources, and it is not contested anywhere, to me indicates that WP:YESPOV applies: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested."

:Of course it is totally acceptable to reword it and indicate that the Baha'i office of Azerbaijan claims that he was a Baha'i, that would be an easy way to avoid conflict with editors, but I think the correct thing to do according to policy is to use the uncontested wording found in independent reliable sources and state it in the Wikipedia voice. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you {{u|Nightenbelle}} for guiding towards the policy. Yes, I think this exactly fits WP:SELFSOURCE, except that 2 non-Baha'i sources (not sure about their reputation) cites the book of Azer Jafarov. Cuñado says, that the claim is uncontested, while it is not so. I had given sources on talk page hinting that Musa Nagiyev was a Muslim, for instance [https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=az&u=https://www.aztc.gov.az/az/posts/id:520&prev=search&pto=aue here] it says : "Aga Musa Nagiyev, who died in 1919, faced great difficulties at the end of his life. Despite the buildings he built and his philanthropy, ingratitude still haunts him after his death. Although he bequeathed his life to be buried next to his son Ismail in Karbala, his brother Agha Ali buried him in the Chambarakand cemetery due to impossibility." I don't understand why a Baha'i would ever want to get buried in Karbala (Muslim holy city), build Mosque, inscribe Ali's (Mohammed's successor according to Shia Islam) words on his building, donate entire building to Muslim charity etc and does not give anything to Baha'is. There is [https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=az&u=https://bakuresearchinstitute.org/az/the-taghiyev-behbudov-affair-conflict-among-caucasian-muslim-elites-in-the-early-xx-century/&prev=search&pto=aue another sources] that states: "two other prominent Muslim millionaires, 63-year-old Aga Musa Nagiyev and 54-year-old Murtuza Mukhtarov..." - In such cases what do you suggest?Serv181920 (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• I would like to add another source by German historian Verena Dohrn: [https://books.google.com/books?id=jdJ3DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT154&lpg=PT154&dq=Musa+Naghiyev+%22bahai%22&source=bl&ots=l3uRuH6R4F&sig=ACfU3U2-CsJVUE1z4Oiv3_dD_tHSN27kaA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZ14Cv-bPuAhVXG80KHeEUC1c4ChDoATADegQIBRAC#v=onepage&q=bahai&f=false Die Kahans aus Baku: Eine Familienbiographie]. The book states that Musa Naghiev was a member of the Baha'i faith when it talks about the Ismailyyia palace in Baku erected in memory of Naghiev's deceased son Ismail. Since the book is an independent reliable academic source I think it would be better to use Wikipedia voice without attribution here. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Update: Found one more source that contests Baha'i claims.

:"The merchants' cause was also supported by the Muslim oil entrepreneurs who were active within the Baku City Duma, represented by such individuals as Musa Naghiev, Haji Zeinalabedin Taghiev, Shamsi Asadullaev..." [https://books.google.co.in/books?id=7emKDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA121&dq=Musa+Naghiyev+%22muslim%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjP3ouGj7TuAhXDX3wKHZEtBOgQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg Source.]Serv181920 (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here on the word "Contested" For Reliable sources- this does not mean that one WP editor contests their validity- it means that academic sources / other published scholars contest their validity. Serve181920- Do you have sources contesting the validity of those sources? Any source that claims they are POV pushing? They do not qualify as WP:Selfsource since they are not an official entity for the faith, rather instead a company that shares the faith. Also- You keep saying the sources you provide are proving he was a Muslim- unfortunately- that is WP:Synth on your part. What they are saying- is that he requested to be buried in a Muslim Holy city, and that he donated to Muslim causes. You have not shown that they provide his motivation for doing so- and they do not specifically state his religion- unless you have not provided the quote where they do specially say so. You say YOU cannot imagine another reason he would do so without being a Muslim, but that is YOUR opinion of the material. Now... I definitely see where you are coming from- and I agree, logically if it quacks and gives money to a duck- its probably a duck. However, WP requires sources that specifically say "Donald Duck is a Duck". As more and more sources are appearing that cite the sources confirming he is a member of the Baha'i claim- it adds weight. Because these sources are also peer reviewed- which means all of their sources are double checked for accuracy. In short- the burden of proof is on you Serve181920 to very clearly show this source is not reliable. You must prove this explicitly by a source directly saying "He was a Muslim" or saying "This website gives inaccurate information." There must be no room for interpretation at this point. If you can do that- then you have a case for removing the information, if not, you will have to work with the other editors to find a compromise other than just removing the information. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Serv181920 just provided two references that label Musa Nagiyev as a Muslim:

:#Robert Denis wrote in an article of March 2020, "among the people that Taghiyev apparently invited to his home on May 16 were two other well-known Muslim millionaires—63-year-old Agha Musa Naghiyev and 54-year-old Murtuza Mukhtarov."[https://bakuresearchinstitute.org/the-taghiyev-behbudov-affair-conflict-among-caucasian-muslim-elites-in-the-early-xx-century/] At first glance the source seems reputable.

:#On the Religious Frontier: Tsarist Russia and Islam in the Caucasus by Firouzeh Mostashari (2006) has two mentions of him, "... supported by the Muslim oil entrepreneurs who were active within the Baku City Duma, individuals as Musa Naghiev, Haji Zeinalabedin Taghiev, and Khalygh Akhundov"; and, "Musa Naghiev, one of the leading Muslim entrepreneurs and civic-minded philanthropists, contributed funds for the founding of a surgical hospital..."[https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/On_the_Religious_Frontier/7emKDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Musa%20Naghiev]

:While it's significant to have these mentions, they are still trivial mentions, mentioned in passing while the authors were making other points. The book by Mostashari discussing his contributions to a Muslim charity that helped build the hospital, so it's a reasonable assumption to label him a Muslim. The book was also written before Azer Jafarov wrote his book and was published in 2007 mentioning that Musa Nagiyev was a Baha'i.

:Considering the discussion so far I think it's worth expanding the mention of Musa Nagiyev and giving him a paragraph describing his role in Muslim charities and also describe Azer Jafarov's research and publication. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you again for your time {{U|Nightenbelle}}, I am getting your points. I have provided two sources that clearly says that he was a Muslim. Cuñado has stated them above this response.

:Cuñado now says that these mentions are trivial while I see that his sources also trivially mentions that Musa Naghiyev was a Baha'i. Anyways, I agree to the suggestion of Cuñado that a separate paragraph be added stating that he was a Muslim and that Baha'i sources and some anti-Baha'i sources also claim that he was a Baha'i. The source could be something other than Azer Jafarov.Serv181920 (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

While yes, these sources do just give a passing mention to the subject- it seems to me that they are enough to justify at the very least a statement of some type. It looks like you are still at odds a bit about which statement. The two I see proposed are:

:::1 A paragraph stating his role in Muslim charities and describing Azer Jafarov's research and publication

:::2 A separate paragraph stating he was a muslim and that Baha'i sources and anti-Baha'i sources also claim that he was a Baha'i.

Might I make a 3rd suggestion? What about changing the sentence to say: The most well known alleged member of the community approaching 1900 was Musa Nagiyev, one of the richest citizens at the time, although sources conflict about his status as a Baha'i or Muslim. there were many public figures before and after who seem to have admired the religion or even been members of it." Does that sentence seem fair to both sides? Nightenbelle (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• {{U|Nightenbelle}} thanks for the suggestions, I'd prefer the third one. Also there are two more independent sources that I recently found that says he was a Baha'i: one by a German historian called [https://books.google.com/books?id=jdJ3DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT154&lpg=PT154&dq=Musa+Naghiyev+%22bahai%22&source=bl&ots=l3uRuH6R4F&sig=ACfU3U2-CsJVUE1z4Oiv3_dD_tHSN27kaA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZ14Cv-bPuAhVXG80KHeEUC1c4ChDoATADegQIBRAC#v=onepage&q=bahai&f=false Die Kahans aus Baku: Eine Familienbiographie] and one by a [http://regionplus.az/en/articles/view/4381 website] of Azerbaijani journalists. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• I'm sorry this has dragged out so long. Tarikhejtemai just provided the most significant addition so far with no connection to Azer Jafarov: "After his death the clergy, on the basis of Shari'ah law, demanded that his heirs hand over 10 per cent of his inheritance to mosques. In response, concerned about these claims, the heirs provided the "holy fathers" with evidence that Aga Musa was not a Muslim and belonged to the Bahai faith. They cited an example, saying that Nagiyev once refused to swear on the Koran in a court and took his oath on the book of Sheikh Bahaulla."[http://regionplus.az/en/articles/view/4381] The source is an Azeri magazine.

:Considering that this is independent and provides details, unlike other references, I suggest wording like this: "Musa Naghiyev (1849-1919), one of Azerbaijan's richest citizens at the time, was raised Muslim and donated to Islamic charities, but participated as a member of the Baha'i Spiritual Assembly of Baku and is considered to have been a Baha'i by most (or some) modern sources (or authors)." Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Invovled editors- please place your vote under one of these options... hopefully we will get a consensus.

:: 1 A paragraph stating his role in Muslim charities and describing Azer Jafarov's research and publication

:: 2 A separate paragraph stating he was a muslim and that Baha'i sources and anti-Baha'i sources also claim that he was a Baha'i.

::3The most well known alleged member of the community approaching 1900 was Musa Nagiyev, one of the richest citizens at the time, although sources conflict about his status as a Baha'i or Muslim. there were many public figures before and after who seem to have admired the religion or even been members of it.

::4 "Musa Naghiyev (1849-1919), one of Azerbaijan's richest citizens at the time, was raised Muslim and donated to Islamic charities, but participated as a member of the Baha'i Spiritual Assembly of Baku and is considered to have been a Baha'i by some modern sources."

:::I vote for this option (option #4). Tarikhejtemai (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

:::I proposed #4 and I still think it's the best wording considering the sources. #3 is acceptable. #5 is rubbish. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 4:32 pm, Today (UTC−6) (moved here to keep the votes clear Nightenbelle (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC))

::5 Baha'i and anti-Baha'i sources claim that Musa Naghiev was a Baha'i. But this is disputed as there are sources stating that he was a Muslim and donated an entire building to Muslim Charity, he also built a Mosque."

• Thank you for your efforts. #2, #3 and #4 can be mixed. The wordings could be - "Baha'i and anti-Baha'i sources claim that Musa Naghiev was a Baha'i. But this is disputed as there are sources stating that he was a Muslim and donated an entire building to Muslim Charity, he also built a Mosque."

:Sources could be 1) Non-Baha'i source stating that he was Baha'i 2) Anti-Baha'i source - Payam-i-Pidar of Sobhi 3) Two sources that claim that he was a Muslim millionaire 4) Sources on the talk page stating that he donated a building to Muslim Charity and built a Mosque.Serv181920 (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

:: I mean... I Can add that as an option- but from a grammatical standpoint- it is awkward and convoluted. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I proposed #4 and I still think it's the best wording considering the sources. #3 is acceptable. #5 is rubbish. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

:::Serv181920 The other users are agreed on suggestion 4- if you agree to it as well, we can close this and move forward... What do you say? Nightenbelle (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

::::Thank you again for your time. The other two users are the followers of the Bahai faith so they have their own POV. Cuñado calls #5 as "rubbish", if it is "rubbish" because of grammatical errors, then he can fix it - he is an experienced editor, editing Bahai pages since years.

::::That said, here are my arguments for not accepting the suggested statement (#4) from Cuñado

:::#First part of the sentence, Musa Naghiyev (1849-1919), one of Azerbaijans richest citizens at the time, was raised Muslim and donated to Islamic charities - I have issue with the word "raised", no source says that, on the contrary sources say that he was a Muslim.

:::#Second part of the sentence, but participated as a member of the Bahai Spiritual Assembly of Baku, this should not be in wikivoice - there is no such statement in non-bahai sources (sources that are reliable and independent of the subject) - It should be "Bahais believe (or claim) that he was a member of the Bahai Spiritual Assembly of Baku" - about [http://regionplus.az/en/articles/view/4381 this source] Cuñado states that "this is independent and provides details" - yes, it is independent, but it says when Muslims demanded 10% of his inheritance, his heirs stated that "once (he) refused to swear on the Koran in a court and took his oath on the book of Sheikh Bahaulla" thus he was not a Muslim but a Bahai. The [http://regionplus.az/ru/articles/view/4381 original Russian version of this article] says : "After his death, the clergy, relying on Sharia law, demanded that the heirs transfer one tenth of his property to the mosques. In response, the heirs, disturbed by these claims, presented the "holy fathers" with evidence that Aga Musa was not a Muslim, but belonged to the "Bahai" religious movement."

::::[https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Нагиев,_Муса Russian Wikipedia article] on Nagiyev has this sentence (translated with google translate): "After the death of Musa Nagiyev, the clergy, relying on Sharia law, demanded that the heirs transfer one tenth of his property to the mosques. Concerned about the claims of the clergy, the heirs presented the “holy fathers” with evidence that Aga Musa was not a Muslim, but belonged to the Baháí religious movement. (He took) the (oath on the) book of Sheikh Baháulláh."

:::#He being a Bahai is disputed, and this dispute should reflect in the sentence. While digging more, I found a book written by Benin, the granddaughter of Musa Nagiyev. [http://www.anl.az/el_ru/b/b_kd.pdf On page 31 of this book] she states: "Soon, grandfather's second wife, a Russian woman, converted, she filed a lawsuit in court, claiming her right to grandfathers (Nagiyevs) property. Things got really bad. Everything is so confused and degraded. It turned out that it was difficult to understand anything. Relatives fought among themselves, not being able to find some acceptable decision."

:::#At page 121 of the same book (published by the Institute for Strategic Studies of the Caucasus), Benin mentions about the funeral rites of Musa Nagiyev. She writes "According to Muslim custom, the deceased is washed in and then the body was placed in the center of the room. Over (his body) the priests begin to read the Koran."

:::#There is another article [https://vestnikkavkaza.net/articles/culture/37709.html here] that says: "Agha Musa Nagiyev, one of the richest Baku oil industrialists, was known as a miserly man. Many people talked about his avarice and the stories were often very controversial."

:::#[https://azerhistory.com/?p=10490 Another article in Russian language] states that "Concerned about the claims of the clergy, the heirs presented evidence that Aga Musa was not a Muslim, but belonged to the "Baháí" religious movement." The same article says "He bequeathed to bury him in the sacred city of Kerbala." - Why would a Bahai ever wish to get himself buried in Kerbala?

::::There are many sources that makes it clear that due to inheritance disputes, and Muslims demanding 10% of his inheritance share, his heirs claimed that he was a Bahai.

::::Apart from those two sources (produced earlier), here is another source in Russian that says that he was a Muslim: [https://books.google.com/books?id=bvNI-xkYup0C&pg=PA323 Новая имперская история постсоветского пространства, Page 328] it says "Haji Zeynal Abdin Tagiyev, Shamsi Assadullaev and Musa Nagiyev made very large fortunes on the oil boom that gripped a small group of Muslim entrepreneurs."

::::Thus, it is not proper to call him a Baha'i in wikivoice. If needed I can produce more proofs.Serv181920 (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Serv181920 So by your statement- What I am getting is that you are not interested in compromise at all. The other editors have agreed on a phrase that includes his Muslim faith, but you will not even discuss one that includes Baha'i. The purpose of the DRN is not to come in and make a decision and force one person's perspective. So if you will not compromise on a phrase that includes the information from all the sources, this DRN cannot move forward. And there are sources that support both Baha'i and Muslim. So once again are you willing to compromise on a sentence that includes both religions? Or do you want to go to an RFC instead or accept the standing consensus of leaving the article as it was? Nightenbelle (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

In my last response I clearly stated "it is not proper to call him a Baha'i in wikivoice" and I have given the reasons for the same. Your statement "The other editors have agreed on a phrase that includes his Muslim faith, but you will not even discuss one that includes Baha'i." - It seems to me like have not read my response. I have given sources stating that he was said to be a Baha'i by his heirs because the Muslims demanded 10% from his inheritance. If all this is properly incorporated into the article, I have no further issue.

"So once again are you willing to compromise on a sentence that includes both religions?" - Yes, the sentence could be "Some sources claim that Musa Naghiyev was a Baha'i. But this is disputed as there are more sources establishing that he was a Muslim." Or maybe something on these lines.

If this cannot be resolved here, then I think we should go for RFC.Serv181920 (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

That’s what I mean by no compromise- that sentence is awkward and grammatically questionable. Adding the citations is the same as saying “some sources” only without adding the extra words in. I think it’s time for an rfc. Do you need help getting it together

Or should I just go ahead and close this? Nightenbelle (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your time. Please close this.Serv181920 (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|BunnyyHop|02:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed. There is also a thread at WP:ANI. If the conduct issue is resolved, then a new case can be filed here, or a Request for Comments can be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC) }}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Slavery}}

Users involved

• {{User|BunnyyHop}}
• {{User|My very best wishes}}
• {{User|Des Vallee}}

Dispute overview

Whether labour camps should be included or not in the Slavery article. In my opinion, labour camps should only be included in the article if WP:REliable sources link them directly to slavery (e.g., My very best wishes linked to two main sources - one that argues in favour of labelling the gulag system as slavery, and other that does not fully agree with this [although unrelated from each other]). The main dispute is around the GULAG, but other labour camps have been added since then, so the scope of what should be included has widened (and is tacitly in dispute). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slavery&type=revision&diff=1004309317&oldid=1004308391 This] is the latest disputed edit. Before this: I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slavery&type=revision&diff=1004300809&oldid=1003816763 replaced] the first part of the text (explaining what was the GULAG) with the POV of the scholars to justify why these labour camps were there, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slavery&diff=next&oldid=1004300809 MVBW] added it again, which I don't really have a problem with, although I think the section needs to be worked on.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Slavery#Soviet_Union

Talk:Slavery#Forced_Labour

Talk:Slavery#Post_discussion

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Clarifying what justifies the inclusion of labour camps in the Slavery article, and if so, how should it be included.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Grahaml35|19:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=participants opened an RFC. THey may re-open this DRN if that RFC fails. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Emanuel Cleaver}}

Users involved

• {{User|Grahaml35}}
• {{User|Muboshgu}}
• {{User|Arcturus}}
• {{User|Neutrality}}
• {{User|Snooganssnoogans}}
• {{User|GA-RT-22}}

Dispute overview

There is dispute on whether to add information about Congressman Rev Cleaver ending his prayer "amen & awomen". There has been disputes that it does not have a lasting effect and is a case of recentism. All sources being used in the prospective addition are not opinionated and only state the facts of what happened. The addition also mentions Cleaver's rebuttal to the critics.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Emanuel_Cleaver#Amen_and_Awomen], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive322#Emanuel_Cleaver_II]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

If you could approve or disapprove the prospective addition as it follows Wikipedia's three content policies of 1. Neutral point of view 2. No original research and 3. Verifiability.

This is a situation where a Democratic politician said something on January 3, Republicans tried to make a big stink out of it, and the issue died once the 24 hour news cycle concluded with [https://apnews.com/article/michael-brown-kansas-city-emanuel-cleaver-archive-prayer-5a5bd058acc0e7a220ea7415f7382b88 Cleaver's statement on it] on January 5. So, okay, this one was more like 48 hours. The content is WP:UNDUE as the WP:RECENTISM has faded. There have been zero news articles written on it (at least that I have found) since that news cycle concluded. The last I see a conservative op-ed in USA Today on January 6.

More to the point, consensus through the talk page discussion and BLPN thread that are presented above have concluded without consensus to include this. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no doubt his remarks were notable; they were reported outside the US. Verifiability is not a problem, since there are many sources. OR is not an issue here. To support notability it might be useful to include a non-US source. To address NPOV it would be appropriate to include Rev. Cleaver's rebuttal. The dispute hinges around DUE vs UNDUE. Since Cleaver is known for this remark, especially outside the US, it would seem not to be UNDUE. I do not see any BLP issues here, provided we simply state what he said, where, and when. Arcturus (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

{{Collapsetop|Back and forth before a volunteer joined the case}}

{{u|Arcturus}}, your statement {{tq|Since Cleaver is known for this remark, especially outside the US, it would seem not to be UNDUE}} is odd to me. What evidence is there that saying "amen and awoman" is how he is "known" outside of the U.S.? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

: Muboshgu has repeatedly tried to make this a political issue but it is not. I have repeatedly posted links of opinion pieces written in the last 12 days on talk page, yet Muboshgu keeps claiming he has not seen any. This proves it has had a lasting impact. I will post the links again here. [https://townhall.com/columnists/jeffdavidson/2021/01/23/amen-and-awomen-signals-more-progressive-nonsense-n2583588] [https://www.heraldbulletin.com/opinion/columns/jim-bailey-column-a-benediction-on-all-of-your-house/article_2ebcdbf0-5f88-11eb-bd47-df33fd0e69b3.html] Grahaml35 (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

::I am not trying to make this a political issue. Republicans tried to make it a political issue, which is the only reason it got any press at all. This is the typical "R vs. D" 24 hour news cycle story. That's important context. I said there have been no news stories since January 5 on this subject. Opinion pieces are not RS.

::

::Also, was it intentional to leave out two of the editors from that talk page discussion, {{u|Snooganssnoogans}} and {{u|GA-RT-22}}? They're as involved here as the rest of us. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

::: Opinion pieces are reputable sources, depending on their host publication. They should be identified as such, with constructs like "John Doe, writing in The Telegraph said …". Arcturus (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

:::: It was not intentional to leave {{u|Snooganssnoogans}} and {{u|GA-RT-22}}. I added the four users as they were the ones consistently debating the addition. It would be impossible to have another “news event” as the event has already happened; all articles would be opinion pieces. The opinion pieces would prove the lasting effect. I am adding two articles one from the United Kingdom and the other from New Zealand addressing the situation. [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/congress-prayer-cleaver-amen-awoman-b1781843.html] [https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/amen-and-a-woman-pastor-shocks-with-us-congress-prayer/Y3YKVEDCGFJMAARPNRWHIMTUWA/] Grahaml35 (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

: It's a dad joke of no significance that was turned into a short-lived culture war faux controversy by right-wing outlets. The claim that Cleaver is "misconstruing" something is a BLP violation. Per linguist John McWhorter, it's a "long-lived Southern/black preacher signature"[https://twitter.com/JohnHMcWhorter/status/1346548838111309825] to add "awoman" to "amen". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

:: It does not matter if it was a joke as it was said in the chambers of congress. In my addition of amen and awomen I mentioned that Rev Cleaver stated that it was a pun. This pun was covered highly by both right and left leaning news organizations in the ISA as well as international outlets. Additionally this was not brought about by “right wing outlets”. TheGuardian.com which few consider to be right leaning and actually left leaning which has also been deemed by Wiki users as a very reliable source covered the topic. [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/05/a-woman-prayer-emanuel-cleaver-amen-critics] Again, this is not a political issue. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

{{Collapsebottom}}

• Volunteer Note - Keep discussion to a minimum until a volunteer assumes moderation of this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• 2nd Volunteer Note If there have been more users involved- it would be best to go ahead and invite them / include them at this point- they can choose not to participate if they wish, but they should be given the option. Although- this disagreement is already at the large side of what works here at the DRN. You may want to consider an WP:RFC before coming here- see if you can get a consensus that way first. Just a suggestion- not a requirement. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

:: Nightenbelle All members on the {{talk|Emanuel Cleaver}} have been notified. I just now put in a request for an WP:RFC but I think this dispute would be better resolved here as a user in this case has had history of editing along political lines per their talk page. I appreciate you both volunteering in this case. Grahaml35 (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

::: Well we cannot stop an editor from editing here. If there is a behavioral issue, that needs to be brought up at WP:ANI. While the RFC is open, I'm going to close this case. I will follow the talk page and keep an eye on it while the RFC is running- and if the RFC doesn't solve anything- we can re-open this DRN at that point. But as long as another avenue of Dispute Resolution is open, we cannot also have a DRN open. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|110.175.38.93|01:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as answered. The answer to the question is yes. Exceptions are extremely rare. Persons should only be listed in a list if they are notable and are verified. Verification is done by the references in the article. This has been treated as a request for a third opinion, rather than for mediation. I have provided the opinion based on Wikipedia policies. This dispute has been answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Trinity College, Perth}}

Users involved

• {{User|FDW777}}

Dispute overview

Pls clarify--does a person on a list need a Wikipedia article?

Editor FDW777 will only allow a person with a Wikipedia article on the alumni list. This is the editor's declared position. The editor has removed a number of listings. I tend to agree with some of these. However, the editor doesn't appear willing to discuss listings that are notable (e.g. generals, university chairs, & a Rhodes Scholar). Does a listing require an article? Or is it sufficient that the person listed is notable, in line with alumni lists elsewhere, so long as the person is appropriately referenced?

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:110.175.38.93

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By clarifying whether a person needs to have an article in order to be listed.

Editor is adamant that only people with an article may be included on a list. Is this correct? If not, pls let the editor know.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Danielbr11|19:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=RFC and ANI pending. DRN does not accept cases which are pending in other dispute resolution processes or forums, such as RFC and ANI. Once the ANI case is closed, which will probably be fairly quick, and the usual time for the RFC has expired - usually 30 days - if consensus has not been achieved then this may be refiled if dispute resolution is still needed. But if it is refiled after the RFC is finished, please focus on the content dispute. As currently stated here, this case is about what other editors are doing, which is a conduct dispute which DRN does not handle, rather than about the underlying content issues and would've been closed for that reason even if the RFC and ANI were not pending. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll}}

Users involved

• {{User|Danielbr11}}
• {{User|C.J. Griffin}}
• {{User|Rklahn}}

Dispute overview

I have posted many sources but the users C.J. Griffin and Rklahn have both removed my edits. I posted only peer reviewed scholarly sources after they said my first sources werent reliable. Now they are simply deleting with my edit because they dont agree (because of their opinion). They are showing they accept a single source for the controversial contested subject of european colonization but they dont accept mine because they simply dont like it. Danielbr11 (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll#Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Showing that my sources which are scholarly peer reviewed are equal to the european colonization source so they are simply deleting my edits because of their opinion.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|failed}}

{{drn filing editor|Davidwr|01:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as failed. The other principal editor resumed edit-warring, and has been blocked. The dispute is now pending at WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|.eco}}

Users involved

• {{User|Davidwr}}
• {{User|JWatTheDotECO}}
• {{User|Dyork}}
• {{User|MB}}
• {{User|Cabayi}}
• {{User|Jacobmalthouse}}
• {{User|Techie3}}

Dispute overview

From where I see it, the dispute is whether the topic of the page .eco has been/is/should be about the gTLD known as ".eco" or whether it has been/is/should be about more, including the trademarked term .ECO, the company .ECO LLC, and related items. I cannot speak for other parties as to how they would define the dispute.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:.eco - multiple threads starting in January 2021. I recommend any volunteer read the entire page at least twice. {{U|JWatTheDotECO}} and me, {{U|Davidwr}}, are the primary editors in dispute. The others are listed because they have tried to help resolve the dispute. Not listed are {{User|TheDotECO}}, who edited the actual page on November 12, 2020 and the talk page on 28 January 2021, and {{User|Jacobmalthouse}} (retired), whose edits are contributing to the dispute.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

• Make sure we are "on the same page" with respect to the dispute.
• Provide a neutral assessment as to what the purpose of the page has been in the past, before the first known edits by a now-gone COI editor on 15 August 2012 and between the time he started editing and the time a COI editor with a completely different conflict-of-interest started editing on 12 November 2020.
• Provide a neutral assessment of the purpose of other articles about other recent Generic top-level domains.

I am completely disconnected from the subject matter and only became involved when I started removing WP:LINKSPAM and doing other MOS-type fixes. It quickly became obvious (see their edit summaries) that JWat had a major COI and should not even be editing this article. All attempts to explain this on the TP have been ignored and they have repeatedly restored their version of the article in the interest of dealing with a "national emergency (Climate Change)" and complaining that this article is "causing confusion with the public and harm to my company". JWat refuses to heed WP policies and engage in productive dialog on the TP. I do support expansion of the article with a History section rather that putting related info in other stubby articles. But nothing productive along those lines has happened due to refusal of JWat to follow policy. MB 02:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

As I read events, a number of businesses bid for the right to manage the .eco gTLD. PLANET.ECO, LLC registered a trademark https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ct/1052810 but didn't win the contract, which went to BIG ROOM INC.https://opencorporates.com/companies/ca/6873138https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_de/4712212

Does the wiki have an article for a trademark that has no significant presence? I can't think of one. Does the wiki have articles on gTLDs? Emphatically, yes. The gTLD is clearly the primary topic, and that aligns with Big Room's business. Planet.eco just owns some pictures which wouldn't pass Commons:Threshold of originality.

The connected editor tags were placed by {{u|Davidwr}} (1) & me (2). The three connected editors - {{u|JWatTheDotECO}}, {{u|TheDotECO}} & {{u|Jacobmalthouse}} (who has emerged from retirement) - are guilty of UPE & are fair game for indef blocking. Cabayi (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

• Volunteer Note - I haven't finished reading the statements the first time. However, I can see that there is an incomplete disclosure of conflict of interest, and that all editors having any conflict of interest must declare who they are affiliated with and what the nature of their affiliation is. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

So this is Jean William and or Moses Boone of planet.eco fame. They are level 18 trolls with bastard swords of disinformation +3. They have been banned from ICANN Wiki for trashing our .eco page there. See: https://icannwiki.org/index.php?title=.eco&action=history. The discussion about the IANA record is correct (https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/eco.html). Just because you name your house 'Buckingham Palace' doesn't give you the right to edit that wikipedia page claiming you own "The" Buckingham Palace. That's exactly what is happening here. The only entity on the planet that has the right to allocate top-level domains is IANA. IANA makes changes to the root zone based on decisions taken at ICANN. ICANN has awarded the registry agreement for .eco to Big Room Inc, and IANA has accordingly updated the root zone to reflect this. ICANN affords mechanisms for parties to dispute its decisions, including an independent review process, in its bylaws. There are no active accountability mechanisms pertaining to .eco. It is therefore not in dispute: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/mechanisms-2014-03-20-en. I'm fine with Jean and Moses having a separate page about their trademark or talking about their failed bid, but the reality is they have no association whatsoever with the actual .eco top-level domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobmalthouse (talk • contribs) 04:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The statement by Jacobmalthouse is consistent with the initial statement by User:Davidwr and other neutral editors. It appears that this is a case of cybersquatting in Wikipedia, in which case this is a conduct dispute, and this content dispute will be closed, and the filing party will be advised to open a case at WP:AN for a possible referral to the Legal office of the WMF. However, I am awaiting a statement and a disclosure by User:JWatTheDotECO. All editors may make one more concise statement. Please read the ground rules. Comment on content, not contributors. If no response is received from JWatTheDotECO (or if the response is inconclusive, or is consistent with what has been said by other editors), this case will be closed in 24 hours as cybersquatting.

Robert McClenon (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

::It appears that JWatTheDotECO may be editing for Planet ECO, who may have acquired a US trademark on .ECO (distinguished from .eco by case) and may now be acting as a trademark troll. A statement and a disclosure are being awaited. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

{{ping|Robert McClenon|Lourdes}} {{U|JWatTheDotECO}} was blocked by Lourdes for 72 hours. I recommend that his block be modified so that he can edit on dispute-resolution pages such as this one and editor-dispute-resolution pages without waiting for his block to expire. This will allow the disputes to be resolved quicker. I think this can be done technically by replacing his block with expire-at-the-original-expiration-time "page blocks" that block article, article talk, file, file talk, and user talk namespaces (assuming the latter will still let him edit his own talk page, otherwise don't block user talk).{{pb}}

It's a bit premature to say this, but "reading the tea leaves" I see the long-term solution being an indef page block for all COI editors who have edited the page after being reminded not to, with the others given a formal, neutral notice on their talk page that they should not edit the article except for WP:Minor edits and edits needed to bring the page back into policy compliance (e.g. reverting COPYVIO or BLP violations). For now, only one of the 3 editors named as PAID editors on the article's talk page fall into the "indef page-block now" category. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I see no need to request that the block on JWatTheDotECO be lifted, at least not to allow dispute resolution here. This noticeboard is for resolving content disputes, and does not address conduct, and is not a venue to discuss blocks, indefinite or otherwise. JWatTheDotECO had already been warned repeatedly to stop edit-warring, and continued edit-warring rather than discussing. The block of JWatTheDotECO and the content and conduct dispute should be discussed at WP:AN.

I am leaving this case open briefly only for statements. The forum for resolution of the dispute is WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

:* I have nothing substantial to add, beyond thanking all of the other editors who have now become involved. This was my first time being involved with an editor who would not enter into discussions and I was not clear how this process worked. I have learned a good amount. My only note would be that while {{u|Davidwr}} created a "bare-bones" article in an attempt get to a NPOV article that all could agree to, the article should probably go back to (or have content copied from) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.eco&oldid=1003223167 the version from 28 January], also edited by Davidwr, as that article is more consistent with the other gTLD articles in terms of text and infobox content. Thank you again to all who have become involved. - Dyork (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

:*That revision, Special:Permalink/1003223167, looks good except for the "names can be registered at go.eco" spam external link. Cabayi (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Ifdc|19:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=As filed, this is a conduct dispute. DRN does not handle conduct disputes. If there is a content dispute there that has been extensively discussed on the article talk page, feel free to refile, but without mentioning conduct and without expecting a DRN volunteer to parse out the dispute. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Dan Pena}}

Users involved

• {{User|Ifdc}}
• {{User|Hipal}}
• {{User|Bishonen}}
• {{User|Curb Safe Charmer}}
• {{User|Sethie}}

Dispute overview

There is a lot of hostility at the page Dan Pena, I started editing a few days ago and right at the beginning I get messages on my talk page accusing me of being a paid advocate, which I am not. Then I'm accused of being a sock puppet by an admin out of nowhere, with no evidence just what appears to be a 'hunch'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ifdc#Precocious_user

I realize this complaint shouldn't be all about behavior so I'm hoping somebody can step in and actually look at the content of the article Dan Pena and tell me if you think it is written in a biased way, or not? To me it reads neutral but I'd like a more experienced editor to have a look. Thank you

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dan_Peña#Unjustified_Reverts_and_False_Accusations_of_Paid_Advocacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ifdc#Precocious_user

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I keep being accused of violating neutral point of view and of being a paid advocate, can you please look at my edits and tell me if my edits are okay? I don't believe I'm doing anything wrong and I feel like Hipal and Bishonen are gaslighting me.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|failed}}

{{drn filing editor|Danielbr11|00:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as failed. Moderated discussion has failed to resolve this content dispute. I will be closing this content dispute as failed. Further civil discussion can continue at the article talk page. There are at least four ways forward for the editors in this dispute. First, any question about the reliability of a source can be taken to the reliable source noticeboard. Second, a neutrally worded question about article content can be posted to the community via a Request for Comments. Third, disruptive editing can be reported at WP:ANI. I do not advise that path because the editing has not been disruptive. Fourth, the editor who is in the minority can accept that they are in the minority, at least for the time being.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC) }}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll}}

Users involved

• {{User|Danielbr11}}
• {{User|C.J. Griffin}}
• {{User|Rklahn}}

Dispute overview

I am trying to edit the article to show 150 million as maximum estimate for Mass killings under communist regimes by providing The following peer reviewed scholarly sources

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C28&q=The+Russian+GULAG+Understanding+the+Dangers+of+Marxism+Combined+With+Totalitarianism&btnG=

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24563310?seq=1

even a third and fourth backup source

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/disaster-red-hundredth-anniversary-russian-socialist-revolution/

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg75859/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg75859.pdf

In the policies below it is stated non neutral sources are allowed its simply the editing such as sentence phrasing in the article that must be neutral. The article has both points of view because it has a minimim estimate AND a maximum estimate. My edit is simply a number.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutrality_of_sources

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_means_neutral_editing,_not_neutral_content

In fact look what it says here under achieving neutrality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view it says "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." And here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources it says "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Again the article shows both point of views as minimum and maximum estimates.

The two other users have been violating the above policies by deleting my edits simply because they view my sources as biased.

Ps: In fact this article says “lack of consensus” in the notes for European colonization while there are also sources that say “unreliable source” next to them and even Rummel is used as a source on the list.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll#Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By showing that my sources are acceptable scholarly peer reviewed sources regardless of perceived bias because the article has space for both viewpoints- minimum and maximum estimates. Ps: I already requested closure on administrators notice board.

I believe this dispute has elements of both a content dispute and a conduct dispute, but Im only going to address content here. The sources lack a neutral point of view. They are from either a strongly Christian Conservative or Libertarian POV.

• Volunteer Note ANI has been closed, participants have been notified. I am going to recuse myself as I tried to help on the article talk page- but I do not need to be included as a participant either. Best of luck to all involved. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Nightenbelle you dont have to recuse yourself from here i got the source from the liberty article as Martin, Prevailing Worldviews, 182. Like you asked but the two other users dont understand that neutral point of view applies to the article sentence phrasing not sources as the policy links i shared state. The article already has both point of views through minimum estimates and maximum estimates.Danielbr11 (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

: I appreciate your trust, but I think you are wrong in trying to use those sources Danielbr11... and I can't be a neutral moderator if I have, and acted on an opinion.Nightenbelle (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

{{collapsetop|Unnecessary side discourse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)}}

Did you not read above the quotes directly from the wiki policy pages i posted above? Is your opinion above what the policies say? Copy a direct quote from the policies if you think you are correct..Danielbr11 (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

{{collapsebottom}}

I thank User:Nightenbelle for involvement in this dispute, and am willing to act as the moderator. I am not as familiar with the content as I am with some disputes, and I will expect the editors to provide the background knowledge, just as the article should present their knowledge to the readers. Please read the usual ground rules. You are expected to follow them without having them explained to you a second time. I will restate the rules to comment on content, not contributors, and the rule to be civil and concise. In particular, overly long statements may make the author feel better, but do not inform the other editors well, so be concise.

Does the dispute have to do with deaths caused by communist dictatorships?

Does the dispute have to do with the reliability of sources?

Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they want changed in the article, or what they want kept the same?

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The dispute has to do with mass killings under communist regimes and it is about the reliability of my peer reviewed scholarly sources below because i am trying to simply add it to the list with 150 million as the maximum death count while there is already a minimum estimate space for opposing views. The policy links above showed that one cannot remove a supposed biased source and that unbiased sources are not required because it is the article that is to be neutral/balanced not the sources.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C28&q=The+Russian+GULAG+Understanding+the+Dangers+of+Marxism+Combined+With+Totalitarianism&btnG=

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24563310?seq=1

even a third fourth or fifth backup source

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/disaster-red-hundredth-anniversary-russian-socialist-revolution/

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg75859/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg75859.pdf

https://books.google.com/books?id=W-l28GIoyQ4C&pg=PA251&lpg=PA251&dq=le+figaro+communism+%22150+million%22&source=bl&ots=Ryi6MFAR6z&sig=ACfU3U03xzst5_KQE0ua_9-HmufP-SazUQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiaj5CHq9juAhVZCs0KHShqA58Q6AEwBHoECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=le%20figaro%20communism%20%22150%20million%22&f=false

Danielbr11 (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The dispute has nothing to do with the number of deaths under communist dictatorships and everything to do with the reliability of sources. Without sources that provide a neutral point of view or additional sources that provide the opposing view, I want the status quo maintained, and there to be no edit. Rklahn (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that I know what the issue is, but it is the responsibility of the editors to state what the issue. It is not the responsibility of the moderator to state what the issue or issues are.

Will each editor please state exactly what they want to add to the article or remove from the article, or, if they want the status quo, exactly what they are disagreeing with.

If a particular source or sources are the issue, please identify the source, and why the source is reliable or unreliable.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Even in DRN, [t]he onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.. Unless directly asked by the the Volunteer, Im going to let Danielbr11 go first. Rklahn (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to add Mass killings under communist regimes to the list with a maximum estimate of 150 million as shown in these two scholarly peer reviewed sources which meet the reliable source criteria since source neutrality is not required per the policies because the article is neutral with minimum estimates as well.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C28&q=The+Russian+GULAG+Understanding+the+Dangers+of+Marxism+Combined+With+Totalitarianism&btnG=

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24563310?seq=1

even a third source if required

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/disaster-red-hundredth-anniversary-russian-socialist-revolution/Danielbr11 (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly where in the listicle (list article) do you want to add the entry about communist regimes? And exactly what number of people do you propose to list? I will state again that the purpose of this mediation is to improve the article. It is hard to assess the value of a change to the article without stating exactly where in the article the change should be made. (I know that I could wade through the diffs if I wanted to do that. I don't want to, and you do want my volunteer help in resolving this content dispute.)

Also, please provide references for the sources formatted exactly as you intend to have them appear in the listicle if your addition is accepted.

We already have an article on Mass killings under Communist regimes, which discusses these deaths. Do they really constitute a single atrocity or anthropogenic disaster? (Can Stalin and Mao really be consolidated, other than as twentieth-century despots?) But first answer the question of exactly what you want added to the listicle and where.

I am asking editors who disagree with the source because they consider it to be unreliable to state why they consider it to be unreliable.

The entry could be added on Wars and armed conflicts right below European Colonization of the Americas which also combines many countries/leaders with many different causes of death such as disease famine executions torturings work camps and battles. Every item on the article already has its own page and there is even another item on the list called Genocide of Indigenous Americans which has basically the same number as European Colonization of the Americas. Of course the entry could go under War crimes, massacres and ancient war atrocities or List of political leaders and regimes by death toll. I would put 150 million per the sources as the maximum estimate.

The sources would be:

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1350&context=honors

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24563310?seq=1

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/disaster-red-hundredth-anniversary-russian-socialist-revolutionDanielbr11 (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It's somewhat difficult for me to make a statement at this stage. Im not entirely clear exactly what edit we are now talking about. Im going to assume [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll&type=revision&diff=1005080524&oldid=1005073822] perhaps in a different section, but with the sources listed by Danielbr11 in the paragraph above.

I believe each source to be unreliable.

:*https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1350&context=honors is a Senior thesis in support of a degree from Liberty University. Liberty University describes itself as a conservative Christian institution, and is not neutral in its political or economic philosophy, it is politically conservative (in the American sense) and Capitalist. Anything published by Liberty University should not be taken a reliable in the area economic philosophy, and in particular, a subject for a contentious claim like the number of deaths under Communism.

:*https://www.jstor.org/stable/24563310?seq=1 is a self described reflection. It is an exercise in introspection, shared with others. By definition, it's not intended to be verifiable. And not being verifiable, its not reliable.

:*https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/disaster-red-hundredth-anniversary-russian-socialist-revolution is published by the The Future of Freedom Foundation. An advocacy group promoting libertarianism in both American domestic and foreign policy. It should not be taken as a reliable source for anything having to do with Communism, which it is in direct opposition to.

For the record: I believe the status quo should be kept, and this edit not made. Rklahn (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a link to the article on Mass killings under communist regimes.

Moderated discussion has failed to resolve this content dispute. I will be closing this content dispute as failed. Further civil discussion can continue at the article talk page. There are at least four ways forward for the editors in this dispute. First, any question about the reliability of a source can be taken to the reliable source noticeboard. Second, a neutrally worded question about article content can be posted to the community via a Request for Comments. Third, disruptive editing can be reported at WP:ANI. I do not advise that path because the editing has not been disruptive. Fourth, the editor who is in the minority can accept that they are in the minority, at least for the time being.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I guess I am going to step in and get involved as a participant. Because I have reviewed it and why these sources shouldn't be included...

-- The Liberty University Senior Thesis is not peer reviewed- its a published senior thesis on a university website- any senior of Liberty University (A college with known and extreme conservatively bent philosophies that are questionable at best when it comes to neutral political research.). It is cited by 1 other source.... so not highly respected in that regard. AND it only claims 60 million deaths- not the 150 million it is being used to support. So it should be disqualified on three fronts- not peer reviewed, not "respected" (cited by other articles), and does not say what editor claims.

-- The Fruits of Fallacy BOOK CRITIQUE (not actually a research / scholarly paper on this subject at all) does say 150 million.... but does not clarify why or how those are dead or even that it was because of communism. Stalin is mentioned as somehow involved- but not actually blamed for the deaths. There is no source at all cited for this information and it is in the a poetic attempt at an introduction- but with no source cited- We cannot accept a vague number with no actual causes attributed to it. Now it is in a peer reviewed journal- so if it did have a real number with a real cause- it would be a good source, but since it offers a number with no cause- it cannot be used to support this particular edit.

-- The third source is from a right wing think tank that is very biased and not peer reviewed- but rather a propaganda machine- not a Reliable source at all. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me Nightenbelle and Rklahn both of you do not get to override policy and decide what reliable is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view it says "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." And here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources it says "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Peer review is not even required these sources meet the critirea period. Furthermore you didnt even read the liberty article https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1350&context=honors where it says "Throughout the life

of the Soviet Union from 1917 to its collapse in 1991, between 100 and 150 million people

were put to death under communist rule" On top of all this is the fact even https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB16A.1.GIF puts the maximum death toll at 259,432,000 for communist regimes.

Danielbr11 (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

:Actually- I read every word of the Liberty paper thank you very much- So I'll thank you to strike that and stop making accusations. It was a long and boring read- took me about 45 minutes. You need to stop being so rude and defensive when debating- discuss the issue, stop making it personal and attacking us as editors. Now- as to us overriding policy- no, we don't. However both of us have extensive experience interpreting that policy (specifically WP:RS here on WP. I have been reviewing new articles for six months now- the number one thing I look at there is the sources- so other than mediate on the DRN, evaluating RS is what I do here on WP. To introduce controversial material- you do have to have WP:RS. Now- Biased sources can occasionally be the best possible sources for providing information about different viewpoints. But you are not adding different viewpoints- you are trying to add cold hard facts- and for that, you need unbiased peer reviewed sources. Which you have not provided. As for Peer reviewed- for a source to be "respected" we look at how it is sourced, how often it is cited, and how it is reviewed/published. Peer reviewing is a common term that means that the source faces rigorous vetting before it was published- which is a handy way of saying- half our work as WP editors was already done. Non-peer reviewed sources can be used, but they require more scruitiny- who is publishing them? What is their motivation? Is it sourced appropriately? Can we trust the publisher? So its not that its required that sources be peer reviewed- but if they are, we don't have to examine them as closely. Which is why for the 3rd source- I went to the pulisher. Notice I didn't say that it wasn't good enough because it wasn't peer reviewed- I said it doesn't work because the publisher isn't trustworthy. I said that it wasn't peer reviewed- yes, but thats not why I rejected it- it was the bias publisher that is the problem. So... the new source you added- is a spreadsheet. That looks at the numbers of Democide in various countries. Basically you have provided a primary source. Peachy. You could use this to write an journal article or thesis- but not a WP article. Using primary sources is WP:OR which is not allowed. Whats more- the deaths under these governments does not indicate cause or political motivation- so it does not support your addition anyway. I did a quick check and looked at the website hosting this- while it is on the University of Hawaii website- it is actually the personal page of a late professor- not an actual university sponsored website. It is maintained as a memorial of sorts- not as an actual University sponsored or approved site- and it has a disclaimer on the site that says, "professor Rummel passed away on March 2, 2014. His "Powerkills" website will be maintained by the University of Hawaii Political Science Department. Please contact (REDACTED) with any questions or comments." So- this source is also, not reliable as it is a primary source hosted on a personal webpage. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

:: The Quote I was using for the 60 million was, "Solzhenitsyn estimated that those who died as a direct result of Stalin’s directives reached nearly 60 million." Because I looked at those who were killed directly at the order of the communist leader- not just everyone who died for any reason.Nightenbelle (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me Nightenbelle now you are making up your own policy without stating where it says that in policy. This source meets the reliable source criteria for controversial material. Nowhere does the policy state you need unbiased peer reviewed sources. The reliable sources policy states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". This means the wiki article has to have both viewpoints covered which it does as minimum and maximum estimates. This is not saying the source has to have both viewpoints but only if it does do you have to mention them. The liberty source does have the range of minimum and maximum estimates 100 to 150 million which is what my edit said. You can even put another source as the minimum if you wanted. On top of that this source from harvard says 162 million communism deaths between mao and stalin. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/4/29/predatory-politics-what-was-the-greatest/ STOP disobeying the policy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view it says "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." And here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources it says "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." You are not going to disallow an edit based on your OPINION and you already recused yourself earlier with your circular reasoning.

Danielbr11 (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

::"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered" Please actually read my arguments. I'm saying the sources are not reliable because the 'publisher is biased. Not that the source itself is biased. I'm not using circular reasoning- I have been very consistently saying the entire time that the sources cannot be used if they are not reliable. THats not circular- its policy. WP:IDONTHEARTHAT doesn't change that. Insulting me doesn't change that. And please- stop telling me what I am and am not going to do. Its rude and aggressiveM. WP policy is going to disallow this edit. Not me personally. This has nothing to do with my personal opinion and everything to do with a review of the sources- which are not reliable. You have multiple editors telling you that. A consensus of editors telling you that. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|Closed}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1612919076}}

{{drn filing editor|Soibangla|01:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason= Closed per participant's request and feeling this step was not necessary. Participants are welcome to re-open a case if they need help in the future. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Big Lie}}

Users involved

• {{User|Soibangla}}
• {{User|NedFausa}}
• {{User|KIENGIR}}
• {{User|Novem Linguae}}

Dispute overview

I added the sentence: "The expression later came to be associated with Donald Trump" to the lead, which I assert proportionately summarizes a corresponding section in the body. The sentence was reverted.

On Talk, three editors assert the sentence does not pass NPOV/due and undue weight. I maintain their stated rationales do not have a plausible basis in Wikipedia policy.

[[NB: since the initial Talk discussion, I added additional references in the body to establish that the content is DUE, and therefore "lead summarizes body" justifies a proportionate mention in the lead. Some/many of these references can later be trimmed.]

I want to emphasize that no effort is being made here to associate Trump with Hitler, but rather to show others have associated him with a concept that has not been previously described in the article in any post-war context, but is now being associated with Trump in a modern context.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_lie#Inclusion_of_Trump_in_lead

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I assert this is a case in which the consensus is incorrect and the sentence should be restored in the lead.

The current political events causing a big overhead in the related articles, especially political shoapboaxing, from the moderate way to the insanity, and neutrality may easily be forgotten unfortunately, this is espcially visible for outsiders/uninvolved editors (the page is trolled by POV-pushers in a daily manner from both directions). Indeed yes, lead summarize body, not it does not mean we would include everything in the the lead. The Trump issue is a recent overloaded shoap at all aspects, taking any sides by new insertions may suggest being involved or abandon neutrality. Trump is surely not commensurable with those one in the lead mentioned, so I would avoid such trials.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC))

:{{ping|Nightenbelle}},

:I think you may close this issue, since besides the formal/procedural mistakes of it's opening, not even the nominator took it serious or participated in it actively, that is quite odd, and noone else will. Any volunteer's advices I noted and will mind them, the talk page discussions are ongoing anyway. Regards(KIENGIR (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC))

I'm not sure this is worth a lot of time and effort. There's a 3-1 consensus to not include this in the lead. There's some editors in the article that want to give more WP:WEIGHT to Donald Trump in the lead and/or in the Donald Trump section, but some of us disagree with this weight. It's a historical article, and giving Donald Trump a lot of weight seems to be a case of WP:RECENT. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editors on their talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - There is a local consensus of 3-1 against the filing editor. The options for the filing editor, who is in the minority, are to try to discuss with the other editors to reach a compromise, or to obtain a larger consensus by Request for Comments. Either approach will be supported at this noticeboard after the other editors are notified. (That is, if they want an RFC, a volunteer will help draft the RFC neutrally. If they want discussion leading to compromise, a volunteer will mediate, but no promises are made.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

** {{u|Robert McClenon}}, I do not see that user Talk page notification is required for topics in this “informal” forum, and I pinged the three editors on the article Talk page in a fully transparent manner such that any other interested editors could also participate. Perhaps consider striking your fallacious comment as it is potentially prejudicial against me. soibangla (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - My statement is correct, because the editors were not notified on their talk pages. It is true that they were pinged, and for that reason this case will remain open, waiting for a volunteer to accept it, if another volunteer is willing to accept a case filed by an editor who has already insulted one volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

*** {{u|Robert McClenon}}, Yes, your statement that they were not notified on their Talk pages is correct, except that unlike in other matters in other forums, such notification is not required here, and so your mentioning of this potentially creates a false impression that I am not following the rules, which tends to cast a prejudicial pall on my filing. I now ask you more directly to strike it. soibangla (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note{{u|Soibangla}} You are incorrect- the rules of this board are clearly stated at the top: "Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: (Template deleted for space) Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice." So- I strognly suggest you stop arguing with the volunteers and notify the users and return to this board with an atitude that will encourage volunteers to be willing to mediate and also encourage the others involved to overturn the already existing consensus and discuss your desired improvements. I would also remind you that participation in this discussion is voluntary for all involved- the users you have a disagreement with, and the volunteers. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• I stand corrected. soibangla (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

:::I think the words you are looking for is I’m sorry I was combative Robert, I’ll strike through my wrong comments like I tried to make you do when you politely asked me to follow protocol. Nightenbelle (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I came to this issue recently after looking for information about "the big lie" w.r.t. statements in the news. I do not believe one or two sentences in the lede constitute WP:RECENT or WP:UNDUE. UserTwoSix (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the next case in line for a volunteer to jump on- however, the only two volunteers currently active are myself and Robert McClenon. Since he has already recused himself- that leaves me. Are the users involved willing to have me mediate or would you rather either do an RFC or hold off until we get another volunteer. I will not take it personally if you would rather I not mediate. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|Closed}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1613055130}}

{{drn filing editor|Rkerver|14:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason= First, there has been very little discussion on the talk page. 2nd- Filing editor wants to include information using his own experience as the source. This is contrary to WP policy. Sources must be independently published sources- preferably secondary. Please review WP:RS before editing further, and please try an extended good faith effort to solve the problems before coming here. Discussions should be more than 4 total comments. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Anocracy}}

Users involved

• {{User|Rkerver}}
• {{User|Gwennie-nyan}}
• {{User|Jared.h.wood}}

Dispute overview

I contributed the section "United States" and my contribution keeps being removed. Three short paragraphs, fully referenced. Talk has not lead to consensus.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anocracy#United_States

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Review the content, the references. If a neutral third party finds it all OK, then post in the talk article.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|Closed}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1613151385}}

{{drn filing editor|20footfish|17:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=First, you are in the wrong place. You should probably be in the Teahouse for this. However, to answer your concerns- a warning banner does not open you up to threats or attacks or bullying. Lots and lots of people get them- especially new editors. Its almost a right of passage. Now- we will not remove a COI banner here. And if you have personal infomration such as your email address and phone number on WP- you need to go to WP:ANI and ask it be removed and history deleted. If you used your personal email to research informaiton for an article here, well that is on you, not us. That is not recomended or required. But even so- there shouldn't be anything connecting that personal information to your posts here. But the DRN exists to mediate disputes between editors- we are not the Admins (most of us don't even have that level of user rights and are pretty sure we don't want them). We do not handle .... this. Sorry. Other than the Teahouse or ANI- I'm not sure where to send you. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Park Yoo chun}}

Users involved

• {{User|Bonadea}}

Dispute overview

I have been editing and something has gone wrong. I read all your guidelines and learned what to do, I went to tearoom and asked questions. I understood I could edit the page. I contacted outside reps, agents and fans to get information for the article. I found in Personal life, 4 articles by non-viable source with statements that were made and cited by articles that didn't talk about the statement made. I removed them all. I am now told that I a COI, I have tried to resolve but am not given options or full explanation. I have been told I am making destructive edits. If you want to undo my work, you don't need to call my work destructive as I have followed your policies. We can't reach consensus because I am left with a giant warning banner on his site. It is a living human being and you are putting me at harms way because people I have aksed for articles know that I am 20footfish. they have my personal email address and name. I am exposed like this to threats and cyber bullying. I had not thought of that.. I need that banner gone because i am now terrified. 20footfish the editor COI serious. You have no idea how afraid I am now.. just change it back and take it off please. My dispute is for my safety and wellbeing.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

I have tried to ask the editor for help to get that off. I have asked for options. I don't know what to do now. I am pretty worried and upset. I want the banner off. you can change it all back. just take it off. I will get really horrible emails with that on there for 30 000 people to see.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

just help me please. I will never edit again. I was honestly researching every sentence and did a great job. I have them all saved on my system. I followed your WP:Source list and checked all articled for viability and only the viable ones stayed. Now I am COI because of wikicommons asking for license.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Dtt1|19:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed. This is a dispute over deletion, and DRN does not handle deletion disputes. A version of the article has been re-created in article space, and has been nominated for deletion again. This use of DRN is forum shopping and is vexatious litigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Ashish Chanchlani}}

Users involved

• {{User|Dtt1}}
• {{User|Praxidicae}}
• {{User|Bonadea}}

Dispute overview

The page was previously deleted for not being reliable where I had voted a delete myself, but now as I find it reliable I created it with completely new sources which in compilation of overall article makes the subject clearly pass GNG, Now as I am trying to improve the article by adding reliable sources which shows that the subject has won the World Bloggers Awards in Cannes and the ref is [https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephanrabimov/2019/06/07/world-bloggers-awards-makes-history-in-cannes/?sh=3b606f3de535 This] I was said that The sources you're adding are utterly unreliable and cannot be used which I failed to understand how come this source be unreliable?, There are more references which are being removed from the article which I feel in order to make it look failing GNG like [https://wspartners.bbc.com/episode/w3ct1c15 This]] from BBC which states he was interviewed by them and other links too, someone who has won 2 Major awards and is currently nominated under one more major reliable award plus has been listed in Forbes 30 under 30 catagory is being said to have all these references unreliable and when they failed to get the page deleted under WP:G4 they renominated it for AFd, Thats not the problem Though, The problem is not allowing me edit the page forcefully making the subject a non notable one who has won Awards like Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards India ?

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ashish_Chanchlani#Contested_deletion], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Praxidicae#Ashish_Chanchlani]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

as per over all sources available I feel that the subject clearly passes GNG line, But unfortunately despite of helping me get the article created it is being forced to get deleted stating as non notable, I wish an Un-baised scrutiny for the present references and then to get it resolved as per their value, Thanks.

:This is an absurd abuse of DRN and beyond WP:TE. Dtt should know better and understanding sourcing at this point enough that we shouldn't have to have this discussion in half a dozen different places. CUPIDICAE💕 19:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|Closed}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1613247059}}

{{drn filing editor|Sarrotrkux|20:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Because of the large number of participants, they have opened an RFC instead. This dispute is closed without prejudice, and if the RFC fails and they would like to try again- they are welcome to, although with 9 editors involved, they are advised that it will be very difficult and their patients and cool heads will be required Nightenbelle (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Uyghur genocide}}

Users involved

• {{User|Sarrotrkux}}
• {{User|Stonksboi}}
• {{User|PailSimon}}
• {{User|Horse Eye's Back}}
• {{User|My very best wishes}}
• {{User|TucanHolmes}}
• {{User|Mikehawk10}}

Dispute overview

The page "Uyghur genocide" includes an image of a random young girl and an old lady. Those images do not serve any informative or encyclopaedic function in the article, and apparently the only reason they were added is to imply that "this is how an Uyghur looks like". As such, two other editors and I believe they should be removed from the page, as we do not believe that Wikipedia should promote generalisations of an ethnicity based on the looks of one or two individuals. As far as I can see, this is also the consensus that was reached on previous discussions about this matter; images of individuals should not be added for the purposes of ethnic generalisation, as they are inherently exclusive and unscientific.

However, three other editors (Horse Eye's Back, My very best wishes, TucanHolmes) claim that the images serve as an "illustrative aid", although I have not seen them be able to come up with an argument of what exactly is supposed to be illustrated by the images other than the aforementioned generalisation of an entire ethnicity. "TucanHolmes" and "my very best wishes" are arguing with MOS:PERTINENCE to "keep them until we have better ones", but as far as I can see, MOS:PERTINENCE does not condone ethnic generalisations in the first place.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Uyghur_genocide#Including_random_photos_of_a_uyghur_child_and_grandmother_relating_to_Marriage_incentives_makes_no_sense

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Clarify whether the inclusion of images for the sole purpose of ethnic generalisation is suitable for Wikipedia.

There have been a lot of involved editors but I don’t think anyone has actually argued that we should be using these images "for the sole purpose of ethnic generalisation” (if I’m wrong I’d like to be shown a diff). It seems like one heck of a leading question, one only loosely based in reality. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

:That is what I gathered from the comments of the editors involved. For example, TucanHolmes said, I quote: "This article is about an ethnic group, so showing members of that ethnic groups help people visualise the topic (it helped me, for one)." They are humans. Why exactly would someone need help visualising how a human looks like except for pigeonholing? Does a Silesian look different from a Swabian? Does an Andalusian look different from a Castillian? If I showed you ten pictures of random people, Uyghurs and non-Uyghurs, do you think you could tell them apart by their looks? If not, then including images of random individuals serves no informational purpose. Sarrotrkux (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The talk page has been having an ordinary, albeit contested, discussion regarding whether or not to include two pictures within the page. One of these pictures is that of an older Uyghur woman wearing a hijab, while the other is of a young, female Child. Of those who believe that the images should be kept (4 editors, when I am included), there is general agreement that the reason for them to be kept is based in MOS:PERTINENCE, and that they should be kept until better images are found. Of those who do not believe the images should be kept (3 editors), the general argument is that the images are irrelevant to the article, and/or that they don't provide additional understanding. I am unsure why I was initially left out of this, since I am involved (and support maintaining the images on the page).

Aside from the substantive debate on the article contents, which I have described above, one of my comments was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Uyghur_genocide&diff=1003811486&oldid=1003807231 split in two] on the talk page by {{u|Sarrotrkux}} and thereby refactored (I have since placed my comments back together). Outside of the talk page itself, {{u|stonksboi}} has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASarrotrkux&type=revision&diff=1003080280&oldid=990366537 alleged] that {{u|Horse Eye's Back}} is a "staunch anti-China troll", which likely constitutes a personal attack. He also noted that he suspected that I am HEB's sockpuppet, which I am not (and this can be confirmed by a checkuser).

It should be noted that {{u|stonksboi}} has previously been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=995929432#User:Stonksboi_reported_by_User:Normchou_(Result:_Blocked) blocked] by {{u|EdJohnston}} for edit warring on the 2022 Winter Olympics page, where the user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=995747255 repeatedly] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=995733286 deleted] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=995667352 information] that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=995655670&oldid=995552397 referred] to the ongoing Uyghur genocide and the 2019-2020 Hong Kong protests, after being reported by {{u|Normchou}}. Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Volunteer Comment Typically disputes with more than 4 editors do not work out on the DRN. I would reccomend an WP:RFC instead. There have also been allegations of Behavioral issues, which belong at WP:ANI. the DRN will not decide issues- we will only mediate a compromise. IF this is what all involved editors want- please reply to this comment saying you understand and are willing to participate in a mediated discussion towards a compromise. Other than that please do not engage in back and forth discussion until a volunteer agrees to take on this case. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Principally yes, though I'm not sure what compromise is possible between not including such images and including them. It's not like this is an argument about subjective phrasing in which you can realistically reach a middle-ground, because you can't "half-include" an image. Sarrotrkux (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe that the original comment on the talk page, which includes a concern that the inclusion of the images "{{tq|are a serious issue that should not be left for such a limited amount of users to decide}}" could be best resolved along the lines of an RfC, since this appears to be looking for additional users to weigh in on the issue at hand. I have therefore, in line with the recommendation given by {{u|Nightenbelle}}, created an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Uyghur_genocide#RfC_on_image_inclusion RfC] on the talk page related to the inclusion of the contested images. Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|Closed}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1613248367}}

{{drn filing editor|Shaun Sm|20:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)}}{{DRN archive top|reason=the DRN is not the place for WP:Canvasing if there are enough WP:RS the page will not be deleted. its not a conspiracy, its just policy Nightenbelle (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sayman}}
• {{pagelinks|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sayman (3rd nomination)}}

Users involved

• {{User|User:Radio Adept}}

Dispute overview

Michael Sayman, a well-known software engineer who has been the subject of coverage in innumerable reliable outlets, is clearly the target of a harassment campaign at the moment. Despite being obviously eligible for a Wikipedia page there is a coordinated campaign by critics of his to get his page removed.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

The deletion campaign is obviously coordinated and a result of someone with a personal vendetta against Sayman.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Protecting Sayman's page, which should clearly stay up, from frivolous deletion.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|Closed}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1613253095}}

{{drn filing editor|Purplehippo458|21:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)}}{{DRN archive top|reason=The DRN is not the place to request more people come vote- in fact, this is dangerously close to WP:Canvasing which is against WP policy. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Michael Sayman}}

Users involved

• {{User|Purplehippo458}}

Dispute overview

I believe this article's deletion discussion requires more editors with a Latin American background of context around the notability of this person.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Sayman_(3rd_nomination)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

If we can have a more diversified group of editors discuss the nomination of deletion of this page.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|Resolved}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1612248523}}

{{drn filing editor|Voidvector|06:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Participants agree to change the name to Template:Star Control original series. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Template:Star Control}}
• {{pagelinks|Star Control}}
• {{pagelinks|Star Control: Origins}}
• {{pagelinks|Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche}}

Users involved

• {{User|Voidvector}}
• {{User|Shooterwalker}}

Dispute overview

The dispute is over inclusion of the following articles in the template:

• Star Control: Origins
• Stardock, developer of above
• Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche, lawsuit over the IP dispute.

Current template only includes the Star Control games from the 1990s by Toys for Bob (Reiche & Ford) or Accolade -- Star Control, Star Control II, and Star Control 3.

The trademark of "Star Control" was purchased in 2013 by Stardock in Atari bankruptcy auction. They released Star Control: Origins in 2018. However, there was an IP dispute between the parties, resulting in the case Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche with settlement. (See Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche#Final settlement)

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Template_talk:Star Control#Stardock

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Determine whether Stardock, Star Control: Origins, and Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche should be included Template:Star Control. Potential options:

• Include Star Control: Origins as Games and Stardock Developers, and Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche as "Related articles"
• Include all of them as "Related articles"
• Do not include them at all

• I've tried to work with Voidvector, citing guidelines and sources, and offering compromises.
• The dispute concerns two game series sharing the same title: the Star Control trilogy from 1990, and Star Control: Origins from 2018.
• Standard practice for two games with the same title is to disambiguate with a WP:HATNOTE. See WP:VG/MOS. For how this is applied, see Fight Night/Fight Night, Portal/Portal, Overlord/Overlord/Overlord, Crack Down/Crackdown, Fable/Fable, Star Fox/Star Fox.
• WP:VG/MOS also applies to game series templates. See templates for Fight Night series, Portal series, Overlord series, Crackdown, Fable series, and Star Fox, which do not include the other games they share their name with. This practice is so consistent that it is uniform.
• Voidvector has pushed their WP:POV about the two series, and resorted to attacks. ("the original series is dead", "I am happy that Stardock is willing to revive (and bring attention) to the franchise", "your position is simply gatekeeping fanboyism") [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Star_Control&diff=1001283845&oldid=1001273934]
• Voidvector also crept up to the WP:3RR on Template:Star Control after I asked to discuss first.
• As our discussion went on, Voidvector started a new discusssion at a good article about the original series, and implied it might be nominated for deletion.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUr-Quan&type=revision&diff=1001274563&oldid=990689210]
• I have avoided taking the WP:BAIT, repeatedly citing our practices and guidelines. (WP:DISAMBIGUATION, WP:VG/MOS, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:RS, WP:V)
• After an effort to bring Voidvector back on topic, we agreed to include a WP:HATNOTE for disambiguation, which they added.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Control&diff=1001308655&oldid=999980680]
• Nonetheless, the dispute has gone on.
• For clarity, there was a well-documented lawsuit that started and ended with the two series operating separately. (In the needlessly complex lawsuit, Stardock sued the 1990s developers to gain the Copyright. Stardock did hope to win the rights to make a fourth game in the same series/universe, but ended with only the name, back where they started.)
• Most recently, Voidvector has criticized me for not adding to a talkpage table they created. I'm doing my best to bring our discussion back on topic with sources and guidelines, and they are not responding in-kind. I thought we found a compromise,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Control&diff=1001308655&oldid=999980680] but they have since escalated this to WP:DR.
• My main goal is to represent these two separate topics based on the sources, rather than WP:POV.
• Another important goal is to avoid the clutter of a "related links" section, as the original Star Control was highly influential in the space genre, with numerous imitators.[https://www.gameslikee.com/games-like-star-control-the-ur-quan-masters/] To prevent an endlessly growing list of "related links", I'm taking guidance from MOS:NOTSEEALSO, "as a general rule, the see also section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body". The new series is already mentioned in the article body, and Voidvector [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Control&diff=1001308655&oldid=999980680 already added a hatnote]. A hatnote is literally the first line of the article, and this should more than satisfy our goals of disambiguation and navigation.

{{collapsetop|Collapsing discussion and reminding those involved not to continue discussion until a volunteer signs on to mediate the case. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)}}

I did not state my position in the submission -- I am for adding Star Control: Origins and Stardock (trademark owner) for the purpose of "navigational aid", since this is a navbox.

{{User|Shooterwalker}} appears disagree with their addition. His primary argument appears to be on the grounds that they are not the same series (diff developers & canon/lore). However, Stardock owns the trademark. Gameplay-wise Star Control: Origins is inspired by Star Control II. From my perspective, the remaining arguments by {{User|Shooterwalker}} are simple refusal of my positions using unrelated rules, straw maning my words, cherry-picking of examples/citations. --Voidvector (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

: I'm here. I documented the dispute with diffs and guidelines. I'd very much rather hear from anyone else now. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

: I was invited to discuss this by Voidvector. I am not sure if I should respond here or at the other talk page but I don't think we should add Stardock or another game. All the reliable sources agree that the games don't share anything except the name and some inspiration. The games are disconnected by 25 years and two unrelated companies. I don't know if Voidvector wants to include or ignore the "in universe" factors but they are also disconnected stories and settings. I followed the lawsuit and I think the confusion is that the settlement makes it sound like the original series will be renamed the "Ur-Quan Masters" franchise but we still call it "Star Control". Its been "Star Control" for 30 years. I don't agree with the bias that "the original series is basically dead" but you could say the original trilogy officially ended in 1996. Now journalists talk about SCO as a new series even if they hoped for a sequel or prequel. This is explained at the Star Control article with reliable sources and links to SCO. I agree that a list of Star Control related games would be too long and the article already mentions Stardock anyway. I see that Voidvector added SCO as a disambigation line in Star Control so that should settle it. Jorahm (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

:: Can you clarify who is "Voidwalker"? I believe you are conflating our usernames. --Voidvector (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

::: You're the one who tagged me and I did conflate it. Fixed. I fixed the quote too. Jorahm (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

There are a lot of misrepresentation here -- for example, I never actually said "the original series is dead". My actual words are "Until release of Ghosts of the Precursors (currently vaporware), the original series is basically dead." Above participates have both used this as a "straw man". (I am going to keep this reply brief, since volunteer has not joined.)

In addition, if you were to follow the thread, I have already offered compromise by suggesting we should list them as "Related articles", while my counterpart(s) has not compromised at all. My primary goal is to simply provide "navigational aid" (i.e. MOS:LINK) so anything that achieves that goal between all these articles is palatable to me. --Voidvector (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

{{collapsebottom}}

Hi, my name is Nightenbelle and I'm willing to mediate this discussion. I have read the relevant talk pages and articles and before we begin I have a few questions- 1st- are all parties willing to make a good faith effort to resolve this? As a reminder, participation in the DRN is voluntary and no one is under any obligation to participate. 2nd, do you all agree to review the rules at the top of the page and follow them as well as remaining civil throughout the discussion? Nightenbelle (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I will give the other editors 24 more hours to respond and then I will have to close this discussion. I am sorry that it took so long for a mediator to volunteer- but we are a bit understaffed right now, and it is difficult to mediate more than one case per volunteer at a time. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree fully to mediation and enter in good faith. I pledge to comment exclusively on content and its merits. In addition, will agree to settlement of DRN regardless of outcome. --Voidvector (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I will try to be more active. I know this dispute started on the template discussion but I would advise discussing some of the recent edits on the Star Control vs Origins pages. I will make a good faith effort to resolve this and remain civil and defer to the mediator. Thank you for volunteering. Jorahm (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Just getting to this now. I'll continue to make good faith and civil efforts to resolve this. I think a neutral and patient mediator will help bring this to a close. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Shooterwalker Having a family emergency is totally understandable, and we can absolutely un-archive / re-open a dispute. In the future, however, please contact the mediator rather than just undo it yourself- there are some templates that we need that can be easily deleted.

Okay folks- lets begin! 1st question- what would each of you consider to be a fair and equitable compromise- not your personal best case scenario- but what you think a good compromise would be? The purpose of this is to see how far apart we are to begin with. At this point- I would remind you to please not engage with or respond to each other- just give your best compromise and we will move on from there. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I have already mentioned my compromise in the creation of this DRN. I can further refine that compromise to only ask for the listing of Star Control: Origins (the game itself) as what I referred to as "Related articles" row. The link Stardock can be omitted as this is the case for Template:Fallout series and Template:Wasteland. In additional, I am willing to offer the actual naming of this "Related articles" row to my counterparty to whatever they see fit such that they can distance the original franchise from it (e.g. "Related franchises"). --Voidvector (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Game templates are not supposed to list every related article (and there are always many). For example, Archon (game) actually has the same dev as the original Star Control series in addition to the shared title (StarCon) and game design template but it’s better to describe this in the article than to clump it in a random list of “related links”. The current template doesn’t even list every person who worked on the Star Control trilogy (and it shouldn’t), so it would be even more confusing to add the unconnected developer of an unconnected series from 30 years later. I don’t see the relationship between these series outside of the lawsuit over the naming rights. I would contest whether many people would accidentally visit Star Control when they search for Origins, but it does look like a disambiguation “hatnote” at Star Control was discussed as a compromise. It was added without my participation or consent but I could accept that as a compromise in good faith. However if there isn’t satisfying to anyone I would prefer to revert to the status quo in early January before the dispute. (At least until we discuss further.) An additional compromise would be to create a new template if and when Stardock does a sequel to Origins, and if there is a dispute over the template names I am sure that can be cleared up using reliable sources once journalists decide how to cover Stardock’s games. Another compromise that would help readers is to add a hatnote to the article about the naming dispute covered at the Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche which also explains the status of each series but I think it’s good enough to mention it in the text. Jorahm (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

So what I'm seeing is Voidvector sees including the unrelated game as a related article is their fair compromise and Jorahm sees not including the game in the template but including the existing hatnote as a good compromise and re-addressing if there are future sequels. Folks... neither of these are a compromise- they are just re-stating your original point.

So lets try something different. could both of you please provide a list of other game templates that include different games by different companies that are not related? If we can see how some other franchises have handled this- it might give some ideas of how this could be handled here. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

There are several other game templates that have addressed how to cover different games by different companies that are not related, but still had to work out the naming rights.

• Fight Night: Template, 2011 series, 1985 game -- no link in template or articles
• Portal: Template, 2007 series, 1986 game -- no link in template or articles
• Fable: Template, 2004 series, 1986 game -- no link in template or articles
• Overlord: Template, 2007 series, 1994 game -- no link in template, one article has a WP:HATNOTE to disambiguation page
• Crackdown: Template, 2007 series, 1989 game -- no link in template, one article has a WP:HATNOTE to other article
• Star Fox: Template, 1993 series, 1983 game, 1987 game -- no link in template, all articles have a WP:HATNOTE to disambiguation page

I'm late to talking through a compromise. It is true that the WP:HATNOTE was something I thought might help reach a consensus, and is at least consistent with policy and some games with the same name. But it doesn't look like anybody is actually happy with that compromise. I suppose if you scratched hard enough I'd say the games have different titles and don't need the hat note, but I think the very definition of a compromise is a solution where nobody is particularly happy. Another idea would be to change the title of this template so as to pre-emptively differentiate it from whatever template the Stardock series might eventually use. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Just as a quick note, I added a few pages where the dispute spilled over (in the edit history). Shooterwalker (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Those are related titles. The following quotes from reputable game media demonstrating the relationship.

• "While Star Control: Origins bears the name of the series, it's officially a hard reboot, set in a fresh universe with some similar concepts." [https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/star-control-origins-out-now from Rock Paper Shotgun]
• "Publisher Stardock is reviving the Star Control series with its own update called Star Control: Origins" [https://venturebeat.com/2018/07/02/star-control-origins-lead-producer-explains-how-the-reboot-updates-the-classic-series/ from Venturebeat]
• "Star Control: Origins is the first game in the series since the maligned Star Control 3, and its roots are deeply grounded within the mechanics of Star Control 2." [https://www.destructoid.com/stories/review-star-control-origins-524362.phtml from Destructoid]
• "The company [Stardock] announced plans for a new Star Control title that would be heavily inspired by the franchise's most famous entry, Star Control 2." [https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/ from Arstechnica]

The best relationship to describe them is "reboot" (per Rock Paper Shotgun) or "clone" or "expand universe" or "fan game".

Here are some examples of templates that list unrelated games per moderator request:

• Template:Fallout series - lists Wasteland which is a distinct series, but inspired Fallout series
• Template:Doom series - lists Quake and Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 because of cameos, lists Fall Guys because of costumes/skins.
• Template:Warcraft universe - lists Defense of the Ancients which is a mod with unrelated lore and IP
• Template:Super Smash Bros. - lists "Fan games"
• Template:Pokémon video games series - lists "Fan games"

Those are all blockbuster games so the templates are well trafficked by both editors and readers

On Shooterwalker's compromise of renaming/recharacterizing the template, I would be amendable to that if the new template: 1) mentions distinguishing characteristics in template title and navbox title (i.e. 1990s series or Reiche/Ford); 2) link to trademark dispute Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche article. If that's the case, I do not feel the need for inclusion of Star Control: Origins, as the template would have provided readers of sufficient context and navigational aid -- those being 1) this is limited to the 1990s series, 2) there was an IP dispute. --Voidvector (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay now there's some progress. I can see how other games have handled things. It sounds like in some ways- this is a totally new situation- A new company making games that re-boot a different company's game. Legally that is fascinating... but I digress.

So both are amenable to a new template.... Lets work on that.

What if The 3 rows were Original Series / Stardock series / Related. Links to each game and publisher would go in the appropriate line, and the controversy and universe articles would go in related? Would that work?Nightenbelle (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Choosing a clear name for the template seems like it will resolve the dispute and be informative for our readers.

It also addresses one of the root problems I've had with a combined template, which is that you're going to have two non-overlapping sets of everything: two different publishers/creators/developers, to say nothing of the games and fiction itself. Some of the example templates that Voidvector brings up have much more overlap, both with their out-of-universe personnel and their in-universe copyrighted content, but I think that discussion will sidetrack us. If Voidvector meant it in good faith that we might resolve this by "renaming/recharacterizing" the template, then I'd rather focus on that.

We should focus our next steps on an appropriate template name. It's Wikipedia policy to avoid original research and we should avoid naming things according to our opinions. Our policy for naming things is to use a WP:COMMONNAME and refer to reliable sources. If we can agree to that in principle, I think we will keep making progress.

As an aside, I'm not convinced of the importance of the lawsuit article. For that reason it would be better to leave that off-template (but still in the relevant articles). But if we're going to include it, it would be WP:NPOV to add it to Template:Stardock too, and eventually their new series template when that happens. I'm trying to keep an open mind. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

There are two proposals here -- moderator's 3-row proposal and Shooterwalker's proposal. Moderator's 3-row proposal is fully agreeable to me. Shooterwalker's proposal is agreeable to me if naming context and lawsuit link is added.

In regards Shooterwalker's concern about WP:COMMONNAME or WP:OR or WP:RS, those would not apply if we simply follow WP:NCVGDAB and name the template/navbox something like "Star Control series (1990s)", or "Star Control (1990s video games)". This is a common naming convention for published media even outside of Wikipedia. It has already been done by [https://www.google.com/search?q=Star+Control+imdb IMDB] for this series. In fact, Shooterwalker's earlier templates examples even contain this format ("Fable (1996 video game)" and "Overlord (1994 video game)").

I am agreeable to adding the lawsuit link to Template:Stardock, since it provides navigational aid. In fact, it should probably be also added to Template:Toys for Bob as well, since Reiche is the other party to the lawsuit. --Voidvector (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I can agree with renaming the template title. It should be something neutral and based on sources. I thought “Star Control trilogy” made it clear but it could also be titled “original trilogy”, “classic series” or any other name you see frequently in reliable sources. I am even more supportive of mentioning the lawsuit at the pages of the parties. However Toys for Bob was not party to the lawsuit. Reiche and Ford own the copyright directly from a time when game makers often didn’t incorporate. If Stardock sued the Corp then Stardock would have had to sue Activision which would have been insane. Whatever we do should be based on sources and not just one editor’s opinion. Jorahm (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay then- moving towards a re-name- can you both check the sources and maybe come up with some suggestions? Nightenbelle (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank Jorahm for correcting me that Toys for Bob was no party to the lawsuit, is actually how owned by Activision. I withdraw my suggestion regarding that.

I want to mention for disclosure that I posted in Talk:Paul Reiche III yesterday that I plan to add mention of the lawsuit (currently omitted). Jorahm appears to be supportive of this. I personally did not feel there would be any dispute regarding this, but I posted it on the talk page given ongoing DRN just to be sure.

My suggestions of new template name will be based on format of WP:NCVGDAB, which would be something like "Star Control (1990s video games)" or "Star Control (Accolade series)". --Voidvector (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that disclosure as I think that helps to re-build trust. No objections to mentioning the lawsuit at Reiche/Ford/Stardock since their involvement is verifiable. Do you intend to do any further editing around these articles, other than what we're currently talking about? I ask because I'd like to get that out in the open while we still have a neutral mediator for oversight.

I think we might be talking about two different things for naming the template. Voidvector, is it your hope to move the Template to a new location in the namespace? We don't apply disambiguation rules to templates unless there is more than one template. I thought you'd be more interested in changing the "title" field, which is more visible, and why everyone uses reliable sources to establish an appropriate title. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

We do have disambiguated templates -- e.g. Template:Apocalypse vs Template:Apocalypse (film series) or Template:Batman in film vs Template:Batman in popular media. Even parenthesized templates without un-parenthesized version -- Template:Unbreakable (film series). As for WP:RS or WP:OR concerns, they don't apply if we follow WP:NCVGDAB formats, since we wouldn't be inventing any new phrases or notations.

I might have other edits, but most of my edits will be adding current omissions, similar to the addition of nav links in the template here and mentioning of the lawsuit in the bio articles. I have not gone through other articles to know for sure. Rest assured, I will most likely just copy-pasting write up from another article with edits only for flow, so would not introducing new write-up. (Most of my edits in recent years have been related to western China, e.g. China vs Indian, which are way more of NPOV landmine, so I don't think I would have any issues here.)

IMO providing readers inter-article navigation is better. I much rather have direct link between Star Control and Star Control: Origins (e.g. moderator's 3-row proposal). That way, renaming is not needed, but I am willing settle for renaming with the lawsuit link, which provides explicit context so readers can figure out the IP differences themselves. --Voidvector (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

So... Does anyone have a suggestion of a new title? Nightenbelle (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about the template title but it looks like we're talking about the template namespace. The examples of disambiguated templates are for situations where there are two templates with similar names (e.g.: Apocalypse). That doesn't apply here where there is only one template (again, see Template:Fight Night series, Template:Portal series, Template:Fable series, Template:Overlord series, Template:Crackdown, Template:Star Fox). But you're telling me that if we move the template in the namespace, you'd be satisfied? Plus adding the lawsuit to this template, the Stardock template, and within the Reiche/Ford articles in context. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)'

: I'm Pretty sure we are just talking about the template title itself. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

:: I also thought we were talking about the title field in the template. The title field would definitely need to be grounded in reliable sources, as with everything in Wikipedia. But Voidvector keeps on bringing up disambiguation rules for the namespace, which is different. I'm open to either discussion, but I want to make sure we are working from the same understanding. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

We are Working on re-naming the template- not the namespace.... so we can stop focusing on that. Now- you have all stated that you are open to this discussion, and you've stated that it needs to be grounded in reliable sources. We've established that- what I'm looking for now is actual suggestions of what that name could be please. Not theory behind what the name should be- but actually what you want the name to be. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I thought we were agreeing on renaming the template name ("Template: Star Control" to "Template: Star Control (1990s video games)"), as well as as the navbox title which is the content of the template (See Template:Navbox#Usage). My suggestion for both names are as stated as before -- "Star Control (1990s video games)" or "Star Control (Accolade series)". Those are based on my read of WP:NCVGDAB. Both are derived from facts -- all games contain the name "Star Control", all were released in the 1990s, all were published by Accolade.

In his last reply, User:Shooterwalker stated "Voidvector keeps on bringing up disambiguation rules for the namespace". This is a false accusation and straw man, one can simply Ctrl-F on this page or on Template talk:Star Control and search for "disambig" to see who brought up the topic first and who talks about this topic more often. I should also mention that "original research" (WP:OR) and "reliable sources" (WP:RS) have been brought up in this discussion in a similar manner. --Voidvector (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

:Voidvector and Shooterwalker- I've asked a specific question and asked that you focus on that question only- and you both have brought editor behavior into this. I'm going to ask you to WP:AGF and comment on the content only. Now, we are discussing what the new name should be- and only what the new name should be at this point. If either of you again brings up editor behavior, I'm going to close this as failed because that is not our purpose at DRN. We mediate content disputes only. Now.... So far we have the suggestions of 'Star Control (1990s video games)' and 'Star Control (Accolade series)' are there any other suggested names or do we want to vote on those two? Nightenbelle (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

:: I didn't make any accusations or bring up editor behavior. Changing the namespace and changing the body are two different things, and I'm literally trying to confirm which one we're talking about, in good faith. We need a shared understanding in order to be able to move forward. I'm not confident that we have a shared understanding, but I'll focus my attention on the mediator's question in hopes of making progress.

:: The body is always based on reliable sources. The most WP:COMMONNAMEs described in the reliable sources (other than just "Star Control series", which doesn't really address the dispute) are "original"[https://www.polygon.com/2018/3/21/17146940/star-control-leak-settlement-offer-stardock-reiche-ford-wardell][https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/06/stardock-and-star-control-creators-settle-lawsuits-with-mead-and-honey/] or "classic"[https://www.gamerevolution.com/news/400177-star-control-creators-crowdfunding-2m-to-defend-against-stardock-lawsuit][https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf]. This naming convention is used in a bunch of permutations such as "classic/original Star Control", "classic/original games", "classic/original series", etc... I can produce a more thorough review of the reliable sources if necessary. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

::: Once again- the request is not for yet more research of what should or shouldn't be considered- its for actual suggestions of what you want the name to be. We need to be moving towards a conclusion. So please make a suggestion of a proposed title- not more explanation of how one should be chosen. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

:::: Sorry, I'll try to be more clear. "Star Control original series" or "Star Control classic series" would both be acceptable template titles, because they meet guidelines on WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Based on my read of policy and sources I would be fine with Star Control “Original Series” or “Classic Series”. That’s where reliable sources are pointing when they talk about the two series with maybe a slight edge to “original series”. Maybe there are other possibilities, but common use in reliable sources should be the minimum. Jorahm (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you moderator for getting us back on track!

I am OK with both "Star Control original series" or "Star Control classic series" or any permutation of those. There is at least one precedence in title (albeit a redirect) following WP:NCVGDAB convention -- Mega Man (original series). I prefer parenthesized convention for template title. This is to both follow WP:NCVGDAB and not invent new phrases. For navbox title, we can avoid that by italicize "Star Control" per WP:ITALICTITLE to make the distinction. However if you guys strongly prefer non-parenthized template title, I would not push back.

I should reiterate this proposal also included linking to the lawsuit Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche. I offer arrangement of the template rows to my counterparties (i.e. whether to put it in 3rd row or add it as a 4th row). Additionally, name of the link could be changed to anything reasonable as long as it provides readers the context -- e.g. "trademark dispute" or "vs Stardock". --Voidvector (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I am optimistic that we can wrap this up, and we might need a little more discussion to work out the last few details.

• We will still include a mention of the lawsuit at Paul Reiche III, Fred Ford (programmer), and Template:Stardock. I'm open minded about how it's presented on the Stardock template to keep it orderly and avoid any similar confusion there. As for the Star Control template, I might prefer piping the lawsuit to "Intellectual property dispute" for accuracy, except that it's unnecessarily long for a template. I'm hoping Voidvector will accept a shorter "Intellectual property" but we can discuss.
• Back to the template title in the body, "Star Control original series" seems to have more support in the sources. It's a verifiable and common name.
• Template titles don't use parentheses in the body. (See: Template:Fight Night series, Template:Portal series, Template:Fable series, Template:Overlord series, Template:Crackdown, Template:Star Fox, or even Template:Mega Man series.) Indeed, Wikipedia follows the convention of capitalizing and italicizing the actual game title.
• As for the namespace, the disambiguation rules don't really apply here because there is only one template. But if it would help bring the discussion to a close, I would accept moving the template in the namespace to "Star Control original series", to make it uniform with the template title in the body.
• When we close this dispute (which might not be immediate but soon), I'd kindly ask User:Nightenbelle to close the dispute at the Template talk page as well, with a link and/or brief summary of the resolution. If that's not too much trouble.

In good faith, I'm trying to think if there is anything else. I'm hoping that's everything and there are no other omissions or surprises. Let's give everyone a chance to check-in. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

So it looks like we have consensus on some version of Star Control: Original Series. Are there any other issues that need clearing up or are we good to close? When I close this- I will also post a statement on the template talk page to close that out if you wish. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Nightenbelle. "Star Control original series" seems like the core of workable compromise. But would obviously want to hear from the others before we declare this closed, just in case we need your help working through the final details. I'm good for my part. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I can agree to this and let me try to sum it up. Change the template title to “Star Control original series”. Move the template to Template:Star Control original series to match. Add Intellectual property to this template under Universe. Add Intellectual property to Template:Stardock bedside Star Control: Origins. Add a well sourced blurb about the lawsuit to the pages for Reiche and Ford and Stardock. And close the talk page thread with a summary. People can tell me if I missed anything. Jorahm (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

: No. The other users do not agree to move the template at this time. Just chage the name and add the lawsuit. I don't recall and agreement to a blurb either- just links. Nightenbelle (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

:: I think we are in agreement about moving the template to Template:Star Control original series. At least based on my read of tones of the other editors. I am OK with keeping Template:Star Control as a redirect to this template until Stardock releases another game and we create a template for Stardock series at a different name. At that point, this redirect could be deleted so as to no favor either side.

:: "Intellectual property dispute" is perfectly acceptable to me for the lawsuit link text. However, "Intellectual property" alone seems inappropriate given the article is about a lawsuit, not the IP. I am also open to other word choices -- e.g. "Intellectual property settlement" or "Intellectual property litigation".

:: I agree to the name without parenthesis. I also agree to inclusion of the lawsuit link on Template:Stardock and mentioning of it in aforementioned bio articles.

:: As for how to include the lawsuit link in Template:Stardock, I would suggest adding a row called "Related articles" and add the the lawsuit link, as well as adding the link for the only other article in :Category:Stardock that's currently not linked, which is their CEO's bio page. --Voidvector (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay then. Sounds good and sounds like we are resolved. I'm going to go ahead and close this then and make note on the talk page as well :-) Thank you all for your participation. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Mhorg|21:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed as withdrawn by filing party. The filing party has requested to withdraw this dispute, and has noted that there are complex issues involving both content and conduct. A good forum for this dispute is one that will control the tendency of the parties to walls of text (or boomerang on parties who can't observe word limits), and which is also willing to take draoonian action against difficult editors. Arbitration Enforcement will probably work well. After the disruptive editors have been identified and sanctioned, a Request for Comments may be feasible. In the meantime, go to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Alexei Navalny}}

Users involved

• {{User|Mhorg}}
• {{User|Nicoljaus}}
• {{User|Jurisdicta}}
• {{User|My very best wishes}}
• {{User|PailSimon}}
• {{User|Alaexis}}
• {{User|OhNoitsJamie}}
• {{User|Darkcloud2222}}

Dispute overview

Hi, currently we have had a discussion among some users (including one sockpuppet in favour of the deletion, which poisoned the discussion) about whether a statement by this politician can be inserted or not. I found a total of 5 RS for this statement.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexei_Navalny#Did_he_back_the_Russian_war_in_Georgia_or_not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Georgian_sentiment#Navalny_as_the_only_Russian_with_anti-Georgian_sentiments

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We would need someone to tell if this information can be included in the article or not. (Currently it has been removed, some parts also from the sockpuppet).

• Volunteer Note - It appears that a survey was in progress before it was disrupted by sockpuppetry. There are eight editors involved, which is more than can normally be handled effectively for moderated discussion. A Request for Comments is normally preferred with a large number of editors. It appears that the survey was meant to provide the same function as an RFC without the formalities. So my recommendation is that the filing editor request assistance from a volunteer in converting the survey into a formal RFC. The closer of the RFC will disregard sockpuppets. The filing editor has not notified the other editors of the filing here. They should do that, but that need not delay working to set up the RFC. Does the filing editor want assistance in setting up an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

::I definitely need help as this is my first time seeing an Dispute resolution, I would be very grateful to you. Thank you {{Ping|Robert McClenon}}.--Mhorg (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - Please notify the other editors that you have filed. I will set up the survey as an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

:: Thank you for your help {{ping|Robert McClenon}} and for your patience. Can I just ask you to wait a few more days? The points that are under discussion now seem to have multiplied, and I have yet to figure out how to try to resolve the whole issue.--Mhorg (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - This case is on hold for a few days. It will be closed without prejudice if the filing editor does not notify the other editors, or requests to withdraw the request. (Without prejudice means that it can later be refiled.) I am willing to set up the RFC at any time. The filing party should notify the other editors, and if they are not notified, this case will be closed without prejudice. I recommend following up on some sort of dispute resolution, preferably an RFC, within a few days, because edit-warring was reported at WP:ANI (and was dealt with, but that means that the content issues need to be resolved). This case is on hold, but only for a few days. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Bavio the Benighted|00:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed. The filing editor has been blocked for edit warring. If any of the other editors think that an RFC is in order, they can file a new case request and a volunteer will assist in composing a neutrally worded RFC. On the other hand, if the other editors are satisfied with status quo, then the status quo is the consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Comfort women}}

Users involved

• {{User|Bavio the Benighted}}
• {{User|Binksternet}}
• {{User|NettingFish15019}}
• {{User|XiAdonis}}
• {{User|Wtmitchell}}
• {{User|John B123}}
• {{User|STSC}}
• {{User|Yasuo Miyakawa}}
• {{User|YUEdits}}

Dispute overview

The article concerns "comfort women", who are, depending on source, referred to as either military sex slaves or military prostitutes. Newer evidence (cited in the talk page) indicates that the term "prostitute" is more accurate, given that it is not known whether or not the majority of the women were forced to work against their own will. On the other hand, many older sources and Western media outlets appear to prefer the term "sex slave", most of them citing victim testimonies.

I proposed changing the definition to "Comfort women were prostitutes who worked at military brothels ("comfort stations") established by the Imperial Japanese Army in occupied territories during World War 2." but other users have expressed disagreement and would prefer to keep the "sex slave" definition.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Comfort_women#Lead_sentence

Talk:Comfort_women#Relevance_of_Ramseyer

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

If possible, I would like to ask more editors to review the evidence on both sides and to help establish a consensus on how the concept should be defined on Wikipedia.

For 17 years the article summarized the mainstream literature about the topic of comfort women, saying that this topic was about many thousands of girls and women who were forced into sex slavery by the Japanese military. In September 2020, Bavio the Benighted arrived at the article to redefine it completely, changing these women from forced sex slaves to prostitutes. Bavio wanted the article to be based on a voluntary prostitution foundation, with the worldwide outrage focused on a greatly reduced amount of involuntary forced sex.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comfort_women&type=revision&diff=978060507&oldid=977744415] How reduced? Bavio asserted on the talk page that only 1% of comfort women were forced.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comfort_women&diff=next&oldid=1004573659] Bavio is essentially flipping the narrative upside-down, going from huge numbers of sex slaves to huge numbers of voluntary prostitutes.

Prior to Bavio, the article has been visited by a persistent parade of negationist, revisionist, nationalist Japanese who push for every imaginable kind of reduction of the negative aspects. Wikiwiki210 and 原口由夫 were blocked for this behavior in 2018, Takedamasayasu and Mochan2000 were blocked in 2019. Bavio the Benighted is continuing the same effort, but setting the bar far higher. Nobody before Bavio tried to flip it from majority forced sex to majority voluntary prostitute.

Is there room in the article to discuss various ways to represent the literature in a balanced manner? Certainly. But Bavio the Benighted argued that the United Nations commission on comfort women who published a 1996 report cannot be considered a reliable source.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comfort_women&diff=prev&oldid=1004550141] It is baffling that a global commission to research this exact topic cannot satisfy Bavio. With that attitude, Bavio the Benighted has separated himself from Wikipedia norms, and cannot be considered a neutral party. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

In the talk page, I believed there to be a consensus drawing around the "Comfort women were mainly women and girls forced into being sex slaves by the Imperial Japanese Army" with the additional of 'mainly'. The majority of sources here, both in the talk page and in the article, indicate that the overriding concern when talking about the comfort women issue is over coercion and that many, if not most, women were forced to participate. In the talk page, I had provided a variety of sources, both official and from academic scholars, that indicate this, such as this [https://networks.h-net.org/system/files/contributed-files/japan-scholars-statement-2015.5.4-eng_0.pdf Open Letter] by approximately 150 academics. Yet, other users appear to keep denying the sources provided based on sources which seem to fall under WP:OR or have questionable biases. I acknowledge that this topic is controversial and that there may be several legitimate viewpoints, but to sideline the women who were coerced into being comfort women with {{User|Bavio the Benighted}}'s suggestion would be unacceptable, considering the consensus that the main topic of discussion when it comes to comfort women is on coercion. Despite what the user suggests, the term 'prostitute' is not a neutral definition and is criticized/avoided by several sources (which use terms such as 'sex slaves'), such as the [http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/commission/country52/53-add1.htm UN report], the 1994 International Commission of Jurists [https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/1994/01/Japan-comfort-women-fact-finding-report-1994-eng.pdf report], Ueno Chizuko, the US House Resolution, and by governments from whom many comfort women originated, including South Korea and the Philippines. The Japanese government itself had acknowledged that comfort women were coerced as seen in this [https://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/05/world/japan-admits-army-forced-women-into-war-brothels.html 1993 NYT article] and in the Kono Statement (albeit I realize that the statement was later criticized by the then-Japanese government in 2014). I'd also dispute {{User|Bavio the Benighted}}'s claim that "newer evidence ... indicates that the term "prostitute" is more accurate (while) many older sources and Western media outlets appear to prefer the term "sex slave"", as this unfairly skews the POV towards the supposed 'newer evidence'. Sources such as Ahn Yonson's 2020 book "Whose comfort? : body, sexuality and identities of Korean 'comfort women' and Japanese soldiers during WWII", Maki Kimura's 2015 book "Unfolding the "comfort women" debates : modernity, violence, women's voices" and Rumiko Nishino's 2019 book "Denying the Comfort Women (Asia's Transformations)" all similarly support the term 'sex slave' and lede. Leaving the page as it has been (or at least with this new consensus), especially considering that there had already been discussion on the lead sentence leading to this conclusion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comfort_women/Archive_6#Opening_paragraph here in Archive 6], is the better option. NettingFish15019 (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

My concern was re "[all] Comfort women were X" in the lead sentence ("[all]" being implied) I think it is clear that some were voluntary, and some were forced, but "some" is unquantified. I would like to see source supported numbers re relative proportions of forced vs. not forced with differences between cited sources being handled in observance of DUE. In the absence of supportable numbers, I would like to see supportable unquantified views presented in consideration of DUE.

Basically I support the new definition. Small amendment will be required on the portion "occupied territories during World War 2" from historical viewpoint, as the occupation was the of Russo-Japanese War and Treaty of Portsmouth (1905). To clarify the difference, separating with comma "Japanese territories, during World War 2" will be better.

As Japanese government is expressing, the expression “sex slaves” contradicts the facts and should not be used, and Japan had confirmed this point with South Korea at the Japan-ROK agreement 2015. The Government of Japan conducted a full-scale fact-finding study on the comfort women issue in the early 1990s, However, “forceful ...” of comfort women by the military and government authorities could not be confirmed in any of the documents in this study. Dr.Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - There has been adequate discussion on the talk page, and the editors have been notified. There are nine editors listed, which is more editors than usually can take part in workable moderated discussion. A Request for Comments would probably be a better way to resolve a question about a change in the lede of the article, or any other change in the article. Do the editors want to work with a volunteer who can assist in formulating an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Note: the editor who filed this is blocked for a week for edit warring. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Reaper1945|06:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|Closed. The filing editor has not tried to discuss the content issue (the reverting of their edit) on the article talk page, Talk:School discipline. Discussion on the article talk page as a preliminary to discussion at DRN is mandatory. The reasons why discussion on the article talk page is required include that other editors may choose to take part. Discuss the issue on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new thread can be opened here. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|School discipline}}

Users involved

• {{User|Reaper1945}}
• {{User|Generalrelative}}
• {{User|NightHeron}}

Dispute overview

The disparities section created by User:Generalrelative includes information regarding disparities by race and socioeconomic status, yet there is no inclusion of studies which may provide opposing information or evidence to the article as a whole to balance out points of view and to maintain a neutral stance. User:NightHeron made a wall of text regarding the studies, saying that they disliked the methodology, yet in another talk page, they stated that "It's not our job either to agree with the study or to refute it."Talk:Race_and_capital_punishment_in_the_United_States Furthermore, User:Generalrelative posted on the talk page of user:NightHeron that "As we have witnessed with this editor in the past, there is no sign that they acknowledge consensus as a limitation on their behavior. Still I don't want to revert more than once. It may have to be a community effort to keep this editor from becoming a permanent disruption."User_talk:NightHeron#A_source_in_the_School_discipline_article Instead of talking normally on the talk page of the article, they resorted to going to another user's talk page to specifically talk about the edit I did, instead of solving the dispute, and disregard other edits I have made which have added to the content of an article. All in all, without the opposing studies which offer different perspectives and evidence to the contrary, then the article becomes skewed and less acknowledging of all available information.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:School_discipline#Are_the_recently_added_studies_WP:UNDUE?

User_talk:Generalrelative#The_School_discipline_article

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Create a logical and clear conclusion for the dispute, and help establish what should and should not be included. Give helpful suggestions as to what should be done.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|Closed}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1614276837}}

{{drn filing editor|Casperti|18:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=This is a clear case. A quote from a person is not a WP:RS for census information. This information needs to come from official reports only. If there is some kind of controversy over the numbers- that can be covered separately in a section of an article as appropriate- but not in an info box. This was already explained at the WP:RSNB and the DRN is not going to overturn that consensus here. My recommendation is to remove the source and find a better one. But an Infobox is just that- a box with information. If you need to hash out details- do it in an article somewhere, not there. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Pashtuns}}

Users involved

• {{User|Casperti}}
• {{User|Anupam}}

Dispute overview

This discussion is going on for a while since 2019 . there is an issue regarding the usage of a source in the Pashtuns wiki page (infobox) , this source is used: [https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-khan-abdul-gaffar-khan-s-great-granddaughter-seeks-citizenship-for-phastoons-in-india-2584887]. Which is about the population of "Pashtuns" in India. The number that is now mentioned in the infobox is 3.200.000 while there is no single ethnographic source that supports this great number neither it is mentioned in the official Indian census. The source that is being used: an interview of a "famous person" who has an organisation that has no website and only a Facebook page with 300 likes. (btw the wiki page created for this organisation has more info than the Facebook site, this page is created by the same editor that added the source.) an Important fact to mention is that on other wiki pages of ethnolinguistic groups of India; we all use the official Indian census of 2011 such as at Punjabis, Bengalis, Kashmiris etc We did not reach a consensus but still the editor put the 2011 census for the Pashtuns only in the notes but this did not solve the problem to begin with.... Also important to note is that the interviewee claims that these 3.2M Pashtuns are not registered (refugees) which is again a dubious claim since the UNCHR (refugee organisation) in India does not confirm this either. For example: If a person of a random Japanese American organisation claims that there are 45.000.000 Japanese in America (in an interview), should we see that as a reliable source?

Can we use interviews as reliable sources for ethnolinguistic population counts? The interviewee (a famous person) claims that there are 3.2M Pashtuns in India. While the official government language census speaks of 21.800 Pashto speakers in India which is the official census of India. So this is the Issue here: the source for a population count; census vs interview of a famous person.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pashtuns/Archive_20#Infobox]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_296#Using_interviews_as_Population_censuses] (Since our conflict/issue is only about the usage of this specific source and in this notice board of reliable sources. The volunteers who reacted found it as unreliable)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pashtuns/Archive_19#Edit_warring_and_unreliable_source_being_forced_into_this_article]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Since this discussion is politically sensitive this can go on & on

Judging whether this source (the lady who gave the interview claiming there are 3.2M Pashtuns in India) can be seen reliable for the usage of an ethnolinguistic population count. Should this source be used instead of the Indian census that we used pre-2019 febr......Since it's only this source that claims this number. Can we use this source as a population count in the infobox?

{{DRN archive bottom}}