The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:2019 World Rally Championship (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mclarenfan17 (talk · contribs)
• Tvx1 (talk · contribs)
• Nbooth4 (talk · contribs)
• Unnamelessness (talk · contribs)
• Pelmeen10 (talk · contribs)
• MNSZ (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute focuses on the World Championship for Manufacturers' results matrix and how it should be structured.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This issue has been discussed on and off over the past 18 months; other examples can be found at Talk:2018 World Rally Championship.

How do you think we can help?

By helping to resolve the issue once and for all, and by bringing new voices into the discussion.

Summary of dispute by Tvx1

I don't think there's much of a dispute here. On 26 April 2019 Nbooth4 raised a proposal on Talk:2019 World Rally Championship to remove the results with are counted for the manufacturers' championship from the table showing the standings of the championship. Multiple users replied to that proposal and all but one (Mclarenfan17) supported it. Following months of this discussion having run, I decided to be somewhat bold yesterday and execute the proposed edit. All of Mclarenfan17's concerns have been addressed and clear alternatives have been provided as to how to keep information that they deem "vital" in the article in a more efficient and logical way. I also wonder why the other participants in the discussion were not included here by the filer. I've taking the liberty to add them.Tvx1 17:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Nbooth4

Summary of dispute by Unnamelessness

Here is how the rule book says:

"For any one Manufacturer, a maximum of three (3) nominated drivers may be eligible to score points of which only the 2 best placed will score points according to their relative position. The third placed cars may neither score nor detract points from the other cars."

Moreover, the OFFICIAL website also lists the WCM result in the form two cars (A+B style) regardless of those four manufacturers enter two cars or three cars. So, I just can't understand why we need to add the third car to the table. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Pelmeen10

It's a small thing, but with Mclarenfan, it becomes big. I don't think it really matters, but. If there's just those two options (1=how Tvx1 made it look and 2=how Mclarenfan made it look), I support Tvx1's. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MNSZ

Talk:2019 World Rally Championship discussion

The issue is whether there should be two rows or three for each team in the World Championship for Manufacturers' (WCM) results matrix. I believe that there should be three rows for three reasons:

1. The rules state that manufacturers may enter up to three cars in an event. The best two of three results count to the WCM tally (but do count to driver and co-driver tallies), even if all three cars finish. This means that the third car is "Not Classified" in the WCM despite finishing. Omitting the car that was Not Classified implies that it was never running.
2. In the 1990s, teams were allowed to enter three cars with two cars scoring points. The difference was that in the 1990s, teams had to nominate which cars scored points before the event began. The 1990s and late-2010s used different scoring systems, and this needs to be reflected in the results matrices.
3. A previous consensus at the WikiProject agreed that the purpose of the WCM matrix should be to show how a team's championship campaign played out. However, different teams have different strategies: Citroën enter two cars, Toyota and Hyundai enter three, and M-Sport Ford alternate between two and three. This affects how they can score points, and so should be reflected in the structure of the matrix.

I also feel that Tvx1's recent edits to the article have not been appropriate. The discussion on the talk page died out two months ago, but in the past 24 hours he has claimed the existence of a consensus and used it to justify his changes. I think he is being premature, which is ironic given that he has criticised me for prematurely declaring a consensus elsewhere, which is why I brought this to DRN. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Question for User:Mclarenfan17 - Is this a one-against-many dispute? Do you agree with another editor that the other editors are in agreement? If so, is there any purpose in coming here? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon — it is not a "one against many" scenario. Other editors have contributed to the discussion, but usually in the form of a single comment. It's worth noting that Tvx1 only tagged editors from the most-recent discussion. During the lengthy debate at WT:WRC he insisted that the views of editors who had previously commented on the subject (even if they had not participated in the current discussion) be taken into account. But here he is, ignoring a previous discussion because it's inconvenient. His claim of having a consensus in the case is questionable because the discussion died out two months ago, he is obviously just counting the number of people who agree with him as if it were a vote, and rather than try to discuss issues, his counter-arguments have amounted to him saying "no, that's not a problem" and assuming the issue has been resolved. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the WT:Rally discussion is really comparable. The consensus you claimed in the former simply did not exist. There were just many people opposing the proposal then there were supporting it. Moreover, multiple editors stated independent of one another that the clear consensus you claimed was just not there. One of these people actually was Robert McClenon. In this case, there simply is just one person objecting to everyone else, despite their repeated objections having been repeatedly addressed.Tvx1 22:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - We are waiting for the other editors to reply and see whether they want to take part in moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - I noticed that MNSZ has not contributed to Wikipedia for over a year. It's not certain they will take part in this DRN case.Tvx1 01:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• Notice - I do not appreciate at all that the filer tried to circumvent the DRN procedure by approaching the volunteer to try an bring me further into disrepute. Therefore I will make a short and clear declaration: I'm full willing to participate in this DRN thread if it the goal is really to resolve this matter. If it turns out that this DRN thread only exists to criticize me and to try to bring me into disrepute I will no take part any further.Tvx1 16:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: the goal of the DRN is indeed to resolve the matter. However, I also felt that there was an outstanding, related issue that needed to be addressed: namely, the conduct of an editor who I felt misrepresented the issue being discussed here by claiming "there simply is just one person objecting to everyone else", which I can demonstrate to be untrue through diffs. How can we expect to resolve anything if we cannot even agree on what the issue is? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Conservapedia (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• El C (talk · contribs)
• Seraphimblade (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This user issued an NPOV nomination for review on the article talk page, after which point consensus was reached and edits were made for direct attribution of Opinion pieces in conformity with WP:Attribution and WP:NPOV. These revisions were then reverted with no satisfactory explanation in Wikipedia Policy. This user was then abusively warned by a moderator that appeared to be playing favorites / playing favors inappropriately for other users.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Have attempted to discuss the matter with the other users whom then took a condescending attitude towards this user. Also attempted to report abuse to other moderators after which this user was inappropriately warned in a threatening manner.

How do you think we can help?

Warning for abuse of moderator privileges and/or Revocation of Moderator privleges for abuse is appropriate. Blocking User Seraphimblade from edits on the particular page would also be appropriate in light of that user's inability to support his contentions with Wikipedia policy. Warning both users about playing inappropriate favors to moderators for favorable moderation decisions is also appropriate.

Summary of dispute by El C

This misuse of DRN is not actually an attempt at dispute resolution, and at any case, I am the uninvolved admin. El_C 07:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Seraphimblade

Talk:Conservapedia discussion

Only two editors are involved in the talk page discussion, Seraphimblade and User:NewsAndEventsGuy who for some reason hasn't been mentioned although he reverted the IP. User:El C hasn't edit the talk page or the article. Doug Weller talk 07:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

User_talk:24.155.244.245#Final_warning kinda sums it up. El_C 07:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

EL_C is involved in this because of taking inappropriate moderator actions, Doug. Also, NewsAndEventsGuy isn't implicated in this because of the fact that he did not continue to make inappropriate reversions, unlike Seraphimblade, as well as the fact that seraphimblade was using page protections inappropriately without being able to cite a Wikipedia policy to support his position, which is clearly a form of vandalism per the vandalism policy. 24.155.244.245 (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum and there are no "moderators." And I have yet to take administrative action, actually. But I did warn you against accusing users of vandalism and even linked what vandalism is not for your review. Needless to say, I decline to participate in this dispute resolution request, such as it is. El_C 08:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm also noting here for the record that you're leaving what I percieve to be inappropriate threats on my talk page, Doug. 24.155.244.245 (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC) Here's the thing, El_C - Policy states clearly that it is vandalism to inappropriately use the page protection functions, which is exactly what Seraphimblade did. Therefore, Seraphimblade was clearly guilty of vandalism. That's all there is to it, regardless of how you want to attempt to justify it in your own fantasy world. Also, Seraphim was unable to name a single Wikipedia policy that even might support his position as was reflected in the revision logs, while I was able to name two Wikipedia Policies that tend to support my positon. The question, El_C is why is that? I think you reacted the way you did because you and Seraphimblade are buddy-buddy. Thats what this dispute is pretty much about, since I had to spell it out for you. 24.155.244.245 (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

IP, if you wish to challenge administrative actions, such as page protection, this is not the venue. Your continued reliance on innuendo and aspersions are unwelcome and are becoming a problem. El_C 08:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

What, EL_C, you want to project that it's somehow my fault now for exposing your actions? Or is it that you have no other valid argument you can make, because you know I'm right about this? Either way, I could see how exposing your actions to the Wikipedia Community for what they really are is a "problem" for you and your friends. 08:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

What I'm asserting is that this isn't actually the venue to challenge administrative misuse. You're, of course, free to "expose" anything in any forum you see fit. El_C 08:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the first time I've seen anyone at DRN use the naming and exclusion of participants as a battleground tactic, to frame the debate. I should have been named. Had I been named, I would have observed the IP abundantly fails to WP:Assume good faith and instead abundantly casts aspersions. Moreover, they persist in doing so after efforts to teach them how this place works. Since participation here at DRN is 100% voluntary, and since its obvious the IP wants to win rather than resolve, I would decline to particpate at this venue even if I had been named. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

So, a couple of things, anonymous editor. First off, while you're correct that it would be inappropriate for me to protect the page, given that I am involved in the issue, I haven't protected it, and indeed no one else has either. See the logs for yourself. [1] And while I certainly have no quarrel with El_C, I would not describe us as "buddy buddy" either; our paths just don't cross all that often. I asked you a specific question on the talk page [2]. It might do a lot more good to have the discussion there than post things here, and it's certainly not going to help your cause to be making false reports to AIV. If you can elaborate more on what your concerns are, maybe we can either work them out or explain what's going on, but thus far, you have only mentioned attribution of opinion pieces, while attempting to attribute several things which are not opinion pieces. Normally, we would not use in-text attribution for non-opinion material from reliable sources, and that is why I have objected to the edits you've made. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Note: I have blocked the filing user for 1 week. AGK ■ 11:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:2019 AFC Asian Cup (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Super ninja2 (talk · contribs)
• Anbans 585 (talk · contribs)
• Wikiemirati (talk · contribs) - indeffed as sockmaster
• Masgouf (talk · contribs) - indeffed as sock of Wikiemirati

Dispute overview

Hello. Me, User:Anbans 585, User:Wikiemirati and User:Masgouf are in dispute about 2019 AFC Asian Cup#Qatar football shirt fan incident. Anbans 585, Wikiemirati and I have have discussed the issue on the article's talk page and the discussion resulted in this but Anbans 585 and Masgouf still disagree with the shape of the paragraph and Wikiemirati insists on adding The National claim that "they have photos of fans waving Qatar flag without being arrested" and refused to compromise, although Anbans 585 and I agreed on removing and concluded that it does not comply with Wikipedia policies but I agreed on adding it eventually and rephrased the text but Wikiemirati and Masgouf think that the rephrase is biased.

I'm not sure if the final shape of the paragraph complies with Wikipedia policies and I wish your help to resolve this dispute.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#2019 AFC Asian Cup#Qatar football shirt fan incident

How do you think we can help?

You might try to give a neutral-third party opinion

Summary of dispute by Anbans 585

Well most of it has been described by Ninja and Wikiemirati, so I would just like to give my take on the issue. I felt that all the three users had some comments which were a bit biased in one way or other, initially I reverted all the edits which Ninja made, but after he gave an explanation about "Qatar flag without any instances of arrest", I agreed to him and stopped reverting it. Though I think that the rephrasing which he is doing is not okay, and as Wikiemirati mentioned, I think we should add "According to the guardian" and stuff instead of directly mentioning the government. Though I have not reverted Ninja's recent rephrasing in recent days, I do think that it should be reverted as the article seems a bit biased to his explanation and does not seem a whole lot neutral.--Anbans 585 (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Wikiemirati

Dispute started on 15th of July with user:Super ninja2 non-NPOV edit and rephrasing of long standing information [3]. The user was reverted twice for non-NPOV rephrasing and the initial stable version was restored. The user argued on the talk page about 1-removing "According to the Guardian", 2-removing a cited source from The National, 3-including "the fan was beaten",4-including details from the statement to "clarify why the police arrested him and what excuse they are counting on to justify their action" 5-including a statement by British FCO. I agreed with reason 1,3, and 4. Reason 2 was unjustifiable, reason 5 was unrelated to the incident. Due to the user's conflicting edits, the status quo ante bellum was restored by user:anbans 585 due to the dispute [4]. After discussion in the talk page and agreeing with the users additions, I have edited to this [5]. However, the user once again rephrased the text to their own liking [6] and their edits have been reverted twice, again. Also note the user has thrown some person attacks on calling me a "liar" and accusations of COI, saying "we can say, without doubt, that his edits go under WP:Conflicts of interest", however I am assuming good faith and did not want to open an ANI. Also note the user broke WP:3RR, which I again assumed good faith and did not want to open an AN3. Sorry for the long paragraph. --Wikiemirati (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Masgouf

Talk:2019 AFC Asian Cup discussion

Hi there, I'm a volunteer here but at the moment won't be picking up the case, so I encourage any other volunteer to do so if they are willing. I see there's been some discussion and everyone's been notified about the discussion, so thanks for checking that's done. I'd like to hear the other editors thoughts on this one, so if they've not left a comment soon, I (or another editor) can pop them a message. Thanks for your patience! Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 20:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Super ninja2:, @Anbans 585:, noting that Wikiemirati and Masgouf are the same person and have been blocked, is this dispute something you can now work out amongst yourselves or do you still need our assistance? Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Steven Crossin: Well we have talked about that issue earlier on the page. Mostly I am okay with the page.--Anbans 585 (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Anbans 585: So dispute resolution is no longer necessary? --MrClog (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Timothy Meaher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Master Of Ninja (talk · contribs)
• NahalAhmed (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A user has nominated this article for speedy deletion as a "copyright violation". The article is now under threat of speedy deletion. I perceive the notice as in bad faith. Firstly the article was created and referenced as per the history log. Secondly the apparent page that was "copied" is not anything to do with the contents of the page. Further it is a wikipedia mirror, mirroring a commonly used template. The user posting does not seem like a bot. I find the whole posting of the speedy deletion quite malicious and harassing. As the page is under threat of speedy deletion I have gone straight for dispute resolution. I notice that the user's talk page has multiple notices about articles declined for deletion. I would like some dispute resolution, firstly to make sure the article is not deleted, and secondly to work out why the editor has come to a very odd conclusion of a copyright violation.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Contest speedy deletion

How do you think we can help?

Put a hold on speedy deletion (for the inappropriate reasons stated above), help work out the thought process of the other user nominating for speedy deletion as the notice makes no sense

Summary of dispute by NahalAhmed

Timothy Meaher discussion

The page has been speedy deleted without discussion or review despite the allegations being false as can be seen in the discussion and talk page. I have elevated this issue to the administrators for comments as I feel that the speedy deletion was in bad faith. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• User talk:Azra Arda Gusema#Ace Combat started in 1995 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SlyCooperFan1 (talk · contribs)
• Azra Arda Gusema (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Azra Arda Gusema is repeatedly editing articles related to the Ace Combat video game franchise with incorrect facts. I attempted to reach out on their talk page, with no response and a further add to our edit warring. Azra's edits include:

• claiming that the franchise started in 1992 when it actually started in 1995; evidence available in a tweet I linked on Azra's talk page
• claiming that games not included in the franchise are included in the franchise
• claiming that the franchise is not a top-selling franchise for the company, which contradicts the List of best-selling video game franchises article

The Wikipedia pages in question are:

• Ace Combat Infinity
• Category:Ace Combat
• Ace Combat

This makes it difficult to start a discussion on a single article's talk page, as there are multiple pages involved here. I hoped reaching out to the user's talk page would help start a discussion but they've opted to ignore me.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried to explain through edit summaries and through a message on their talk page but I'm just being completely ignored by this user.

How do you think we can help?

This is my first time going through the dispute resolution noticeboard so I'm not sure about this whole process, but I would hope that someone could get through to this user that ignoring someone they're in an edit war with, across multiple articles, is not helping the Wikipedia community or the quality of the articles. Failing that, I would hope for some kind of protection on these articles.

Summary of dispute by Azra Arda Gusema

User talk:Azra_Arda_Gusema#Ace_Combat_started_in_1995 discussion

This user is now violating WP:TPO by editing my comment on the talk page, and they're still choosing not to actually respond. This is getting silly now. ~SlyCooperFan1 16:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

No, because I do not feel the issue will be resolved via the talk page.

Location of dispute

• Scott Storch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Binksternet (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have an issue with User:Binksternet who reverted my edits and alleged that I was vandalising the page, which could not be further from the truth.

Looking at the edit history, it seems he inappropriately reverted one edit here:

[9]

when I restored the correct version, he stated I'm vandalising:

[10]

From what I can see, Scott Storch himself says in his latest biopic vignette that he "left home" to move to Philadelphia after realising his piano skills.

Further, the multiple sources, which include a reputable Scholar (Maxine Leeds Craig, whose book was published by Oxford University Press), CBS, XXL (magazine), Source (magazine) and also Storch's own linkedin (where he states his education was from Nova Scotia Community College), it is clear Storch was born in Canada.

It seems there is a gross overreliance on a single Miami New Times article that claims he is not Canadian, which itself defers to a single interview from a weak source (allhiphop.com) to support their claim. However, that article is questionable at best given the circumstances surrounding Storch at that point of his career.

I am asking ANI to give their own input on this matter. I think it is unfair to say the multiple sources all stating the same thing (Born, and seemingly partially raised, in Canada) are incorrect, in gross deference to one article that is actually *older* than the ones that I've shared.

What spurred the MNT article was an interview with Brooke Hogan stating her surprise he's Canadian. It seems hard to believe she would lie about something like this.

My sources are different than the ones questioned by the MNT. Also, the tone of the BLOG POST is seemingly derisory, created with the intent of stating "too cool to be Canadian".

I think my sources make it better,

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Again, I do not think using the talk page here will be helpful, since Binksternet is intent on relying on a single source that cites an allhiphop.com interview with questionable content.

How do you think we can help?

There are a few facts here. First, Storch's LinkedIn states very clearly he attended Nova Scotia Community College (NSCC).

Miami New Times' article relies solely on this interview as their basis for stating he is not Canadian. In fact, in this allhiphop.com interview, Storch allegedly stated he had "never been to Canada in my life".

If Storch had never been to Canada, even up until that point, why does his LinkedIn state he attended NSCC? The allhiphop.com interview is extremely questionable to the point where I ask the audience to analyse my sources and compare it to the single source refuting his birthplace.

To me, it seems clear that the interview and the MNT article depending on it are incorrect, and that Brooke Hogan was originally correct in stating he is Canadian (even if she had no proof).

Many years later I feel there is sufficient proof to now substantiate the claim he is from Canada.

Summary of dispute by Binksternet

Far too much conjecture by 70.74.141.203, with a college location somehow stretched into a birth location, with no explicit sourcing making the connection. Instead, the sources are quiet about supposed birth details in Canada, with none of the ones saying Storch is Canadian explaining his birth or early life in that context. The writer Maxine Leeds Craig gives no explanation why she refers to Storch on page 180 of her 2014 book, Sorry I Don't Dance, as "a Jewish-Canadian" musician – there's nothing at all about Storch's birth or early life or anything else about him in her book. (I think she was looking at Storch's Wikipedia bio in 2013.] In 2016, Storch was asked by N.O.R.E. on Drink Champs (video segment from 3:55 to 4:06) whether he was originally from Philadelphia, and Storch said, "No, I was born in New York, on Long Island, but I moved to Florida as an infant, and then when I was 15 I moved with my father, my dad, to Philly..."

As far as I can tell, the hoax about Storch being from Canada was first introduced in 2012 by an IP editor from Alberta, with this change. The change was unreferenced, but instead of being reverted, which it should have been, it was cemented in place by the next few editors establishing wikilinks and categories of Canadian background. A couple of months later, an IP editor from Vienna tried to correct the problem starting with this edit, but the correction was reverted at the beginning of 2013. So the biography has been messed up since then, with circular reporting making the problem worse. See XKCD Citogenesis.

As such, I will continue to remove any hoax about Canada from Storch's biography. Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that the initial hoaxer IP, Special:Contributions/24.222.161.49, and the person filing this DR case, Special:Contributions/70.74.141.203, are both from Alberta, Canada. Some of the other Wikipedia contributors who have asserted that Storch is from Canada are single-use throwaway accounts, who have contributed nothing else. Looks like somebody really trying hard to set the hoax in place. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Scott Storch discussion

Talk: Scott Storch

did User:Binksternet even look up that IP address before making his allegations? First of all, it's not from Edmonton, it's from Nova Scotia.

So it's not me. You are quite eager to point the finger at me. You are wrong on many points which I will summarise here first.

1. I am not that IP editor, who is from Nova Scotia.
2. The "Hoax" you claim is not one at all, and in fact the Miami New Times article you've deferred to even mentions that it was on Wikipedia prior to the article being written, which is dated in 2010: [11]

edit: Per this diff (mid-2006, before Brooke Hogan was on record stating he's Canadian on 6 december 2006, to early 2010, the date of the Miami New Times article) Storch was accepted as being Canadian: [12]

Did you even read the Miami New Times article? The change was made far before 2012. It was made before 2010, which is what prompted the Miami New Times article in the first place.

Brooke Hogan is on record saying Scott Storch is Canadian, and that was the basis of calling Storch Canadian on Wikipedia up until early 2010. Not 2012. But UNTIL 2010.

Lastly, you claim I am making a conjecture? Look at your citation! you're citing a YOUTUBE video where everyone is inebriated beyond belief. It is a poor source.

Again, if Storch had never been to Canada as the allhiphop.com interview claims (and is the basis for the Miami New Times article), then why did he attend Nova Scotia Community College?

There are too many holes in your theory.

So let's just re-state the facts here: Binksternet fails to do proper diligence on the IP edit using the "whois" link for IP addresses on Wikipedia, and then accuses me of being that editor.

He then fails to critically analyse the Miami New Times source which depends on the allhiphop.com interview which clearly has inaccuracies, and then deduces that Storch is American on the basis of a video where it seems there is a lot of alcohol and mind-altering substances present.

That video is looks like it was shot in a basement. A better source is required.

There are too many inaccuracies in your statements, Binksternet. And your failure to use the whois function on wikipedia, to realise that 24.222.161.49 is from Nova Scotia, and not Alberta, is suggestive of bias. This is basic stuff.

Scott Storch discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Cryonics#Quackery or not (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Theodorus75 (talk · contribs)
• David Gerard (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The claim is being made that cryonics is "widely" characterised as "quackery". But no proof is being offered (references need to be to a proper statistical survey, not a self selected and potentially biased selection surely?). Some editors wish to remove the the word "widely". Others want to keep it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Researched statistics

How do you think we can help?

Please could you make a recommendation. Thank you very much!

Summary of dispute by David Gerard

The present consensus - from multiple editors - is that the claim that "cryonics is widely characterised as quackery" is well-cited and should stand. Theodorus75 appears to be attempting to personalise this dispute, which appeared resolved and stable. I note that he has brought this editorial question here, rather than bring something fresh to the talk page discussion. This is a dispute Theodorus75 brought here previously, and was advised "This one is pretty cut and dry I'm afraid" and duly warned that his behaviour could lead to sanctions. Theodorus75 appears unwilling to accept that cryonics is a fringe view, and seems to view this position as a matter for personalisation. I urge reading Talk:Cryonics for how it's been going - David Gerard (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Brief Response to David Gerard

The references don't prove it is "widely" characterised as quackery. I've found some which characterise it as "like science fiction" etc. Just shows some folk characterise it in those ways. Kind regards. Theodorus75 (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Cryonics#Quackery or_not discussion

Hello again @Theodorus75:. I stand by my previous close of the previous dispute resolution thread, we as volunteers here are happy to help editors work out disagreements between editors, however we do need a reasonable attempt to form a consensus at the article talk page before we can comment on the discussion. I'm afraid I'm not seeing that here. I must remind you once more to take care in editing this particular area, as having a look at your contribution history, it has been largely only related to Cryonics and similar articles, which some may view as you perhaps having a vested interest in the subject are outside of Wikipedia. Our policies on Wikipedia do take precedence, so I encourage you to participate in discussion considering the comments other editors have made. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Russian apartment bombings (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• The moderator of the "Russian Department Bombings" Wikipedia page. (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dear Wikipedia,

I was shocked to find that I am the target of a personal attack by the moderator of the Talk page for the Wiki page on "Russian Apartment Block Bombings." The moderator has posted my name in bold letters at the top of the Talk page and followed it with a defamatory personal attack that is entirely irrelevant to the topic of the page.

I am a widely recognized authority on this topic, but setting that aside for the moment, I do not want my name abused in this way. The moderator has recognized that I am making a request (at the foot of the same page), but has done nothing to remedy the matter, i.e. removing my name from the talk page.

I would not have complained were it not for this flagrant personal attack by the moderator himself. But as I am writing, let me say that there are at least two indicators that this moderator is out of his depth. First, he engages in a personal attack on a topical authority. Second, he does not know the subject matter. The quality of two pages that he moderates has deteriorated since I last viewed them a few years ago.

Sincerely,

Robert Bruce Ware, D.Phil Professor of Philosophy Southern Illinois University Edwardsville

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked the moderator to remove my name (in bold letters) at the top of the Talk page and desist from his defamatory personal attack upon me.

How do you think we can help?

Please remove my name from the Talk page.

This moderator has removed substantial material from the main page on this topic that did much to present a more balanced and nuanced view of this controversial topic. The moderator appears to be prosecuting a personal agenda. His alterations indicate a dire lack of knowledge of this field of study. His callousness about this personal attack indicates a lack of judgment or character.

Summary of dispute by The moderator of the "Russian Department Bombings" Wikipedia page.

Talk:Russian apartment_bombings discussion

• Robert, you seem to have misunderstood a few things about how Wikipedia operates. First of all, this page is for the resolution of content disputes, that is to say disagreements about how information is presented on Wikipedia articles. Taking issue at an editor's behavior on a talk page is not within the domain of this page. Secondly, Wikipedia pages do not have moderators. There are administrators on Wikipedia, but even then there are no "page administrators", and it's not immediately apparent that any administrators have visited that talk page.

The appropriate place to report intractably uncivil behavior is WP:ANI. However, while the other editors at Talk:Russian apartment bombings may quite possibly be wrong about whether your work is a reliable source for a given topic, simply stating that they don't think someone's work is a reliable source is in no way a personal attack, and I would strongly discourage you from pursuing this issue further. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Tenet (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mclarenfan17 (talk · contribs)
• Cognissonance (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute focuses on the content and structure of the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to resolve the issue on Cognissonance's talk page.

How do you think we can help?

By giving all editors involved confidence that the article can be rewritten as needed without compromising the integrity of the article.

Summary of dispute by Mclarenfan17

I originally raised this issue at WP:ANI/3RR, but the reviewing admin felt that there was no issue and that DRN would be a better place to resolve a content dispute.

I have been trying to make edits to the Tenet article over the past few days. My main focus has been on improving the clarity, cosistency and cohesion of the article, as well as expanding upon existing sections. However, I have met with some resistance from Cognissonance, who has consistently reverted almost every change that I and others have made (it did not help that he characterised these edits as disruptive though nothing in it meets the definition of disruptive editing). I feel that he is unwilling to accept any contributions by other editors, and that he expects me to give lengthy explanations for changes before they can be applied to the article (which has seen several such discussions on his talk page). I will include full explanations of what the article looks like and how I think it can be improved below, but here is one such example: he claims that the article is already copyedited, even though there is clear scope to improve the grammar of the article.

Summary of dispute by Cognissonance

Tenet (film) discussion

This is an example of how I feel the article can be improved. The article reads like this:

"Principal photography began in May 2019 and will take place in seven countries, including the United Kingdom, Estonia, Italy, and India. On June 30, Pärnu Highway and adjacent streets were closed to make way for filming. The Linnahall also served as a set. The mayor of Tallinn expressed concerns about potential disruptions regarding plans to shoot at Laagna Road in July, which originally required a stretch of it to be closed for one month. They eventually reached a compromise involving temporary road closures and detours."

However, I think that this is a problem because it is not clear where the Pärnu Highway actually is. Is it in the UK, Estonia, Italy, India or one of the three countries listed but not mentioned? This is what I think a better version would be:

"Principal photography began in May 2019 and will take place in seven countries, including the United Kingdom, Estonia, Italy, and India. Filming took place in Estonia in June and July 2019, with the Linnahall, Pärnu Highway and Laagna Road closed to make way for filming. Tallinn mayor Mihhail Kõlvart expressed concern about potential for disruption as the original shooting schedule required stretches of road to be closed for one month. Production eventually reached a compromise with the city involving temporary road closures and detours. The Tallinn city government later granted two extra days to allow shooting to be completed." [this last part is taken from a footnote in the article]

I think that this is a much fuller explanation of the production, and all of it is supported by the references already in the article.

Here is another example. The article currently says:

"It is also the first time since Batman Begins without editor Lee Smith, who was replaced by Jennifer Lame."

What is the most relevant point here? Given that the article is about production of the film, I would say that Lame's role as editor is the most relevant since she is the one working on the film. Thus, I feel that a better way of presenting it would be like this:

"Tenet will be edited by Jennifer Lame, who took over the role from Lee Smith. Smith had previously edited every Christopher Nolan film since Batman Begins."

This emphasises Lame's role as editor rather than Smith's absence. It also moves the article from passive voice to active.

I think that it is fair to say that these are common sense edits, the kind that would naturally come about through the editing process. While I understand Cognissonance's desire to see the integrity of the article protected, I also think he needs to appreciate that others are capable of editing the article without compromising it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Ok, I will try submitting an RFC. New here, just trying to make sure articles follow Wikipedia's stated NPOV guidelines. MaximumIdeas (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Mike Cernovich#Lede fails to mention any positive news about Cernovich even though it exists from reliable sources (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• MaximumIdeas (talk · contribs)
• Nblund (talk · contribs)
• Koncorde (talk · contribs)
• Grayfell (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue surrounds the lede of the article on living person Mike Cernovich, which extensively details false reporting he has done, but leaves out major legitimate news stories he has broken. My summary of the issue is below.

I hope people can read through our whole discussion and help achieve consensus around a lede that reflects Wikipedia's NPOV standards. Thank you!

Summary: This article clearly and dramatically fails Wikipedia's NPOV standard. There is demonstrably a significant view (backed up by multiple reliable sources) that Cernovich has broken legitimate stories -- as the Washington Post puts it: "As Smith notes, Cernovich has in recent months broken several legitimate stories". In addition, this Daily Caller article linking to The Hill, The New Yorker and Buzzfeed News, saying that Cernovich has real sources and scoops: https://dailycaller.com/2017/05/15/media-starting-to-admit-60-minutes-was-wrong-to-call-mike-cernovich-fake-news/ Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines state that articles "must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This article clearly fails that standard, and even could be considered legally defamatory in many countries, especially given that we are all now aware of the multiple reliable sources covering his legitimate reporting.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Lengthy exchange on the talk page. If you would advise other steps as well, please let me know.

How do you think we can help?

Honestly, I am new to this process, so you know better than I do!

What I know is that the lede violates Wikipedia's NPOV rules and only gives an anti-Cernovich perspective; ignoring reliable sources which discuss his legitimate reporting.

Summary of dispute by Nblund

FYI: I was never pinged here, I don't know if that was an error. I agree with Guy that this is a fairly black and white issue that probably isn't appropriate for dispute resolution. MaximumIdeas is hearing "no" from three editors four editors, if they really aren't content with that answer, maybe they should post at WP:NPOVN, but I suspect they're going to hear the same thing. My advise would be to move on to another issue. Nblund ^talk 15:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Koncorde

Cernovich is reliably described in the significant majority of articles as per his Wikipedia article and lede, and is known for and is notable for his trolling, meme'ing, and spreading of conspiracy theories etc per the sourcing in the article. The article as it stands does not say that he is always wrong, but does represent what he is known for significantly and represents those significant view points. Maximum has brought two articles to the attention of the talk page. Three other editors have reviewed the suggested contributions, and alternatives have been posed, but the change to the lede has been rejected. One source from the WaPo which talks about how unusual it is for BuzzFeed to be using information Cernovich acquired to break a story. A single sentence within that article says something like the BuzzFeed editor has acknowledged "Cernovich has broken several legitimate stories." It gives no detail on what these are, and the significant weight of the article itself is still not about the positives of Cernovich, but instead the validity and success of his methods and if in and of themselves they are valid. Maximum has tried to use this largely verbatim to push this as a significant POV. The second is from the DailyCaller, I am not sure what standards this has as a RS but what I can see is the article references or links to underlying articles from the WaPo, New Yorker, and The Hill (to be exact, the newsletter from the editor). These are a mixed bag of discussions about, again, the man himself and 1. The fact he has beaten to the punch another talking head to publish leaked information (and appears to be more mocking the more reputable journalist for their failure). 2. The questionable use of his information (given it is also laced with inaccuracies and personal opinion not based upon fact). 3. Concerns over legitimising his approach as a means of approaching news media (and if this is in fact a form of gatekeeping). I have made clear that while I could support the inclusion narratively within the article about his success in the Contents story and / or referencing significant stories that have been subsequently verified, at present that is not what he is known for and as such it is leveraging very minimal sourcing to try and insert weasel statements into the lede about "significant" stories etc. Maximum has tried to push this as if it is a metasource, despite the bias of the DailyCaller in how it has represented the underlying sources (again, unclear as to the standard the DC is for Wikipedia standards, but it seems questionable at best). Per the talk page, I have summed this up as the Stopped Clock analogy. Cernovich may be right occasionally, but this is not because of anything he is doing right - but because he fires out so much content that statistically he is going to hit a "right" thing sooner or later, and that this not particularly noteworthy as a result. That is also how much of the media supplied has represented and characterised his attempts at journalism (even down to questioning the techniques used). If Cernovich has indeed changed his ways, and continues to break stories etc and becomes known for the breaking of stories rather than as a conspiracy theorist then there will be significant reliable sources saying so. At present this seems a very minor view of a very small number of contributions, many of which articles date back prior to subsequent actions against individuals such as Gunn and Seder that has drawn more significant criticism and attention. Koncorde (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Grayfell

Outside view by JzG

I looked at this, basically it appears as if MaximumIdeas, a relatively inexperienced user with few edits outside this topic, is determined to represent Cernovich according to Cernovich's self-image, which is robustly contradicted by pretty much every reliable independent source and supported by none. This is not a dispute amenable to resolution, it's a single user who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Mike Cernovich

• Volunteer Note - There has been extensive discussion. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. This case will not proceed until the other editors are notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Yonaguni Monument#Rough cleanup (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Melkov (talk · contribs)
• Ronz (talk · contribs)
• Paul H. (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a problem statement on Yonaguni Monument, recently added by Ronz, that states that Masaaki Kimura's research is a pseudoarchaeology, with a link to this article used as RS.

Marine geologist Masaaki Kimura claims that the formations are man-made stepped monoliths. These claims have been described as pseudoarchaeological.

However the said article does not contain such a statement, it only states that Kimura is feeding pseudo-scientists, and the problem statement is therefore WP:SYNTH. In a more general sense, finding a RS for such a statement in non-Japanese internet is unlikely. To accuse Kumura, a standing scientist would have to base their report on actual Kimura's publications (after reading those in Japanese), not the scattered and unreliable data found on the internet.

In addition to WP:SYNTH, relevant guidelines are WP:FRINGELEVEL and probably WP:BLPREMOVE.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Third Opinion request was prepared, but could not be posted after Paul H. posted his comment.

How do you think we can help?

The problem statement should be reverted to previous neutral wording.

Summary of dispute by Ronz

Given the discussion so far and the FRINGE nature of the article, basic education on content and behavioral policy seems necessary before I see any progress being made. --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Paul H.

First, I completely concur with Ronz's comments above. Second, as evidenced by the Spiegel Online article by Wolf Wichmann (2003) of; commentary by Carl Feagans (2017) of; lack of recognition by Japanese Agency for Cultural Affairs of; and lack of coverage by current peer-reviewed papers concerning Yonaguni Monument, the theory that it is manmade is fringe science according to Wikipedia standards. Furthermore, Patrick D. Nunn (2009) in "Vanished Islands and Hidden Continents of the Pacific" consider it to be a natural feature of only pseudoscientific interest and lacking any indication of being artificial. Finally, in contrast, the theory that the Yonaguni Monument is an artificial structure is accepted and promoted as valid primarily by a number of pseudoscientific books, e.g. Underworld (Graham Hancock), The Lost Civilization of Lemuria (Frank Joseph), The Disinformation Guide to Ancient Aliens, Lost Civilizations, Astonishing Archaeology and Hidden History (Preston Preet), and others.

Talk:Yonaguni Monument#Rough_cleanup discussion

• Volunteer Note - The two editors who have been listed by the other editor appear to be saying that they are not interested in discussion, and there is a consensus that the idea that the feature is artificial is a fringe theory. The filing editor may accept that they are in a minority, or they may submit a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • So far as the discussion can be seen, one editor requests "basic education on content and behavioral policy". Education on what policies would be recommended? So far as WP:FRINGE is concerned, there is an unambiguous statement in WP:FRINGELEVEL section that ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or carry negative labels such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. Therefore a consensus among the editors whether a topic is fringe or not is irrelevant. Therefore, since purported RS was provided, I've repeatedly outlined that it actually does not document the claim, and the problem is of WP:SYNTH, and there is no consensus among the editors that it is not SYNTH. Does anyone have a consideration whether the statement in question is relevant to WP:BLP? If BLP is concerned, is WP:RFC the right next step, or is it WP:ANI? Melkov (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Volunteer Question or Comment - What would you be taking to WP:ANI if anything? WP:ANI is for conduct issues. Are you alleging disruptive editing by anyone? That goes to WP:ANI. If this is a content issue, use an RFC. In general, if you are not sure if an issue should go to WP:ANI or to a content forum, try the content forum first. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I see now that at current discussion state WP:ANI is not a right choice. I will consult WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard regarding BLP concerns. Is it possible at all to receive some kind of a third opinion or advice about other questions I asked here? Melkov (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:2019 Dayton shooting#Shooter's sibling's gender (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mjr162006 (talk · contribs)
• Acroterion (talk · contribs)
• MelanieN (talk · contribs)
• General Ization (talk · contribs)
• Nice4What (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Several users are arguing over the validity of sources clarifying the gender identity of one of the Dayton attack victims and the inclusion of this information in the article as outlined in Wikipedia's manual of style section concerning gender identity, to not mention it all, or to mention both sides equally. The debate had been going on in the exact same endless back-and-forth, without any resolution for nearly two days previously before I started participating. It was accompanied with considerable edit warring by all the named parties for nearly the entire duration of the dispute, myself included with one reversal edit which was done per WP:Advocacy.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I attempted to diffuse the situation by pointing out how Wikipedia policy was being violated and did exactly as I was instructed by WP:Advocacy however got dismissed. I watched the debate for two days and only saw an endless back and forth with no resolution forthcoming when I decided to participate. My suggestions to resolve the matter peacefully were met with hostility.

How do you think we can help?

We need a neutral third party to come in and mediate the matter and to make sure that things stay civil and that Wikipedia's policies on this matter are implemented consistently as they are in other articles.

Summary of dispute by Acroterion

Summary of dispute by MelanieN

This is a ridiculous Dispute Resolution referral. The OP filed this report less than three hours after their first post on the subject, and before anyone had a chance to respond to the substance of the issue. I have now replied to their post at the article talk page, and the discussion can continue there. Sorry to bother you. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by General Ization

My involvement was to revert (twice) the initial introduction of this claim when it was supported by only a single source (splinternews.com). "Any edit that has the effect of changing someone's gender identity (alive or dead) must be sourced to multiple reliable sources (splinternews.com isn't an RS) and preferably should be based on statements directly and verifiably attributed to the subject of the claims." Further, Exceptional claims require exceptional sources ("Red flags include ... surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources"). Subsequently additional sources (though none of them mainstream news sources, and many of them derivative of the initial source cited) have been cited for this content, and I have thereafter withdrawn from the discussion. I still happen to believe that we are being pwned, given that no mainstream source appears to have turned up even a hint of this claim, and that even if true we should not be participating in the outing of a low-profile, apparently closeted individual (even if dead) because they happen to have been a victim of a mass shooting. Thus far, this "fact" does not appear to have any specific relevance to the shooter's motive or any other aspect of the shooting (which is probably why MSM are exercising editorial oversight and not delving into it, even assuming they have found any evidence of it; MSM continue to report that the victim was the shooter's sister, and to refer to the murdered sister as Megan Betts, with no mention of alternative identities). If relevance of the sibling's gender identity to the event that is the subject of the article can be shown, my opinion could change. General Ization ^Talk 02:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I will also point out that the OP has failed to advise one of the active parties of, or summon to participate in, this discussion: that would be @Aguyuno. General Ization ^Talk 02:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Nice4What

One of the victims of the shooting, the gunman's sibling, was reportedly a closeted trans man named Jordan Cofer. This has been verified by two separate reports by BuzzFeed News and Splinter News, and the report by Splinter was relayed by other sources including the Human Rights Campaign and PinkNews. Per policy, a transgender person is meant to be described by their identified name and pronouns. Many other sources describe Cofer by their legal name and gender, but it's worth stressing that he was closested even to his parents and the gunman. There's a debate wether the two reports are reliable enough to merit using male pronouns, or if there should be a compromise using neutral pronouns for the time being (or use female pronouns, disregarding any report that Cofer was transgender). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by aguyuno

(my apologies if my response is unwarrented. I was tagged by @General Ization and thought that meant I needed to write a summary too BUT if I'm wrong, by all means, delete this)

Eh. A third party might be a good idea? I don't know. All I do know is I've not really seen a convincing argument for keeping Jordan Cofer's information listed as just "sibling" instead of "brother". The dispute has gotten nasty, though; I've done my own share of this and have apologised for it. And yeah. Aguyuno (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Dayton_shooting#Shooter's sibling's gender discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Oath Keepers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Barwick (talk · contribs)
• Krtwrnr42 (talk · contribs)
• Spintendo (talk · contribs)
• Acroterion (talk · contribs)
• NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs)
• Deacon Vorbis (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Multiple people (even less familiar with Wikipedia than I am) have pointed out bias in the article Oath Keepers. Two examples are below, one from a casual person interested in the topic, and the second from a Navy veteran who is also a member of Oath Keepers:

One user complaint about bias

Discussion about requested edit

I came across the page and attempted to clean it up to make it less biased, and cited my reasoning for it.

The summary of my edits are as follows: I edited the page to clarify that it is not universally agreed upon that "Oath Keepers is an Anti-Government, Far-Right organization". Opening sentence changed from "...is an anti-government..." to "...is an organization claimed by its opponents to be an anti-government..." One other minor change was made, detailed on the talk page.

Both changes are rooted in facts, and no longer make a claim that is highly disputed.

It was immediately reverted and I was told to discuss it on the talk page first. I attempted to do so, and it turned into others trying to argue with me about my statements of fact I was making, and their demand that I essentially prove a negative (which I had asserted from the start was impossible).

Spintendo suggested I look into alternate dispute resolution options, and so I'm asking a group to intervene and clean this up.

The bias is fairly obvious when we look at two articles:

Antifa_(United_States) "The antifa movement is composed of left-wing, autonomous, militant anti-fascist groups and individuals in the United States."

Oath Keepers Opening "'Oath Keepers is an anti-government American far-right organization associated with the patriot and militia movements.'"

On one hand we have an organization that is an openly violent militant anarchist group.

On the other we have a group of former military & law enforcement, described as "anti-Government"

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page, occasional discussion with others and petition to Spintendo on his talk page to mediate (he originally requested the "What would you like to see changed, give an example")

How do you think we can help?

Help mediate this, as most involved are trying to claim the "reliable sources", which I assert are biased against this organization, are the only sources we can trust in this case. I have pointed out that there will be exactly zero "reliable source" news articles that say "XYZ claimed Oath Keepers is anti-Government. They're not, because ____". That won't happen because Oath Keepers is a small enough organization that no media really bothers to dispute slander brought against them.

Summary of dispute by Krtwrnr42

Summary of dispute by Spintendo

My only involvement here is that I suggested that Barwick make use of the strategies at content dispute. (Although I didn't choose this particular venue, I think that choice is an excellent one — as I know Mr. McClenon to be a fair and trustworthy editor). With regards to the dispute, one viable concern I see here is how "anti-government" is being defined in the article. Since the government changes depending on which party's candidate(s) occupy the executive/legislative branches, it would seem that there could be scenarios where a group may be "anti-government" during one administration whilst being "pro-government" during another. A group which is anti-government "all of the time" — in my mind, would be an anarchist group. If the Oathkeepers are a pro-patriot, pro-militia group, then that seems like the opposite of anarchism, seeing as how a militia — like an army — is a very heirarchical type of organization that needs an ordered structure. Deacon Vorbis NorthBySouthBaranof makes a salient point by stating that we only report what sources are saying about this organization. My question — which I admit, is a philosophical one — asks: by placing "anti-government" in the lead sentence, are we giving prominence to a point of view which may be correct only part of the time? (One minor issue that I feel Barwick is incorrect on is their view that Antifa is an anarchist group. But that's not really the issue here.) Regards,  Spintendo  17:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Acroterion

I've said just about all that I intend to say, in direct conversation with Barwick. Dispute resolution is not a way to find an end run around Wikipedia policies requiring reliable mainstream sourcing. Barwick has dismissed the 70 references in the article as claims made by opponents [13] and has provided no policy-compliant sourcing to the contrary, insisting that the only valid reference is what the organization or its members say about themselves [14]. Demands that fundamental WP policy be laid aside can't gain traction. This request has no basis in policy from which to proceed. The introduction of tangential arguments about other articles doesn't help. Acroterion (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by NorthBySouthBaranof

• The fact that Barwick thinks the multiple cited reliable sources are "biased" is completely irrelevant, and renders this discussion moot. Barwick's dispute is with those sources, and we can't fix the sources. Reliable sources say what they say, and by foundational policy our content is based on reliable sources. There is nothing to be done here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Deacon Vorbis

I'm not really directly involved in this. The exact order and number of events may be somewhat off because I don't care enough to check the details exactly, nor is it really that important to get the basic point across.

I came to the page while patrolling the semi-protected edit request queue, and saw that an old one had been reopened. I reclosed it due to a lack of consensus for the change. Barwick reopened it again at some point. I reclosed it again for the same reason. Finally, after seeing it open once more, I took another look at the current state of the discussion, found that it had devolved into a general argument about politics between Barwick and NBSB, and so closed the request once more and ((atop))/((abot))ed the discussion.

Even after this, Barwick continued to reopen the request and add new comments, which I reverted a couple more times, at which point I finally got sick of doing and gave up. Finally, the request was closed for good (although the post-close comments were allowed to remain) by someone else. This was all despite the fact that Barwick is autoconfirmed and doesn't need to use edit requests anyway since he can edit the page directly.

As for the meat of the dispute, I haven't really looked at it, and don't have an opinion about it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Oath Keepers discussion

• Volunteer Question - Is this a one-against-many dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

This is in essence many people very unfamiliar with Wikipedia (myself included) attempting to make a point to people familiar with Wikipedia. Those familiar with Wikipedia have accurately pointed out that Wikipedia uses "reliable sources". I have pointed out to them that this is in fact impossible to do for two reasons. 1) Oath Keepers is a small enough organization that no major media bothers replying to slander about them (which accusing them of being "anti-Government" is). And 2) Claiming that in lieu of "reliable sources", I must then prove that they are not "anti-Government", effectively asking me to prove a negative, which is virtually impossible to do (I'm a computer scientist, trust me, I know logic proofs). Barwick (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment ~ Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point; "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed. Such behavior, wherever it occurs, is highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban." - "As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point".--Mark Miller (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
• Volunteer warning ~ Barwick (talk · contribs), Krtwrnr42 (talk · contribs), Spintendo (talk · contribs), Acroterion (talk · contribs), NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs), Deacon Vorbis (talk · contribs) The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, including this article.. This warning is to make sure each of you are aware of the sanctions for this article. Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Display name 99 (talk · contribs)
• Manannan67 (talk · contribs)
• PluniaZ (talk · contribs)
• Epiphyllumlover (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The biography of Theodore Edgar McCarrick has been the subject of an ongoing dispute since late May. The struggle has been primarily between three editors, myself included, and has been waged chiefly over three paragraphs. Here is an earlier version of those paragraphs. I want these included in the article in their entirety. PluniaZ and Manannan67 have argued that they be kept out.

We received two additional responses in RfCs for these versions of the paragraphs. One the three of us all agreed to discount after determining that the editor had been improperly notified. The other was from Epiphylumlover, who argued in favor of keeping one paragraph in its entirety and adding shortened versions of the other two. Manannan67 and I reached what seemed like an agreement for one. PluniaZ assented to a similar version of what was added. The paragraph was without citations. I added citations, and also included a sentence which I’d already proposed and which Manannan67 hadn’t objected to. My entire edit was reverted with the edit summary “maybe not.” I re-reverted on the basis that the summary was inadequate. I requested an explanation for the revert, but Manannan67 refused to provide one. I also asked that the following sentence to go in: “McCarrick claimed to have discussed restrictions that were placed on him with Wuerl, but Wuerl denied that he had any knowledge of such restrictions.” Manannan67 hasn’t responded.

I tried to reach a compromise by shortening the other two paragraphs, under the impression that with two editors opposing them and two wanting them included in some form, the solution would be to add heavily redacted versions. Here is the diff. Mannanan67 rejected the first paragraph and gave me no feedback on the second. PluniaZ ignored the proposal altogether.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have been arguing on the talk page since late May, over two and a half months ago. There have been three RfCs, a request for dispute resolution which was dismissed, a report to the edit-warring noticeboard, and a request for a third opinion. But because of a lack of outside intervention or community feedback and the failure of the three of us to come to an agreement, the same material is still disputed.

How do you think we can help?

I'd like someone to consider the arguments being made at the talk page and the number of people making these arguments, and come to a decision about what should go into the article corresponding to Wikipedia policy on consensus.

Summary of dispute by Manannan67

The first ¶ from CNA is simply anonymous individuals commenting well after the fact on rumors they claim to have heard, and adds nothing in comparison to the specific allegations already in the article regarding actual claims and settlements. The other two ¶¶ are lifted verbatim inexplicably from the Wuerl and Vigano articles as they're only tangential to the subject of this article; plus Vigano has his own entire section already. This is a case of "too much is never enough". N.B. the first part of the material re Wuerl has now been inserted in the article, and is not worth disputing, so that part seems removed fr the discussion. Just another example of any time an approximate agreement is approached, the disputed section is magically "improved".

Summary of dispute by PluniaZ

We've had 3 RFCs and 4 months of discussion on the article talk page. Those wishing to add disputed material to a BLP need to obtain community consensus to do so. I decline to participate further in this discussion. --PluniaZ (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ are you saying you refuse to participate in the DRN because, regardless what occurs here between editors, you do not feel it is a part of the community consensus to change the article, or are you saying you are bowing out of further discussion of the disputed content entirely? The second would allow this DRN request to move forward, the first would mean you don't believe this noticeboard is a part of that discussion or you wish further discussion at the talk page? I can close this request (again, it can be re-requested if all participants in the disputed content discussion will discuss) as simply' :Kicking back to the talk page. One participating editor is not ready for DRN"'. Let me know.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I refuse to participate in the DRN because I do not think it will help to achieve community consensus. I have stated my views quite clearly on the article Talk Page and have nothing else to add. --PluniaZ (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Epiphyllumlover

This is a case of passive-aggressive behavior, so doesn't matter so much what you all decide here so much as you just reach a decision so we can go onto the next article. As noted above, I previously attempted a compromise solution to address concerns that the article was too gossipy, but not wanting to completely censor the topics addressed in the disputed content. I figure the disputed topics could at least be mentioned with a wikilink or a reference so that if readers wanted to find out more they could. If you could work out another compromise instead, consider me behind it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick discussion

Volunteer comment: This noticeboard is for constructive discussions between editors who disagree so that they can reach a consensus. Volunteers are here to encourage that, but we don't make content decisions for you, and we have no more power than any other editor to impose our preferences. KSFT ^(t|c) 04:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

OK. I guess a better way of phrasing it would be to say that I'd like someone to look at the different arguments and mediate between the two sides to come to a resolution. Display name 99 (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I have a feeling that if you suggest a compromise it will be respected.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover, I did, but it was sadly not respected. PluniaZ has disappeared from editing for the past week or so, so as I said when filing the report, I was trying to work with Manannan67 for a compromise on the article talk page. It was rejected, which is why I came here. You can visit the talk page and begin reading down from the section "Solution for final two paragraphs" to see what happened. Manannan67 and I came to what I thought was an an agreement for the Wuerl paragraph, but I had an edit reverted without explanation. I tried shortening the other two paragraphs by more than half. Mannanan67 rejected one of them and gave me no feedback for the other. Display name 99 (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry--I was ambiguous. "you" refers to the volunteer, not you.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that's kind of what I'm looking for. I'm open to any kind of compromise that a volunteer may suggest. Display name 99 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer comment Unless something has changed, DRN volunteers may assess the content dispute, analyze the contributions and determine if there have been violations of guidelines, policy etc., and make suggestions as to what could be done to resolve disputes. They may also refer editors to other noticeboards if the dispute is better handled there, including requesting Administrative Action if needed. The article apears to be about a living person and I see the word "allegation" being used in text about inappropriate touching or other sexual contact being accused of that living person. I suggest all involved editors review Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (Wikipedia policy) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch (part of our MOS), Wikipedia:Libel (Wikipedia policy with legal considerations), Wikipedia:No personal attacks (policy) and Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. I would hope, with the content involved here, that each editor take time to read or re-read these pages. If the editors, after reviewing policy and guidelines, are still unable to come to a consensus, the dispute can be reviewed here if it meets the general criteria.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Mark Miller, I don't mean to come off as abrasive, but we, the editors, have been talking about this since May and have still been unable to come to consensus. Please look at the talk page history if you have not already, and you will see how intensely this has been debated, frequently with references to those guidelines. During all of that time, we have not found consensus, which is why I brought the dispute here. Display name 99 (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

That is not abrasive at all. Feel free to ask questions, voice concerns and discuss however, we should probably have some guidelines before starting. Let me first review DRN criteria befor accepting. If accepted, the discussion must adhere to adhere to the above mentioned policies and guidelines and the discussion would be strictly limited to resolving the content dispute and not about the general subject itself.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand. What I'd like is for someone to help formulate a solution which adheres to those policies while providing as much satisfaction to the various participants as possible. Display name 99 (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

A consensus is not what makes everyone happy necessarily but what everyone can live with. Hopefully, everyone can live with whatever consensus might be reached here however, User:PluniaZ has not added their summary or accepted the DRN. All editors must be willing to participate in order to accept the request. They have not edited since August 14, so it may not be possible to take this request at this time. Should we have to decline for lack of full participation, you may re-file when everyone is able to. Re-moving the participant is not an option here as this seems serious enough a dispute, and their interest too high (having made a brief request for participants of Project Catholicism to look at the dispute at the article talk page before editing stopped) to leave out their input. If they decline the DRN for the refiling (ask before the filing) you can make the request without their participation.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

A consensus is not what makes everyone happy necessarily but what everyone can live with. I know, which is why I said "providing as much satisfaction to the various participants as possible." The result of the dispute resolution request being declined would be that PluniaZ would largely get what they wanted for the article, because most of the content that I want included is currently not in the article, and most of the content that they want out is currently out. I don't consider it fair at all that someone simply choosing not to edit can make it so that a request cannot be filed and, in this case, have things mostly turn out in that editor's favor. We know what PluniaZ's position is. It has been made very clear on the talk page. I don't see why an editor cannot look into the dispute based solely on the comments that have already been made on the article's talk page, including those by PluniaZ, and come up with something. Display name 99 (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

In that case, I will edit the article and see if that will provoke PluniaZ to come back.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps "provoke" isn't the best wording. In this particular case, this is simply making a bold edit to see if an interested editor will respond. Per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle; "Making bold edits may sometimes draw a response from an interested editor, who may have the article on their watchlist. If no one responds, you have the silent consensus to continue editing. If your edit is reverted, the BRD cycle has been initiated by the reverting editor.". Being in the middle of a dispute and editing the article could be seen as more than just a bold edit by other involved editors so remember; "Stay focused: Make only changes you absolutely need to. A bold edit doesn't have to be a huge edit, and keeping your edit focused is more likely to yield results than making an over-reaching change.".--Mark Miller (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The edit that Epiphyllumlover made was not over any material that was part of this dispute, so I'm not sure that it has any effect one way or the other. For myself, I'm content to wait for someone to come by here and help bring the situation to a resolution, but there is some material that I have proposed as a compromise on which I have yet to receive an answer from anyone, including both PluniaZ and Manannan67. I will not wait forever until either them, or someone else, makes a decision about whether they believe it should go in. Display name 99 (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) "The result of the dispute resolution request being declined would be that PluniaZ would largely get what they wanted for the article, because most of the content that I want included is currently not in the article" No, that is not accurate at all. The only restriction on the article currently is the general warning of BLP which is as follows;

"Notice about sources ~ This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism; see more information on sources. Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject; see WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page.".

(for emphasis)

If the current DRN request is declined, the article remains unprotected and editors continue to work together, one editor's absence is NOT a stonewall. In fact there is no preferred version. Should edit warring begin and Administrative action is taken to protect the article (I am not an administrator just a volunteer mediator), generally speaking, the Admin will return the article to the last stable version before protection. We are not there yet.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

This DRN request is over a week old however, I will leave the request open for an additional 72 hours in hopes that all parties can participate.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I am willing to self-revert (or not contest your revert) if my recent edit to the article was inappropriate.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh no need. It fell well within BRD.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - The article apears to be stable with no edit warring, There is more than sufficient talk page discussion and all parties have been notified. We now wait for all summaries to be completed and all parties to present for a mediated discussion. Should all participants not be available by this time on August 29, 2019, any volunteer of the DRN may close this request.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Common Sense (pamphlet) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Station1 (talk · contribs)
• Andrew Lancaster (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The redirect Common Sense has pointed to Common Sense (pamphlet) since 2010. In late 2010, a WP:RM to reverse the redirect failed to gain consensus. In that discussion, several editors recommended pointing the redirect to common sense (or the dab page), but neither the closer nor any participant did so. Recently User:Andrew Lancaster boldly retargeted the redirect to common sense (breaking many wikilinks in the process) and I reverted that edit. We discussed the issue civilly per BRD at Talk:Common Sense (pamphlet) but Andrew Lancaster changed the redirect again, relying on the 2010 discussion and "common sense", and I reverted again, suggesting we wait for further discussion, or use of WP:RFD. Several days later Andrew Lancaster again retargeted and I reverted, leaving a message at User talk:Andrew Lancaster again suggesting WP:RFD or WP:3O. When he again retargeted a few hours later, I thought it best to avoid further editing.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion at Talk:Common Sense (pamphlet) and User talk:Andrew Lancaster.

How do you think we can help?

It may be helpful if one or more disinterested editors review the recent edits at Common Sense, and the talk pages mentioned above, and make a recommendation as to where the redirect should point and what, if anything, should be done about the broken wikilinks.

Summary of dispute by Andrew Lancaster

Wikipedia:Consensus#FORUMSHOP. I noticed the problem because I found a link to "Common Sense" on an article which was clearly going to the wrong place, and then saw why. I found that Station1 had set-up such counter-intuitive linking after there had been an RFC where there was a clear consensus to do something else Talk:Common Sense (pamphlet)#Move?. Recent talk page attempts: Talk:Common Sense (pamphlet)#Main meaning of common sense?, User talk:Station1#Common sense indeed?. I guess it has to be said, because it is such a great opportunity: this is just common sense. Concerning broken links, sorry if I caused any but I've asked Station1 to name any that I need to fix, and there has been response. So I presume this is not the real problem. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Common Sense (pamphlet) discussion

• Volunteer Note - Is this a content dispute, about the various redirects and uses of the phrase and which should be primary, or a content dispute? If this is a content dispute, and there previously was a Requested Move, then it would be a good idea to have another Requested Move discussion before trying to override or revert a previous agreement. If this is a conduct dispute, report it at WP:ANI, but try resolving a content dispute first. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Correct. This is a "main use"/redirects disagreement, and indeed there was already a call for opinions and a clear majority position. I have simply been editing according to that. Conduct has been friendly I think on both sides though. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for volunteering. I agree that this is not a conduct dispute. A Requested Move is not appropriate because no one is suggesting moving any article. This is purely a content dispute involving only one specific redirect: Common Sense. My position is that Common Sense should continue to target Common Sense (pamphlet), as it has done at least since mid-2010 (not set up by me) with a brief interruption, because most people searching for or linking to Common Sense want the treatise (see also WP:DIFFCAPS). This is evidenced by 30+ incoming wikilinks and pageviews for the treatise being greater than those for the concept. Andrew Lancaster believes, if I understand correctly, that "common sense" indicates most people searching for or linking to Common Sense, with the capital S, want the article on common sense, and that the discussion from 2010 supports that view. The discussion of 2010, aside from being old, was whether to move the article. Although a few people did indeed suggest redirecting Common Sense to common sense, that was not the proposal, and neither the closer nor any participant took any action. My concern is that people who search for Common Sense or click on a Common Sense wikilink, get to the article they want. I think two questions need to be answered: 1. Should the redirect Common Sense target Common Sense (pamphlet), common sense, or something else? 2. If the answer is common sense, should all incoming wikilinks (Special:WhatLinksHere/Common_Sense) be corrected? I agree to abide by your decision, assuming Andrew Lancaster does the same. Station1 (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - This sounds like a case for a Redirect for Discussion, which is a formal procedure, in the XFD family, to review and retarget a redirect. Anyone can tag the Common Sense page with an RFD tag to discuss whether to direct it primarily to the pamphlet, primarily to the philosophical and other usage page, or directly to the DAB page. An RFD, like an AFD or MFD, runs for seven days unless relisted, and allows everyone to comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, that won't work unless the redirect's long-term stable target is first restored, because lack of consensus at RfD normally results in the current status quo. As you saw, I had suggested use of RfD in an edit summary, on the article talk page and on Andrew Lancaster's user talk page, but that was rejected on the grounds that he believes consensus for his edit already exists. That is why I brought this issue here for resolution. Station1 (talk) 05:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    • There already was a call for opinions with a decent number of responses. Station1 has been quietly working against that consensus. I see no practical or policy reason to "restore" to the non-consensus WP:FAIT? But of course any call for opinions is going to reach the same decision again because this case is so remarkably nonsensical.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - Now I may be confused. I am not sure who is asking for what. User:Station1 says that RFD won't work unless the redirect's long-term stable target is restored, and that lack of consensus at RFD results in status quo. What are you saying should be restored? I see two main articles, the pamphlet and the concept, and a DAB page. Everything else is just redirects. What should be restore? What do you want? And what can DRN resolve that RFD can't resolve? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am saying that if RFD were to work, the long-term stable target of Common Sense pointing to Common Sense (pamphlet) would first need to be restored. But it's a moot point because Andrew Lancaster has already rejected that approach. What I am asking for is for a disinterested editor to decide where the redirect Common Sense should point to. Station1 (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - I see no reason why the target of the redirect needs to be changed before a Redirect for Discussion is initiated to discuss what should be the target of Common Sense. Leave it alone for now and tag it as a Redirect for Discussion. If you don't know how to do that, I will initiate a neutral RFD and close this DRN item. I will be closing this DRN item anyway because this is a dispute that has its own resolution mechanism, namely, RFD. DRN does not decide issues for which there is a standard dispute resolution mechanism. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In that case, if you would initiate a neutral RFD, that would be helpful. Thanks. Station1 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure what's wrong with the previous consensus as nothing new has happened. But of course if there is a new discussion the only concern is to make sure it is neutral and properly done. So the proposal sounds ok to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page? es, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Scott Storch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• StorchBaby (talk · contribs)
• Binksternet (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue at hand is whether Scott Storch was born in Canada. There are a multitude of sources, many reputable and satisfying the WP:RS requirements, over the past 13 years that supporting the claim Scott Storch is Canadian (in addition to being american).

The Talk page for this matter did help us exchange our ideas and see eachother's point of view. However I feel the matter is still not resolved.

Binksternet feels that the video of Storch, who is plied with at least 80-proof alcohol during the videotaping, stating he was from Long Island is sufficient grounds to call Storch's birth in Canada hoax. I, however, have argued that Storch has filed court papers against others stating that he has been taken advantage of by being put in situations, exactly like the one shown in the Drinkchamps video Binksternet is using as a basis for his reversion, where he admits to saying and doing things he otherwise would not have done.

Binksternet seems to believe (correct me if I'm wrong, Bink) that Brooke Hogan read wikipedia when Storch was stated to be from Nova Scotia (without a source), and then stated her surprise when she learned that on a Canadian show, which was subsequently used as the source from 2006-2010. I think he is conjecturing more than I.

As such I am asking the community to assess all of the evidence. From the Irish Examiner, and New York's (magazine) Vulture in 2006, to XXL (magazine) and the Source (magazine) as recent as 2014/2016-17, Storch has been called Canadian many times. It is not unreasonable to argue that XXL and the Source are probably the most definitive publications for this sort of musical genre. For them to state he is Canadian, in spite of the edit in wikipedia in 2010 that changed his nationality to American to the present version, suggests Wiki is relying too heavily on an unreliable source (allhiphop.com).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have used the talk page to amicably discuss our points of view, but have reached an impasse.

How do you think we can help?

I think an impartial observer/volunteer will be helpful in assessing the evidence disclosed in the later portion of the Talk page discussing Storch's nationality, and help reach a conclusion as to whether the mention of Canada is warranted in light of the evidence.

Summary of dispute by Binksternet

My position was misrepresented above. I believe Storch saying "...I was born in New York, on Long Island..." because he was clearly not drunk when he said this in the first four minutes of the show, before any of the alcohol had an effect on him. And in any case, Storch has famously been non-sober for much of his career, even during interviews, so it's a surprise to see someone thinking less of him for participating in a show that involves drinking. See on Drink Champs, video segment from 3:55 to 4:06.

My position is that the September 2006 vandalism by a problematic IP was the start of the hoax. Most of our reliable sources have sorted out the problem, though, telling us Storch was born in Long Island. See XXL magazine, New York Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Daily News, Newsday, Tablet magazine, and Miami New Times. Since Long Island is stated clearly by Storch and is supported by these good sources, I think we should only list Long Island.

I will hold my position until there is a high quality investigative piece published about Storch, saying he was born in Canada, citing supporting evidence. That's the only thing which will change my mind. We don't have any such source right now. Binksternet (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Scott Storch discussion

First statement by volunteer

I will try to get discussion of this matter underway. Please read WP:DRN Rule A and follow the instructions. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do both User:StorchBaby and User:Binksternet want to discuss this content dispute? It appears that the only matter in dispute (which is not a trivial matter) is Storch's birthplace. Is that correct? It also appears that both editors have cited reliable sources as references. So I see three possibilities. The first is to leave the article as is, saying that Storch is American. The second is to change the article, to say that Storch is Canadian. The third, the compromise in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, is to say that Storch's birthplace is a matter of dispute between reliable sources, and provide reliable sources for both views. Do the editors have anything else on which they disagree? Is the compromise of stating both versions acceptable to both parties? If not, why not? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

First statements by editors

Hello Mr. @Robert McClenon:, you have accurately summarised each of our points of view.

With respect to the compromise of stating both, I don't mind it but I don't think that will be enough for the other editor.

In my opinion, Storch's page previously had that "feel" (if you will) by stating he originated from Philadelphia, and blossomed in Florida.

Adding anything pertaining to Canada seems to have chafed other editors when looking at the history.

The edit, as it was, merely acknowledged what I feel is the truth: Scott Storch was, at the very least, born in Canada. I think by stating both sources, it is closer to what was there before (RS stating born in Canada, but originated/blossomed in the USA).

Either way, I would be open to the compromise, however I do not want this to be the first measure.

I would at least like the dates of my RS to be appraised, as they are newer and thus would be less prone to the hoax effect Binksternet alleges took place

I'm not saying his conjecture is incorrect, it's plausible.

I just have my doubts that such high quality sources for this genre would fall prey to such a hoax when Wikipedia stated (at the time most of the articles from my RS were published, barring CBS) he was American.

Thank you for this undertaking. StorchBaby (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

Will each editor, User:Binksternet and User:StorchBaby, please list their sources in the space below, and I will review them. I will not make a decision, but will advise on whether the article should be revised to present both viewpoints, or whether there should be an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

User:StorchBaby has provided more than enough references, some of them reliable, so that I think that the account of Canadian origin should be listed, If the reports of American origin are also reliable, it is appropriate to state in the article that there are conflicting sources. Waiting for input from User:Binksternet. If the editors cannot agree, a Request for Comments may be needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

Here they are: ^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

I will note that XXL did some underhanded tactic where they chagned it from Nova Scotia to Long Island well-after the fact. Thankfully some omnipotent observer anticipated this, and archived the copy that I was using as a source. Here is the webarchive: ^[6]

And below are some slightly older ones I've found during the discussion with Binks:^{[7][8][9][10]}Storch Music press release stating he is Canadian StorchBaby (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Binksternet section. The main problem I have with putting both versions in front of the reader is that the Canada birth is so clearly a hoax. Nobody who lists a Canadian birth goes into detail about it, because there is nothing there. Instead, it's the sources saying a Long Island birth that go into the most detail about his early life. And Storch plainly says in the above-linked video that he was born on Long Island. WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED! WHAT THE ACTUAL EFF. It's coming straight from his mouth.

The sources I am bringing are the following:

• XXL "Happy Birthday, Scott Storch", December 16, 2016. "Born on Long Island, NY, Storch came up in Philadelphia..." The fact that an archived version of this page shows a different birthplace is evidence against that birthplace, not evidence for it. The important point is that XXL noticed a mistake and corrected it. If they had changed Long Island to Nova Scotia that would have been significant, but they did not. The editorial correction was from "Hova Scotia" [sic] to Long Island.
• New York Post "Music producer Scott Storch robbed in Midtown holdup ", August 21, 2013. "...the Long Island native tweeted."
• Wall Street Journal "Hip Hop Producer Robbed at Gunpoint: Police", August 20, 2013. "Mr. Storch, who was born on Long Island, is the head of Storch Music Group..."
• New York Daily News "Scott Storch files for bankruptcy, he has only $100 in cash", June 24, 2015. "In August 2013, the Long Island-born producer was robbed at gunpoint..."
• Newsday "Scott Storch, hip-hop producer, held up at gunpoint near Times Square", August 20, 2013. "Storch, a Long Island native, rose to fame as a keyboard player for The Roots."
• Tablet magazine "Scott Storch's Yiddishkeit", October 20, 2014. "A middle-class Jewish kid from Long Island, Storch dropped out of high school..."
• Miami New Times "Scott Storch is Not Canadian", December 15, 2010.
• Miami New Times "Scott Storch raked in hip-hop millions and then snorted his way to ruin", April 22, 2010. "Born in Long Island but raised in South Florida, Scott Storch has music in his blood."

To counter the sources listed by StorchBaby, I would like to point folks to the state of the Wikipedia biography of Storch at the times these sources were published. The Maxine Leeds Craig book from 2014 follows several instances in 2013 and early 2014 when the biography held the hoax birthplace of Nova Scotia, for instance here, here and here. In another case, the Vice piece was published on October 1, 2012, at at time when the Wikipedia article said Halifax, Nova Scotia. As well, the Exclaim piece was published on June 26, 2010, when our Wikipedia biography said Halifax, Nova Scotia. Similarly, the piece in The Source was published on January 25, 2017, at at time when the Wikipedia page said Halifax, Nova Scotia. The XXL Happy Birthday article with the "Hova Scotia" mistake was published on his birthday in 2016, when our Wikipedia page said Halifax, Nova Scotia. The Irish Examiner article from 2007 was published when, you guessed it, our Wikipedia article said Halifax, Nova Scotia. The Vulture piece from 2009 was published when our Wikipedia article said Halifax, Nova Scotia. EVERY SINGLE SOURCE saying he was born in Canada can be traced to circular sourcing on Wikipedia.

Finally, one of my sources specifically calls out Canada mistake, saying very clearly that Storch was not born in Canada. There is nothing similar to this on the Canada side of things, arguing against Long Island. My stance is still one of telling the reader that Storch was born on Long Island. The Miami New Times piece saying he was not born in Canada can be cited down in the article body to tell the reader that some confusion existed but the matter has been settled. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

My apologies Mr. Robert McClenon, I hope everything is here for DR to reach its decision. It is just frustrating being attacked many times by someone who I am supposed to call an "elder". First calling a substantive edit vandalism, and the continuing with the allegations. I should be less surprised at some of the language they're using here ("WHAT THE EFF"...), even though I typically associate someone of their "experience" (if you will) to conduct themselves in a manner opposite of what we're seeing. I have not attacked this individual once, and I just wanted to make that clear. I have been framed as some sort of malicious editor and it is upsetting, but I understand there is a process and I must trust it. Thank you for your patience. StorchBaby (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Third Statement by Moderator

There are at least four ways I can try to handle this. First, we can present both theories. One editor doesn't want that. Second, I can make a ruling. I don't have the authority to do that, so it would be an opinion. I would rather not to do that, because I don't want to research the quality of the sources in detail. Third, I can request another volunteer to research the quality of the sources in detail. I am willing to do that. Fourth, we can have a Request for Comments. I am willing to do that. So both parties are asked which option they want. Do they want me to ask for another volunteer, or do they want an RFC?

Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Be civil. Don't make me fail this discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Third Statements by Editors

An RfC would work. Binksternet (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe an RfC was tried on the talk page and not very successful. I think a combination of the second and third options are best. I know, as a mathematician, researching these sources wouldn't be fun Mr. McClenon but I do feel you have a familiarity with the issue that any new volunteer will need time to grasp. If you can find someone with authority to make a ruling, that would also work. I'm open to a combination of any of the four options; the only reason I am dismissive of the RfC is the tepid reception previously. At this point I feel it's time to analyse the presented sources and have someone with authority make a ruling on this longstanding issue. If IMDB was wrong they would have fixed it by now. All of this misinformation has been caused by reliance on an unreliable source that purported to interview Storch. I wanted to add that Gus Garcia-Roberts himself never did interview Storch, and somehow won a longform story award for writing about him, which was a few short months after he put out this misinformation based on the alleged allhiphop.com interview StorchBaby (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Question by Moderator

There is a mention of a previous RFC. Please show me where and when the RFC was tried. If the RFC was recent, then it will prevail even if it was inconclusive. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Clarification by Moderator

Neither I nor another volunteer have the authority to make a ruling. Only an RFC is binding. Any ruling will only be an opinion, so that any request for a ruling is misplaced. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Replies by Editors

I think the RfC is on the talk page for Scott Storch. Maybe I didn't do it right. From what I can see, only one person participated and there's a lot of conjecture there. Evaluating the sources is what needs to happen so maybe a fresh RfC for this thread (instead of the talk page would help. If I'm seeking a binding decision, is it possible to go to ANI, or no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StorchBaby (talk • contribs) 13:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Fourth Statement by Moderator

There is a poorly worded RFC on the article talk page that is still running. An RFC takes precedence over discussion here, and it will be allowed to run until 30 August 2019. This discussion will be closed. Because the RFC is badly worded, it will probably be inconclusive.

The filing editor asks whether it is possible to go to WP:ANI. Why? ANI is for conduct disputes. Who would you be reporting for a conduct violation? Yes, it is possible to go to ANI. They won't make a ruling on a content dispute. Why do you seem to want to take this to ANI? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Fourth Statements by Editors

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:LessWrong (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• David Gerard (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:David Gerard has displayed a several-years-long history of reversing all edits to the page LessWrong which do not conform to his opinion. This has been long-standing enough (2016 and earlier) that outside sources have quoted the content of the page, which has then been claimed as sourcing for the page. This has made the page persistently misleading, and while several other editors have attempted to remedy it, none have had the stamina to outlast Mr. Gerard.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page, explaining why his sources are not reliable in this case, drawing attention to the consensus of all other editors on the talk page (first discussion in 2016) that his behavior was out of line.

How do you think we can help?

I am not sure. I am not personally good at peaceable conflict resolution, and hope you may find a solution which does not require going to arbitration.

Summary of dispute by David Gerard

Talk:LessWrong discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.