Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 88

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

• Rosen Method Bodywork (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Etolpygo (talk · contribs)
• Alexbrn (talk · contribs)
• Vzaak (talk · contribs)
• Simonm223 (talk · contribs)
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is a dispute about whether sources cited by user Etolpygo constitute reliable sources of information. Users Alexbrn and Vzaak keep repeatedly deleting them even though they are articles published in peer-reviewed journals. This has been discussed on the Talk page to no avail. Alexbrn, in particular, posits that Etolpygo is making medical claims, which have to be substantiated more thoroughly. Etolpygo is not making any such claims. Each potentially point in the current version of the article is clearly stated to be the point of view of the practitioners of the method. Considering that few reliable sources of information on the method are available, only ones that can be considered independent were listed by Etolpygo, including general alt-med overview books and articles in peer-reviewed journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etolpygo (talk • contribs) 07:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

rephrased and reworded sources several times. talked on the talk page as well as on the relevant users' pages.

How do you think we can help?

provide third opinion on whether sources cited by Etolpygo are reliable sources of information

This is a fringe topic: we need to use independent sources as guided by WP:FRIND. Anything health-related need to be sourced to WP:MEDRS sources. The content under dispute doesn't meet these criteria, so can't be used. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's start by looking at the edit history.

[1]

As you can see, yesterday Etolpygo inserted a large section of new content into the article. Alexbrn reverted on the grounds that the source cited was fringe. Etolpygo reinserted that information without comment. I reverted him again pointing out that as his WP:BOLD insertion had been reverted the user should take the discussion to Talk before reinserting. Etolpygo didn't take the discussion to talk and reverted me eight minutes later. Alexbrn then reverted back and made a second request that Etolpygo take the discussion to Talk. At that point Etolpygo did go to talk, and expressed no understanding why the edit in question was being repeatedly reverted.

Alexbrn replied that this was because the citation was primary source material from a publication that failed WP:RS I concurred and pointed out that the publication Somatics did not appear to be a WP:MEDRS publication.

Etolpygo argued in talk that these policies didn't apply to his edits and without awaiting comment immediately made a third revert.

User:Roxy the dog Advised Etolpygo to self-revert quickly or face a block for violating WP:3RR and Etolpygo replied by expressing confusion about why his edits were the ones that would lead to block action. Then I came back online, saw that Etolpygo had broken WP:3RR but, having not yet read talk decided to give him one more chance. I reverted his edits, along with some additional intermediate edits he'd made inserting a large quantity of unreferenced content and told him that this was the very last warning I'd give him before taking it up at the appropriate noticeboard (the one for editwarring).

His response was to take it up here - possibly hoping to avoid a block for violations of WP:RR. I will point out that notwithstanding this dispute resolution update if Etolpygo disregards consensus on this article further and reverts to his preferred version again without first making a good-faith effort to discuss the notability of his sources on talk I will take this to the editwarring noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

DRN coordinator's note: I am not "taking" this or opening it for discussion at this time, but just want to:

• note that I added and notified a party who was active in the discussion at the article talk page,
• note for the convenience of any volunteer who takes this case (provided that there is sufficient participation by the disputants, of course) that I've not found any significant discussion at the disputants' user talk pages, but only at the article talk page,
• and ask the filing editor, Etolpygo, to list the disputed sources in the "Dispute overview" section, above, so a DRN volunteer doesn't have to dig them out of the article history.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

We do not discuss conduct, only content, here at DRN and would ask everyone to refrain from doing so, but to forestall any further discussion about the 3RR or EW situation, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Etolpygo reported by User:Vzaak .28Result: .29. If a long block is imposed there I may close this listing for practical reasons, but I do not foresee that happening and would ask that any participants in the dispute who wish to participate here to go ahead and do so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding the publication Somatics I could find no indication that it was, in fact, peer reviewed other than Etolpygo claiming that to be the case. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link for information on that publication. [2] Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• The other source in question was an article from the international journal of therapeutic massage and bodywork. Although the journal claims to be peer reviewed, the specific article is highly problematic as the small sample size (5), lack of blinding, and massive confirmation bias in the abstract all point toward a perfect example of a WP:FRINGE source that fails to meet WP:MEDRS standards. Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Although this particular journal has not come up before you can find a previous WP:RS/N discussion on a massage publication at the following archive: [3] Simonm223 (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: The filing party has been blocked for 48 hrs.[4] -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:48, 27 February 2014 (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

• Anjem Choudary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (in particular the talk page)

Users involved

• Atsme (talk · contribs)
• Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs)
• Serialjoepsycho (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Parrot of Doom is violating WP:CIVILITY. He called me "...a fool. A racist fool. A racist fool…." He launched a personal attack against me with absolutely no provocation. It began when I tried to improve upon Anjem Choudary. He has been attacking me ever since. To get an idea of his temperament, just read the header on his User Talk page. It is very hostile, and starts off with the following harsh statement: "Some basic rules. One, anyone coming here accusing me of WP:OWN will be told in no uncertain terms where to shove it." He apparently doesn't like Admin's either based on rule #4 in the header: "….never again will I venture onto ANI or any similar admin-related pages, either to resolve an issue, or to respond to somebody else's issue;"

He discouraged Coretheapple from further participation. Coretheapple was kind enough to initiate an RfC when I asked for his help. When the RfC didn't generate results, I moved the discussion to BLPN. In the interim, Serialjoepsycho initiated a GA reassessment. Parrot of Doom's recent comment on that page was the final straw. I did not respond to him, rather I brought the dispute here instead. [5]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I kept my comments polite, even tried a little humor, but that obviously didn't work. I did not engage in edit warring, however, I do want to mention that while I was reviewing cur|prev from the revision history page, reverts were inadvertently triggered. That caused Admin Darkwind to initiate page protection. I apologized to him in the event it was something I had done unwittingly. Other steps included RfC, BLP-N, GA Reassessment, and now DR-N.

How do you think we can help?

Maybe he needs some time away from editing, I don't know. I've done nothing to warrant such disrespect and abuse from another editor. He is overly protective of Anjem Choudary for whatever reason (WP:OWN). Anyone who is familiar with Choudary can see the article is an incomplete, propagandized portrayal of the man.

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:Azerbaijan (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Interfase (talk · contribs)
• Divot (talk · contribs)
• Hablabar (talk · contribs)
• Roses&guns (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I created the "Name of Azerbaijan" section in the article Azerbaijan, where the usage of the term "Azerbaijan" is described. Here we can see a lot of sources claiming that the term "Azerbaijan" was used also for the lands on the north side of Aras river. In the map "Russia at the Caucasus" we can see it very well. I think in this section we can use this map which illustrates this fact very well.

But user Divot claims that the map is wrong, but there are no any sources saying that. User Hablabar went further and wants to delete the whole section. He sees there some WP:CHERRY and some propaganda. But I don't see here any cherry and propaganda. The section is about the usage of the term "Azerbaijan" in the region in the different periods of history and is based on several reliable sources (e.g. Iranica). I claim the the deleting of this section by Hablabar is just vandalism and needs some administrative actions against him.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I'd like an outsider to judge matters from the viewpoint of Wikipedia policies and conventions: are separate articles warranted, or not? The conclusion of mediator will stop edit warring on this issue.

The map is wrong, Details on TP Moreover, I asked a well-known historian Bournoutian, his answer: "The map is wrong. The word Azerbijan is written in another font and script--compare it to Georgia. It is impossible to put Erevan and Lake Sevan in the so-called Azerbijan in 1847-- since it was until 1840 the Armenian Province and after that the Erevan Guberniia."

There are a lot of maps of the region. I don't understand why we need to use obviously wrong map. Divot (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Divot, the map isn't wrong. Bournutians words are not published in reliable source. And his position (if these words really belongs him) is unlogical. How can he say that the region on the north of Aras during Russian Empire wasn't called "Azerbaijan" if we could see that it was in the section "Name of Azerbaijan" (which was recently removed by vandals). In this section we can see a large amount of sources showing that the term "Azerbaijan" was used for the lands on the north of Aras. The map is a good illustration for this. I still don't understand what do you have against this map in the section about the name of Azerbaijan (not ethymology). Also I didn't see any new logical arguments from you. --Interfase (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"Bournutians words are not published in reliable source" of course, but only if we use his words in the topic. According Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources :"Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."

"we could see that it was in the section "Name of Azerbaijan"" - in that section we can read "Under Emperor Alexander III the term "Azerbaijan" gradually became used to Baku and Yelisavetpol province by European scientists and journalists". Alexander III (1881 - 1894), the map dated by 1847. So, Bournutian is quite right.

As we see, region Azerbailan is a part of Russian Empire, but not Persia. It's nonsense, because in 19th century this name means region in Persia and sometimes (Safavid's epoch, after 1880-x) for Iranian Azerbaijan and modern Azerbaijan, but never only for modern Azerbaijan. Divot (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"but never only for modern Azerbaijan" - statement without any sources. Bournutian is not right. The map shows the usage of map in the specific period of history. It shouldn't have exactly the same date which is shown in the sources. This is an absurd. We can see that the term was used for the lands on the north of Aras during the period of Russian Empire. We can see the sources saying that the term was used such. So stop give absurd arguments. --Interfase (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Coordinator's note: Discussion should cease — any more is past the "keep discussion to a minimum" point — and only take place on the article talk page until the two remaining listed editors make their opening statements and until a volunteer opens the case for discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be willing to take this case but it appears only 2 of the 4 participants have made opening statements so maybe it should be considered for closing? What do you think Tman?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:56, 2 March 2014 (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

• Maryam Nawaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Adnan1216 (talk · contribs)
• Smsarmad (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Another editor had placed a scandal about this person,the editor, SMS, reverted it back as being unsourced. I added two sources, both from electronic media, the editor SMS that states that these are not good sources. I believe that the sources are well documented in reference to this issue and that for public personalaties, these should be included

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have left messages on the editors talk age

How do you think we can help?

review

I am not sure whether it is the most appropriate venue as I see more of a BLP issue here, but now that we are here so I will start with a quick summary. An IP editor added some content to the article Maryam Nawaz, that was removed by me as I found it controversial and unsourced. It was restored by Adnan1216 and I again removed and informed him that it needs to be reliably sourced. It was restored again by Adnan1216 this time with two poor quality source and I reverted him. He insists that the sources are good earlier but I guess after a third editor's opinion that he sought, he agrees that those were poor quality sources (as of now). -- SMS ^Talk 00:54, 3 March 2014 (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

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

Users involved

• Natkabrown (talk · contribs)
• Toddy1 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have been I've adding File:Simplified historical map of Ukrainian borders 1654-2014.jpg but it keeps being removed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I found out the reasons for the map being removed Talk:Ukraine#Simplified historical map of Ukraine and changed the map following the suggestions.

But still we failed to find a resolution. The last revert was made by Toddy1. I started a conversation with her on her talk page User talk:Toddy1#Ukraine - Simplified historical map of Ukraine. We have different points of view.

How do you think we can help?

I hope to find a neutral point of view with a help of dispute resolution.

The issue was raised at Talk:Ukraine#Simplified historical map of Ukraine, by User:CT Cooper at 18:29, 7 March 2014, after User:Natkabrown had reverted three times different IP editors' deleting of her image within a 24 hour period.

• Revert 1, 6 March 2014
• Revert 2, 7 March 2014
• Revert 3, 7 March 2014

You will see that there is consensus at Talk:Ukraine#Simplified historical map of Ukraine for not having the map in the form that it was posted.

Presenting this issue as being between two people is inaccurate. At the time of writing it is about 14 hours after the matter was first raised on the article discussion page - this is not very long. What is happening here is WP:forum shopping--Toddy1 (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The editor who first deleted the image from the article, described the image as "Russian propagandist un-scientific caricature illustration, no place in Wikipedia".[6] This is an accurate description of the image.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a talk page discussion on this issue that is ongoing and only a day old. I suggest that this DRN case filing is premature and should be closed. Any comments from the DRN coordinator or other DRN volunteers?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this should be closed, with a friendly invitation to file a new case later if it becomes clear that they cannot reach an agreement on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2014 (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

• Unite Against Fascism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lokalkosmopolit (talk · contribs)
• Snowded (talk · contribs)
• Dougweller (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have suggested a number of additions featuring the views of Peter Tatchell, a gay rights activist, and an article by J. Bloodworth, published in The Independent, both critical of the organization. These additions got reverted a week ago(diff of my proposed changes: [7]). Despite me asking for proposed changes of wording or substantiated objections at talk, no objection reasoned per policies has been made at talk so far. Efforts to re-introduce the section after no justified objections/proposed amendments had been raised for a week got immediately reverted. Changes to the article in order to include critical views have been proposed before, these get reverted by a group of users immediately (examples: [8], [9], [10]). I see an issue of not accepting reliably sourced criticism of the organization and issues of WP:OWN by a small tag-team. Snowden for example is keen of excluding anything potentially compromising as to the organization, such as opposing the mention that the organization's vice-chair is an islamic fundamentalist known for calling to kill British soldiers in Iraq and demanding introduction of Sharia law in Britain [11].

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion at talk, request to offer valid objections per policy or propose amendments to the changes I suggested.

How do you think we can help?

There is a tendency to remove all kinds of criticism by a group of editors. One should remind those editors that tag-team edit warring to remove all forms of criticism without valid grounds in unacceptable. Rather, we need to find acceptable wording to reflect all major POVs as far as these are reliably sourced, and this also includes criticism of the subjects such as Unite Against Fascism, a controversial organization. Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored is a non-negotiable guideline.

(Comment from DRN volunteer:) DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Please Do not talk about other editors and stick to discussing content instead. You may wish to edit the comments above so that they only address article content. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Premature, complainant is not using the talk page to discuses change simply asserting an opinion. S/he is also edit warring and about to be subject to a 3rr report ----Snowded ^TALK 21:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Here we have an editor who has been reverted by 3 different editors, who having failed to gain consensus decides to attack other editors and who doesn't seem to understand what WP:NOTCENSORED means. I note that he specifically attacks another editor for "opposing the mention that the organization's vice-chair is an islamic fundamentalist known". This is actually in the lead, as I pointed out, and I don't think anyone has suggested removing it. The last revert was not by one of the named editors but by User:Hell in a Bucket who I have notified of this discussion. I'm not sure what Lokalkosmopolit expects here but edit summaries such as "get lost and read a bit karl marx and quran instead of edit warring" is discouraging. It's hard to resolve a dispute when someone just ignores other editors and says they are wrong. Dougweller (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

:When at editor writes "That a certain number of commies want to prevent any development of the article and to keep it at stub level is well visible based on the history of the article, this however does not mean we should support this nonsense." as Lokalkosmopolit did at Talk: Far-left politics then I lose my own good faith in that editor and in any attempt to resolve a dispute with such an editor. Dougweller (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

(Comment from DRN volunteer:) DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Please Do not talk about other editors and stick to discussing content instead. You may wish to edit the comments above so that they only address article content. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point, although somewhat hard to do in this case. All I can say is that I don't think that it's likely we are going to get far here as the editor bringing this seems to be discussing user behavior more than content or policy, and doesn't seem to understand policy. He'd be better off at one of the policy boards and I'll be happy to take part in any discussion he brings to one of them. He's been blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing and personal attacks so obviously won't be back here until the block expires. I've tried to discuss content with him on the article talk page as can be seen there. Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that the above is true (I am not saying that it isn't, just that as a DRN volunteer I should not take sides on such an issue), what I like to do is to pretty much force everyone to stick to discussing content, first with polite requests, but with strikeouts comment collapsing if the talking about other editors persists. Then after we have either resolved or failed to resolve the content dispute, I advise anyone who doesn't already know this about venues that deal with user conduct such as ANI. A lot of the time solving the content dispute also solves the conduct issue. As the old saying goes, the best way to stop discussing something is to stop discussing it, so let's leave it at that and see how the DRN case goes. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors. In DRN cases where I am a volunteer, I have had a lot of success by keeping the discussion structured and dealing with one issue at a time. If anyone has a problem with this, we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I am now opening this up for discussion. Please discuss article content, not user conduct, and do not talk about other editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2014‎ (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. There has been a discussion on my user talk. BethNaught (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Location of dispute

• State Anthem of Uzbekistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• BethNaught (talk · contribs)
• Izzy.neon (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Izzy.neon twice changed National Anthem of Uzbekistan to say "state anthem" instead of "national anthem" and I twice reverted, per normal English usage. Then the user moved the page to its current title, and remade the edits.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A discussion has taken place on User talk:BethNaught. I offered to compromise per WP:BRD, as you can see there, but Izzy.neon did not attempt to engage in discussion and told me twice "do not change".

How do you think we can help?

Provide advice/a third opinion on the correct translation, or whether my compromise (National, but a note saying literally translated State) or something along those lines would be helpful.

Davlat means State in English, look up examples of other pages, they're using state. Being Uzbek and teaching English in Uzbekistan I am translating the name correctly instead of enumerating like other user.

According to [12] and [13], Davlat can mean country, nation or state. Therefore National is an appropriate and idiomatic translation. BethNaught (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2014 (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

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

Users involved

• 84.127.80.114 (talk · contribs)
• Flamingspinach (talk · contribs)
• Mthinkcpp (talk · contribs)
• Rwxrwxrwx (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I tried to introduce some changes, being discussed at the "Debian private practices and Debian Women activities" section in the talk page. Reverters oppose to these changes and refuse to discuss the reasons. Then I tried to break the changes to smaller pieces. That did not help. User Mthinkcpp is leading the opposition. There are other reverters, users Rwxrwxrwx and Flamingspinach at least.

I am trying to introduce some changes[14], being discussed in the talk page. mthinkcpp is presumably against all these changes for undisclosed reasons. It looks like Flamingspinach is in the same situation. Rwxrwxrwx mostly disagrees too. There may be other users against the changes. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Refusing to discuss is considered a conduct issue, so there are two threads in the incident noticeboard. I have been repeatedly advised to use content related resolution.

How do you think we can help?

I need a voice for the reverters in the talk page. Any neutral voice would help since there are no special technical requirements. It would help me to get back my bold/revert ability. I cannot propose the smaller changes nor revert to the status quo. A proxy user would be useful.

I decline to comment. — flamingspinach | (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

These changes were applied to the Debian page. Parts were subsequently rejected due to being campaigning for a point of view. They were also wholly rejected for poor references; emails by a too closely affiliated individual, another (debian-private) did not back up the claims made, the bug report linked was written entirely by the individual expelled (therefore not an appropriate source). None of the above comes from reliable sources, and no reliable source was suggested by any editor (therefore presumably there isn't one, placing the validity of the material in doubt) - which makes it a policy violation to include the material, so it was rejected.

The material was not presented neutrally, and appeared to be designed to damage the Debian project (someone else's statement, I agree with it though), even if that was not the author's intention. An administrator looking into the matter (the individual who made the last statement, and a third party) determined that it was campaigning.

The consensus (given by those who have expressed a position) is against the edits, with only one supporter for them (the original author).

Ditto what Mthinkcpp said above. The bulk of the desired changes clearly violate WP:SOAP, WP:OR, WP:RS. This has been explained to the IP several times, in edit summaries, the article's talk page, his own talk page. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors. In DRN cases where I am a volunteer, I have had a lot of success by keeping the discussion structured and dealing with one issue at a time. If anyone has a problem with this, we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have read the responses above and have spent a considerable amount f time looking at the edits in question. I must say, this is the first time I have ever seen someone try to use an XKCD comic as a reliable source.

First, I agree with those who have said that this is a content dispute and thus does not belong at ANI, at least not now. It has the potential to become a behavioral issue, and there are related behavioral issues such as edit warring, but it appears that those issues have been addressed.

As for the content dispute itself, normally at this time I try to get everyone to compromise and find a version that everyone can live with, but in this case it is quite clear that 84.127.80.114's preferred version simply does not meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability or neutrality. Rather than taking my word for it, 84.127.80.114 could post an RfC, but the result will be the same. 84.127.80.114. the consensus is clearly against you, and that clearly is not going to change.

There comes a time when one must realize that a particular battle is lost. We even have a page explaining this: Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.

We also have a page that might benefit those on the other side of this issue: Wikipedia:Ignore all dramas. once you have made your point, you don't have to keep responding.

I would now like to open this for discussion about the advice I just gave everyone. Remember, I do not have any special authority and my opinions should not carry any extra weight. If I have failed to persuade you, tell me why and we can discuss it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

How about we start discussing article content like we were supposed to do? Since it is quite clear that the content does not meet Wikipedia's standards, Guy Macon will not object to show those defects expressly. Like I said, from the beginning.

The current article says:

Alternatively, existing developers can be expelled by the project leaders when necessary.

My proposal is, in a new paragraph:

Developers can be expelled by the leader's delegates. A project leader cannot expel developers directly.

I provided the correct link for the Debian constitution, it was not in the article before my edits. How does that compare in terms of verifiability?

Shall I remind the version from mthinkcpp?

They can alternatively be forcefully dismissed from their position when necessary.

mthinkcpp says "forcefully dismissed", the constitution says "expel", I say "expelled". How does my version compare in terms of neutrality?

Section 8.1.2 of the constitution clearly states that delegates "may make certain decisions which the Leader may not make directly, including approving or expelling Developers". How does my ability to identify the quote in a reliable source compare in terms of reliability? The version in the article is wrong, it has been there for eight days and no one besides me has said anything.

I am certainly suited to improve this article and those changes will improve it. So, Guy Macon, are we going to discuss article content or should I resume the conduct avenue? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I am looking at those edits now. More later. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's start with what is on the page now:

"Debian Developers may resign their positions at any time by orphaning the packages they were responsible for and sending a notice to the developers and the keyring maintainer (so that their upload authorization can be revoked). Alternatively, existing developers can be expelled by the project leaders when necessary.[58]

That "58" is a link to the Debian constitution, which clearly states:

The Project Leader's Delegates:

have powers delegated to them by the Project Leader;

may make certain decisions which the Leader may not make directly, including approving or expelling Developers or designating people as Developers who do not maintain packages. This is to avoid concentration of power, particularly over membership as a Developer, in the hands of the Project Leader.

Clearly our page is wrong.

Next, I looked into who added that, who opposed it, who edited it, and when all of this happened.

I checked the first edit in September October November December January, and February, and found no mention of any procedure for expelling developers. I also can't recall any other page about a software project or Linux distribution that went into that detail. As far as I can tell, 24.89.139.58 first edited Wikipedia on 5 February 2014 and first edited the Debian page on 27 February 2014. If 24.89.139.58 chooses to tell me about any other IP addresses or user names, I can correct that, but he is not required to do so.

84.127.80.114's first edit to Debian [15] contained claims such as:

"Some Debian developers send intimidating messages privately to Debian users. Debian officers support this behaviour. Dissenting users that disclose this intimidation are permanently banned from the comunity."

The source for this claim? A mailing list post by someone who Debian banned. That's not a reliable source, and it is not written with a neutral point of view.

Getting back to the edit in question, I looked at every revision from that point on. I found:

On 23:14, 16 February 2014, 84.127.80.114 added:

Developers can be expelled by the leader's delegates. Although other penalties may be settled instead, like list bans or account locking.

..plus a large amount of material concerning a specific individial (suspended? banned?) by Debian, but I am focusing on the claim about expelling.[16]

On 10:50, 17 February 2014 Rwxrwxrwx made an edit where he specifically left in the claim about expelling with only a minor grammar change.[17]

On 05:51, 19 February 2014 Flamingspinach removed a large amount of material that you had added, including the claim about expelling.[18]

On 12:30, 21 February 2014 84.127.80.114 re-added "Developers can be expelled by the leader's delegates."[19]

On 14:37, 21 February 2014 Mthinkcpp removed it. along with other material.[20]

On 14:59, 21 February 2014 Mthinkcpp re-added the claim in the following form:

"They [Debian Developers] can alternatively be forcefully dismissed from their position when necessary." [21]

On 13:37, 23 February 2014 84.127.80.114 removed what Mthinkcpp had added.[22]

On 05:42, 24 February 2014 Dsimic put it back.[23]

On 03:04, 25 February 2014 Dsimic modified it to

"Alternatively, existing developers can be expelled by the project leaders when necessary."[24]

Up to this point, every version of this particular claim was factually correct. This edit introduced an error.

Did anyone point out the error? Yes.

On 16:59, 25 February 2014 84.127.80.114 wrote "While Dsimic's change restores the neutrality, the fact is inaccurate. The project leader cannot expel developers directly, as explained in section 8.1.2; only delegates (and resolutions) can.[25]

BTW, I missed that when I read through all of the talk page comments recently.

So what we have here is a new IP editor trying to add all sorts of inappropriate material about Debian internal politics. In the midst of all that he adds a correct statement about how Debian expels developers. Some effort was made to retain that statement and nuke the rest, but it got repeatedly added, removed and changed, and the latest change contains a factual error.

Meanwhile, nobody, including me, noticed the comment from the new IP editor pointing out the error, and the IP editor didn't directly correct the error, which is understandable given his recent block.

Of course shortly after I post this someone will correct the factual error, but the rest of the material about Debian internal politics has a snowball's chance of making it into the article. Even the claim we are discussing has a relevance problem; who outside of the Debian community cares about exactly how developers are kicked out? I just checked Slackware, Red Hat, Ubuntu, and BSD. None of them gets into such detail about internal politics. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

As I predicted, the factual error has been corrected. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This is why we need someone like Guy Macon in the talk page, like Dsimic before. We need people that discuss the content. I invite Guy Macon to participate. Let me resume my step by step work and I will show that these are not "all sorts of inappropriate material about Debian internal politics". I will address the "intimidating messages" sentences in due time.

If Guy Macon is able to persuade, then please try to persuade reverters to let me work an acceptable version with Dsimic or another editor willing to discuss.

Efforts to overprotect the article do damage the article and then the subject. If people expel "when necessary", it communicates that expel alone means expel "arbitrarily". The constitution does not mean that. Another point, talking about "existing developers" contrasts with "non-existing developers" and I do have names for those non-existing beings. But these phrases are acceptable imperfections.

Let us address the relevance point, though Guy Macon should note reverters did not have that objection. Leaving out the encyclopedic value, who outside of the Debian community cares about exactly how developers are kicked out? The very same people outside of the Debian community that care about exactly how developers may get in and why they wanted to get in.

It is valuable to know that expulsion does not depend upon a leader's decision. So it is to know that expulsion has already happened "when necessary". And so it is to know that there are alternatives to expulsion. This is why I would like to add now:

Although expulsion has happened in the past, other penalties may be settled instead, like list bans or account locking.

with one reference to an expulsion, another to a list ban and another to account locking.

When dealing about these facts, I simply do not compare with other systems. That would be a mistake. Ubuntu does not have this kind of recruitment, nor a social contract nor a constitution. Debian has unique aspects.

Do we still discuss here? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that you are free to put that "Although expulsion has happened in the past, other penalties may be settled instead, like list bans or account locking." in the article, right? With, of course, citations to reliable sources (not posts to mailing lists). WP:BRD explains what to do if you get reverted.

In the discuss phase of WP:BRD you need to explain what it is about Debian that is not only different, but would justify a section about how Debian expels developers. You say "It is valuable to know that expulsion does not depend upon a leader's decision", but you don't say why. Which is a problem, because the consensus of the other editors working on the page is that we don't need such a section. I cannot find a Wikipedia page about any organization where we include the details on how someone gets expelled. We don't do it at International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and we don't do it at Wikimedia Foundation, We don't do it on any other open-source software project.

Now you could post an RfC and get more editors to weigh in on this. We wouldn't want a handful of editors to dominate a page and so the editor with a minority view can, if he has good arguments, persuade a large group of editors to overrule the local consensus. You could do that but it is extremely doubtful in this case that the larger group of editors will agree with you.

You could go the rounds of various noticeboards and other dispute resolution venues, but again the odds that this will end up with you getting your way are vanishingly small.

As I see it, you have two options. Either persuade other editors, or drop the stick There are currently 4,466,538 articles where you aren't so involved that you can work on. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello there!

Yeah, I'd say that it would be much wiser to "drop the stick". For example, there are sources like mailing lists or people's posts saying that conspiracy theory–like things are happening on debian-private mailing list; but, there are also sources like this of the same "weight" saying just the opposite. Having all that in mind, I'd say it would be hard to introduce more content into the Debian article, as none of such sources "trumps" the others reliability-wise.

Btw, I'm really not sure whether having me posting here is appropriate; if not, please feel free to revert my edit which produced this message. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Your contributions are more than welcome. The problem with using this or any other mailing list as a source may be found at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources, which says:

"Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." (Emphasis in original)

Mailing lists such as debian-private are user-generated, and thus cannot be used as sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, and that's what I was referring to as "weight" – both sides on a weight scale (so to speak) are coming from self-published sources, making it hard to provide reliable sources required for introducing new content into the article. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources does not currently use those words. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion. I always remember Guy Macon's "my advice is as is, without warranty" disclaimer. I do realize that I am free to edit the article and get an instant block. I know about the BRD cycle and the available ways to solve conduct related issues.

Keeping to the point, I propose to add this sentence:

Although expulsion has happened in the past,^[1] other penalties may be settled instead, like list bans^[2] or account locking.^[3]

"Re: Questions to the candidates". debian-vote (Mailing list). 2007-03-04. This was just hours before expulsion. {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)

"Re: Sven Luther, report of the mediation attempt and further actions". debian-project (Mailing list). 2007-01-03. I'm asking [...] Ban for 2 months Sven Luther from all the debian-mailing lists. {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)

"Re: Expulsion process: Sven Luther - Decision". debian-project (Mailing list). 2007-03-28. we do not expell Sven but instead to suspend his account for 1 year. {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)

The claim that mailing lists cannot be used as sources is wrong. This is the template to cite mailing lists. Sources are always compared to the material they support. Reliable sources for one topic may be completely unreliable for another one. Public mailing lists are a good place to gather different points of view. We are already using debian-devel and debian-vote.

The sentence tells that expulsion is real ("if a developer starts acting crazy", that developer will be expelled), alternatives exist and the alternatives are real. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hm, that's a good point – why do we have {{Cite mailing list}} template when mailing lists are considered to be unreliable sources? Is usage of that template reserved for official announcements only (like new releases announcements etc.)? There's also {{Cite newsgroup}} template, by the way. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point, 84.127.80.114, and I apologize if I oversimplified things to then point where I what I wrote was misleading. There are indeed situations where self-published sources can be used. Assuming for the sake of argument that any of this is relevant or helps our readers, let's look at the following URL that you listed above and go through the mental steps needed to evaluate such a source.

https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/03/msg00241.html

The first question is, is it a forgery? If this was, say, a USENET group, I could post a message pretending to be from Sven Luther, and some web sites have been known to post bogus tweet, emails, etc. In this case, the URL is debian.org and nobody is crying out "forgery!", so we can rule out the possibility that it is a fake message.

The second question is, could it have been edited later by Sven or someone else? Wikipedia talk page comments are a good example of a system where this is possible, which is why we like to use diffs. Diffs cannot be edited, even by an administrator. In this case, the Debian mailing list does not allow editing of old messages, so we know that these are the words Sven wrote on Wed, 28 Mar 2007.

And, of course we need to pay attention and make sure that we don't accidentally misattribute the places where Sven is quoting Pierre Habouzit or Joerg Jaspert. Easy to get right on this system, but I have seen systems where it is really easy to confuse who wrote what.

OK, so let's look at a specific sentence, chosen at random: "the project has now claimed, through the voice of both his DPL and the DAMs, that DDs are just machines, which can be thrown out when they are no more useful..."

Is this a reliable source supporting a claim that Sven wrote that? Yes. Is it a reliable source supporting a claim that the project has claimed that DDs are just machines? No. Sven is a reliable source for claims about Sven's opinions/positions, but Sven is not a reliable source for claims about what the Debian project said or did not say.

Now that we understand what that particular post to a mailing list is considered a reliable source for, let's look at a diff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debian&diff=prev&oldid=595955633

In this edit, Wikipedia is using the mailing list post we are discussing as a citation for the claim

"Developers can be expelled by the leader's delegates. Although other penalties may be settled instead, like list bans or account locking. These events have already happened."

Is that post a reliable source for that claim? No, for the following reasons:

• We don't take the word of someone who was expelled/suspended/banned/locked/whatever by the Debian project as a reliable source for whether the Debian project did something.

• As can be seen from the material Sven quoted, someone named Joerg Jaspert wrote: "Decision ... we (the DAMs) have decided that we do not expel Sven but instead to suspend his account for 1 year." If we are to use the mailing list as a cite at all, we certainly should verify that Joerg Jaspert speaks for the project then use his post as a source.

• Looking at the thread index, I see that there are over 50 posts in the thread. I didn't read them because as a DRN volunteer it isn't really my place -- I just want to analyze whatever references you folks bring me, not find new ones -- but some of those may very well expand on or correct the info in the post we are examining. We need to check before using this post as a reference.

• Finally, and this is a major problem with using this post, the post say nothing about whether "list bans" or "account locking" have already happened. The post uses the phrases "expel/expulsion". "suspend his account", "on the ejection seat", "expulsion" and "thrown out". Those all support the ""Developers can be expelled" claim, but we already have a cite for that. They do not support the "list bans or account locking ... have already happened" claim, and we haven't really shown the reader what the difference between those three terms is.

My conclusion: that mailing list post is not a reliable source for that claim. Related: we have not seen any argument explaining why our readers should care about how the Debian project expels developers. And, of course, we need to keep in mind that I have no special authority and that my opinions do not carry any extra weight. As a DRN volunteer, my only "power" is persuasion. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Guy Macon is trying that power on me. It is not working. Why are we still discussing the old changes? Why do not we discuss the last proposal? Are not we supposed to move forward? The paragraph would look like:

Debian Developers may resign their positions at any time by orphaning the packages they were responsible for and sending a notice to the developers and the keyring maintainer (so that their upload authorization can be revoked). Alternatively, when necessary, existing developers can be expelled.[58] Although expulsion has happened in the past,[1] other penalties may be settled instead, like list bans[2] or account locking.[3]

The sentence with sources was given above.

If Guy Macon thinks that I should speak to an administrator to recover my bold edit ability, I will. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I love that reason: we do not take the word of people who was expelled/suspended/banned/locked/whatever by the Debian project as a reliable source for whether the Debian project expelled/suspended/banned/locked/whatever them. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

84.127.80.114, it seems to me you've actually been expelled/banner/whatever from the position of a Debian developer, and now you want to document that case, so to speak. Am I wrong there? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I am supposed to talk about article content, but Joy made a similar observation in the talk page. Should I address this issue? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Translation: "speak to an administrator to recover my bold edit ability" really means "speak to an administrator so he can say that I already have my bold edit ability (like Guy said) and advise me to follow WP:BRD (like Guy said)". --Guy Macon (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it means: Dear administrator, knowing that a user has stated "the material [...] cannot be used, [...] with no compromises possible.", that I do not have the approval of any other editor, that I have been warned twice and blocked for edit warring, but I am the one using the talk page and I am the one discussing in the DRN, may I add "Although expulsion has happened in the past,[1] other penalties may be settled instead, like list bans[2] or account locking.[3]" without getting blocked again? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice out of context quote there. here is the reply left out. You are allowed to make bold edits as long as you follow WP:BRD. You are not free to edit war. Feel free to ask elsewhere to confirm this. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It is clear at this point that this DRN case is unlikely to result in an agreement, so I am going to close this case as failed. Here is my final advice:

Advice for 84.127.80.114:
At this point you have four possible paths you can take. They are:

1. Go back to the article talk page and attempt to convince the other editors to accept your desired version. This is the preferred option.
2. Post an RfC and attempt to persuade those who !vote on the RfC to accept your desired version. Unlike DRN, where all we can do is try to persuade, RfCs settle content disputes and editors are required to follow the consensus that arises from the RfC.
3. Attempt to convince an administrator that the other editors have misbehaved. The primary venue for doing that is WP:ANI. A full list is at WP:DR.
4. Give up and work on some other page.

Advice for the other editors:

1. Give 84.127.80.114 a fresh start and treat his edits and talk page comments as if you have no history with him.
2. Pay careful attention to his edits/comments, and avoid the situation we had before where he identified a factual error and was ignored.
3. Be extra careful that your own edits are encyclopedic, well sourced, and are from a neutral point of view.
4. Follow WP:BRD.

I will leave this open for another 24 hours in case anyone has any questions, then I intend to close it. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Closing case now. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2014 (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

• Khojaly Massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Grandmaster (talk · contribs)
• Urartu TH (talk · contribs)
• Divot (talk · contribs)
• Antelope Hunter (talk · contribs)
• Ninetoyadome (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have a disagreement with Urartu TH about the inclusion of Human Rights Watch death toll estimates into the infobox. HRW, which conducted a thorough investigation of the tragedy, writes: "While it is widely accepted that 200 Azeris were murdered, as many as 500-1,000 may have died". Urartu TH believes that the infobox should contain only the lower estimate of 200, as the higher numbers in his opinion are not realistic. In my opinion, we cannot censor the source like that, as it is not up to us to engage in WP:OR and decide what is and what is not a reliable estimate. I believe that we should stick to whatever HRW says, with proper attribution of citations, in accordance with WP:VERIFY, i.e. the infobox should say "200 - possibly up to 500 - 1,000" in the part that cites HRW. Grandmaster 15:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Another point here is, that if we include into infobox only the lower estimates of HRW, this would create a false impression that HRW does not consider higher estimates to be plausible. That is certainly not the case. Grandmaster 23:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion at talk of the article

How do you think we can help?

By providing opinions

User Grandmaster has been attempting to change the casualties portion of the infobox on the Khojaly massacre article. This user is in dispute with myself, Divot and Antelope Hunter in this matter. We wish to keep the status quo as it represents what has been the consensus for some time. Grandmaster is attempting to add a controversial figure (500-1000 casualties) which is mentioned only ONCE in a footnote on page 24 of (http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/a/azerbjn/azerbaij94d.pdf). This speculative and highly dubious figure is already noted in the body of the article.

The figure is clearly an offhand comment and its inclusion in the infobox meets neither Wikipedia standards of WP:UNDUE nor WP:NPOV. The upper-end figure of 1000 that Grandmaster wishes to include is one that not even the government of Azerbaijan (a biased party in regards to the issue of the article) uses; they themselves claim 613 casualties. The "footnote figure" is found no where else in any document and is merely the speculative musings of one HRW scribe in one single footnote. It should not be given the same weight as casualty figures we know to be true, such as the 161+ casualty or the 200 casualty figures. The article involves a highly controversial and sensitive topic along with articles about all the other massacres during the Karabakh war on both sides.--Urartu TH (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

1. According Azerbaijani government - 613 people
2. Accordin Tom de Waal - 485 people
3. According HRW - 161+ people
4. In the comment HRW wrote "While it is widely accepted that 200 hundred Azeris were murdered, as many as 500-1,000 may have died"

The last comment have a blunder. "200 hundred Azeris" means 20.000 Azeris. Again, 1000 is an obvious exaggeration, no one source use this figure.

So, according Neutral point of view (Balancing aspects) we can use in principle this figure in the topic, but, of course, not in the Infobox, where we must use reliable figures, not dubious speculations, like 20000 or "possibly up to 500 - 1,000" victims. Divot (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

As already stated, the number 1000 is speculative and not even the Azerbaijani government claims such a high number. It falls under WP:Due and should be kept out of the article. --Antelope Hunter (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I actually have no opinion on this matter, you guys can make a decision if you like. Ninetoyadome (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

We'll wait another day to see if Ninetoyadome would like to also make an opening statement and then we can proceed with discussion. Thanks for your patience, for remaining civil and avoiding personal comments. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ninetoyadome has said he/she is neutral on this issue and would like to leave it to others to decide. How would the remaining participants like to proceed?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe Grandmaster has received answers to his inquiry in regards to this dipuste. There is clearly a consensus in leaving the status quo intact and NOT including the speculative figure Grandmaster was attempting to add into the article; to reiterate, it is in violation of WP:UNDUE amongst other rules.--Urartu TH (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I haven't received any answers yet, and no, there's no consensus. Of the involved editors, 1 neutral, 2 support inclusion of the whole range of HRW estimates, and 3 against. That is far from consensus, plus consensus is not formed on the basis of voting anyway. And I do not see what WP:UNDUE has to do with this at all. At this point, I'm not so much interested in the opinions of the previously involved users, as we already know what each of us thinks. I would rather like to see the opinions of third party editors, a fresh look. Something like an RFC or 3o. Grandmaster 23:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Brandmeister was not involved in the discussions about the speculative figure before the DRN. Therefore, of the four editors that were involved besides yourself, 3 are against and 1 is abstaining. This is enough of a consensus.--Urartu TH (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The massacre is in my watchlist and in response to my post at the talkpage it seems like Urartu TH has nothing against having HRW's upper bound of 1,000 in the article's body. I'm fine with it. Brandmeister^talk 08:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well then I guess we have a full consensus now against. I personally also think it should be removed from the body, but I suppose that's another matter since this is about the infobox.--Urartu TH (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If I may contribute my humble opinion, regarding the infobox, the 500-1000 estimate is not reliable enough. It does not matter whether editors find the estimate reliable. HRW says "may have died". "May" indicates that it is plausible but not reliable. As a side note, it would help the readers if the link to the report were in the reference. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

WP makes its decisions based on 'rough consensus', not votes. However, sometimes a straw poll is useful to clarify which way participants are leaning. With this in mind I'd like to ask User:Grandmaster, User:Urartu TH, User:Brandmeister, User:Divot, and User: Antelope Hunter etc. to vote on Grandmaster's proposal for the infobox only.

• Current text: Deaths 161+, or 200 (Human Rights Watch) 613 (Azerbaijan claim)
• Proposed text: Deaths 200 (possibly up to 500 or 1,000 per Human Rights Watch) 613 (Azerbaijan claim)

Please vote below. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. As mentioned by most editors, the 500-1000 figure is extremely speculative and unsubstantiated; plus it's already mentioned in the body of the article.--Urartu TH (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. With the same success we can give speculative "20,000 victims" from the same comment. Instead of this I propose to give de Waal's 485 victims. Divot (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Support. Censoring the source is not something that we can do according to the rules. And I think we cannot ignore the rules even if a certain number of editors is in favor of doing that. I would still like to see third opinions, if that is possible. Grandmaster 10:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Support either As long as HRW's 1,000 estimate is mentioned in the article's body and Azerbaijani estimate in the infobox, I'm fine with it, but I don't mind putting that HRW estimate in the infobox either. Brandmeister^talk 11:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. as Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship (WP:VALID). The same source by GM clearly says: "it is widely accepted that 200 hundred Azeris were murdered". Footnotes are secondary additions to the main research/report. The reliable results of any research must be represented in the main text with further explanations. A footnote is not a "thorough investigation". Lkahd (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Speculative and unsupported claim. Per Urartu TH. --Antelope Hunter (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks to all those who participated in the straw poll. I think its valuable for everyone, no matter what your position on this issue, to have an overview of where all the participants stand on the issue at the time of the poll.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:INFOBOX, an info box is described as "A quick and convenient summary of the key facts about a subject, in a consistent format and layout". To my eye, the current text in the infobox is too long, is ambiguous and uses the word claim which creates bias. Given the fact that there are several sources with different figures, wouldn't it be better to say in the infobox:

• Deaths: sources vary

and then let the reader make his own assessment when he/she reads the article? Or even better, why not leave the Death category out of the infobox altogether? Is this a possible compromise?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. The infobox should only give substantiated and reliable information that is at least roughly corroborated/agreed upon by experts; it should not include any wild claims, especially those only found in one single document on a FOOTNOTE. I believe the "footnote figure" of 500-1000 should also be removed from the body of the article. The community has already spoken about this in the straw poll--the decision was entirely in Opposition besides Grandmaster.--Urartu TH (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Disagree The infobox should contain at least the definite number provided by Azerbaijan, perhaps also other definite numbers by reliable sources (as in the current version, which I do not oppose). However, I oppose the removal of HRW estimates from the article body, suggested by Uratu TH above. Brandmeister^talk 14:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Brandmeister. The infobox should provide some numbers. The problem with presenting only the lower estimates of HRW for me is that it may create a false impression that HRW considers higher death toll estimates to be unreliable, which is clearly not the case. Also, to the attention of Urartu TH, straw polls are unbinding. And whether the number is in the footnote or not is immaterial. The rules say nothing about exclusion of information contained in footnotes. As long as it is in the source, we cannot ignore it, and removing it from the article altogether of course is not an option. Maybe a compromise way of putting HRW estimates into infobox would be 200+? Grandmaster 20:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

In fact the HRW figure of 200+ is unreliable as well since it stems from a clear typographical/grammatical error: the document states "200 hundred Azeris..." We cannot know why this error was made and if they did in fact mean "200". The only reliable HRW figure is 161+. Azerbaijan's claim of 613--which is not based on any source or scientific methodology--should be included in the body of the article as they were a party in the battle of Khojaly. I propose going back to what the infobox used to look like, namely "Deaths: HRW 161+". As far as the figure in the footnote, we should clearly note in the body that it is entirely speculative.--Urartu TH (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course, none of that is acceptable due to the clear violation of all rules, in particular, WP:V, WP:OR, etc. And also, it is time to stop speculating around the obvious publisher typo in the footnote. On the same page just a few lines above HRW writes: "More than 200 civilians were killed in the attack, the largest massacre to date in the conflict". [27] So clearly, HRW means that more than 200 Azeri civilians were killed, and the figure of 200+ is not debatable. Grandmaster 18:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The error in the document can be interpreted as affecting WP:V. In any case, the 613 and 500-1000 figures are both unsubstantiated and don't meet WP:UNDUE as agreed upon by a near full consensus above. Let's stop the POV; all of the massacres during the Karabakh conflict are sensitive issues.--Urartu TH (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The document quite unambiguously says that "More than 200 civilians were killed", there can be no other interpretation of this. So the number of 200+ is verifiable, and should be in the infobox. WP:UNDUE does not apply here. If anything, HRW is the most reliable and widely quoted source on the subject, and it has more weight that anything else. Grandmaster 18:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, the idea of saying 'sources vary' seems to be unpopular :-) Looking at the results of the straw poll does anyone see any areas of common ground? Any place where we might be able to achieve some compromise through discussion? Any suggestions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"There are varying estimates of how many Azerbaijanis were killed in or near Khojali. Probably the most reliable figure is that of the official Azerbaijani parliamentary investigation, which put the death toll at 485" - Tom de Waal. "Black Garden : Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War", P. 171. Divot (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the figure by de Waal should also be included in the infobox. I said that at the talk of the article as well. Grandmaster 18:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Tom de Waal is a respected investigative journalist and writer. His agreement with the Azerbaijani's parliaments investigative findings gives them more credence. I Agree with it's inclusion. I propose that the HRW figure of 161+ and Tom De Waal's figure of 485 be the only figures in the infobox. We can mention the Azerbaijani government's new claimed figure of 613 (unsubstantiated) in the body; also the footnote figure should be removed as unreliable (consensus).--Urartu TH (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

161+ is outdated figure, it was superseded with 200+ in a later report. That last number should be in the infobox, 161+ is not necessary. The governmental figure should also be there, whether it is reliable or not is not up to us to judge, as an official figure it is notable and should be mentioned. The number from the footnote cannot be removed from the article, it is verifiable info, and we do not censor sources. And no, there's no consensus for anything so far. The only consensus that we reached so far is for inclusion of de Waal's figures. If there are no objections, I will include it. Grandmaster 18:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

There is clearly a problem with the 200+ figure from the document as it is a part of an error in the document. The 161+ figure is well known and there is not much difference between the figures. I don't see the problem. Also there is a clear consensus that the 500-1000 footnote musing should not be included in the infobox. The reason for this is that is is completely unreliable and simply a wild guess. If it is to stay in the article, this must be mentioned.--Urartu TH (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no problem with 200+ figure whatsoever. You are trying to make a minor typo in the footnote into a big issue, but this figure is repeated twice in the source, and the first instance contains no typo. It clearly says that "more than 200 civilians were killed", and there could be no other interpretation of the text. 161+ is superseded by this later estimate, therefore no need to have 161+ in the infobox. And no, there's so far no consensus for not including 500-1000, and we cannot include original research in the article in the form of a personal opinion either, that would be a violation of WP:OR. Grandmaster 11:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to sidetrack the discussion on other figures or sources for possible inclusion. BUT.... I want to capitalize on that portion of the discussion where common ground is emerging. So....... it appears that User:Divot, User:Urartu TH and User:Grandmaster feel that the Tom de Waal sourced figure of 485 should be included in the infobox. Any input from others on this point?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind either, as long as it's sourced (with attribution in brackets, like other figures in the infobox). Brandmeister^talk 19:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think the 485 figure is a good substitute in place of the unsubstantiated 613 figure now provided as a claim by the Azebaijani government. Tom de Waal derives the 485 number from an Azerbaijani parliamentary investigation (which is still potentially biased but his second of it adds some credence). There is an clearly attempt by the Azerbaijani government and now editors sympathetic to it, to drive up these figures as high as possible in order to differentiate them from the various massacres of hundreds of Armenians during the Karabakh conflict. Let's not forget the straw poll consensus above to knock out the wild 500-1000 claim--Urartu TH (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you don't really understand the purpose of the figures in the infobox. We do not decide whether any figure is substantiated or not. We only provide estimates from the notable sources. Azerbaijani government is obviously notable, and regardless of whether we personally consider their estimates to be reliable or not, it should be in the infobox with proper attribution. De Waal could also be included in the infobox in addition to other estimates, but not instead of. Grandmaster 11:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, not from notable, but reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a place for political propaganda to cite notable numbers by Aliev's Azerbaijan, Putin's Russia, North Korea and so on. All are notable but not reliable. Lkahd (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the articles should be based on reliable third party sources. However, notable POVs should also be quoted, and governments are notable. We do quote Mutalibov and Sargsyan, though they are not neutral. But since they are/were country leaders, their statements present interest. Obviously, the governments are not neutral, and are strongly biased, but the reader has a right to know the opinions of the governments. Therefore, the opinions of governments are not presented as facts, but as POVs, with proper attribution, i.e. the government of Azerbaijan says so and so, the government of Armenia says says so and so, the government of the USA says so and so, etc. If we are to exclude the opinions of the governments, then we should remove any references to the statements of the governments of other countries all over Wikipedia, but I do not see it happening. We can only report the governmental figures with attribution of info, but not as a fact. And this is exactly what is done in the article. Grandmaster 20:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes are for reliable sources ONLY. Government POV and propaganda should be included in the body of the article. Please stop the agenda and personal attacks against me.--Urartu TH (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

In a case when estimates vary, we provide the whole range from various sources. And I have never made any personal attacks. Grandmaster 10:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between legitimate third-party sources, and propaganda from a dictatorship. The Azerbaijani government propaganda figure should'nt be included in the infobox, but instead be in the body of the article under the Azerbaijani perspectives section.--Urartu TH (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

No one says that this number is accurate, or that it is not. That is not up to us to decide. All the article says is that the Azerbaijani government provides this estimate. It is true that the Azerbaijani government provides this number, no one denies that it does, and there's no reason why we should conceal it from the reader, as long as it is properly attributed. Again, whether we personally believe that this number is accurate or not is irrelevant here, we only provide estimates from different sources, and the Azerbaijani government is notable to be quoted. Grandmaster 23:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad we are in agreement. As has been noted by almost all editors above, wild claims and propaganda should not be noted in the infobox but rather in the body of the article. I agree that Azerbaijani government propaganda has a place in the article, perhaps in the "Azerbaijani perspective" section, but not in the infobox.--Urartu TH (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't see anyone objecting to the de Waal figure of 485 being added to the Infobox.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, everybody seems to support the inclusion. Grandmaster 19:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I do have one suggestion here. That each 'death' figure be followed by a citation but without any descriptor or attribution. This will save space in the infobox and more importantly avoid any appearance of editors giving more or less validity to any one figure(s). -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is possible. Quite in line with WP:V. Grandmaster 20:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Should the de Waal figure of 485 replace the 613 Azebaijani govt figure or should both appear in the infobox? Thoughts? Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It should be added, but not to replace anything. Grandmaster 20:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. To be clear De Waal is quoting Azerbaijan's parliament with the 485 figure, it is NOT his original research from what I can tell. The current 613 figure is simply one that is driven up by certain people in the Azerbaijani government for propaganda purposes.--Urartu TH (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Both should appear. While I am for the inclusion of de Waal's figure of 485 in the infobox, I do not believe it should replace any other reliable figure. The figure 613 may come from the Azerbaijani government, but it does not in any way contradict those indicated by other neutral sources, such as HRW, which gives the estimate of 500-1000 victims (as stated in the source quoted above by Grandmaster), or 100+ (literally "more than 100"). 613 seems to fit perfectly well with those estimates, so I believe it should stay. Parishan (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The 500-1000 figure is opposed by all above; please see the straw poll and various reasons for this. The 613 number is only reliable as government propaganda and should be in the body.--Urartu TH (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, so far I do not see a consensus for replacing DeWaal with Azerbaijani, anyone else want to comment?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

But no one objects to inclusion in general, as far as I can see. Grandmaster 23:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, inclusions seems to have good support.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The De Waal figure is quoted from an Azerbaijani parliamentary investigation (which is naturally biased). But at least De Waal adds some credence to it. We can't leave the government propaganda figure of 613 in the infobox. We couldn't simply include every wild claim or piece of government propaganda in the infobox as it would confuse the reader and create far too much text there. We should move the propaganda figure to the Azerbaijani perspective section.--Urartu TH (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You proposed exclusion of 613 figure, it got no consensus. The inclusion of de Waal figure has a support, no one seems to object. So I will go ahead and add it, if no one expresses objection within the next day. Grandmaster 11:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus (at least on this page) for removing the 613 figure.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Any other ideas or suggestions for compromise or agreement on any issue however small?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Participation seems to be waning. Is it time to close the case?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

We should leave the 161+ HRW figure and add De Waal 485 (from Azerbaijani parliament figure). The 613 propaganda figure should be moved to the appropriate section.--Urartu TH (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this does not seem to be going anywhere. We may try other dispute resolution options, if the disagreement persists. Grandmaster 11:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Honestly I fail to see how the wording "more than 161" or "500–1000" contradicts the figure 613, and why the latter needs to be taken out. I also find it amusing that the eight comments left here by User:Urartu TH in the past five days feature the word "propaganda" 12 times, especially considering the fact that no reliable source has ever questioned the death toll provided by the Azerbaijani government. Parishan (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated government figures with no empirical evidence supporting them is not propaganda? The dictatorship in Azerbaijan ignores the hundreds of Armenians who were killed in various massacres and pushes POV nonsense about the Khoyjaly tragedy. The 613 figure is pure government propaganda. It should not be included amongst 161+ HRW or De Waal 485 (citing Azerbaijan's parliament) in the infobox.--Urartu TH (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Parishan has a good point. The death toll provided by the Azerbaijani government is not something outrageous, it is quite in line with the numbers provided by HRW. And as I said before, this figure is not presented as a fact, but as a notable POV with proper attribution. That is quite in line with the rules. And please mind WP:SOAPBOX. Grandmaster 11:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

As noted in the straw poll and the discussion above, all editors besides yourself agreed that the 161-200+ HRW figure was reliable. This is not close to 613. Furthermore, the 485 figure is from the Azerbaijani parliament. Pushing propaganda is in violation of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV. Propaganda has a place, but not alongside unbiased figures in the infobox. I recommend taking a look at the original discussion far above.--Urartu TH (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Urartu TH, what made you decide that the government figures were "unsubstantiated"? Who proved them to be so? And how does the figure "161-200+" (+ means "more than") contradicts 613, which is clearly more than 161-200? I expect to find answers to these questions, because in all honesty, your ridiculous overuse of the word 'propaganda' simply does not convince me. Parishan (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This case was opened in the hopes that some resolution could be achieved in regard to what content should be included or excluded from the Death section of the Infobox. Based on the discussion and straw poll I did not see any consensus for the proposed addition of the phrase: (possibly up to 500 or 1,000). However, further discussion did provide a 'rough consensus' (per WP:CONSENSUS) for the addition of the 485 figure per de Waal to the Infobox. There was a suggestion the the 485 de Waal figure replace the 613 Azebaijani government figure in the Infobox but there was little support for this proposal. As is often the case in dispute resolution not everyone gets exactly what they want but I feel that the participants found some common ground and that the issue has moved in the direction of resolution. Since no new areas of potential compromise have been ID'd in the last few days and participants are instead beginning to re-hash old issues I feel it is time to close this case as resolved. I thank all of the participants for their civil and good faith participation and wish them well. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 11 March 2014 (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

• Highland Clearances (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Richard Keatinge (talk · contribs)
• 94.173.7.13 (talk · contribs)
• Sabrebd (talk · contribs)
• Camerojo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Richard Keatinge after a previous attempt to remove content from the article, to the extent of seeking to do so via dispute resolution that was 'Closed as failed' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_87#Highland_Clearances ) has, sadly, again, taken upon himself to remove content from the article. At the first instance, upon failure of Richard Keatinge to remove the content from the article there was consensus drawn from other users for the content to move from the lead of the article to a section of the article with a brief overview of the section then given in the lead. Since then, Richard Keatinge has taken upon himself to appear sporadically to see either that the content of the section be the subject of deletion in toto or to minimise the content as much as possible. As such I do not oppose brevity or the encouragement of encyclopaedic language, yet the content of the section has taken shape through discussion and talks about consensus and neutral POV that Keatinge has not taken any involvement in, except very very briefly and very very recently. In questioning why Richard Keatinge has taken upon himself to delete content, he responds without mentioning specifically any problems in relation to content but merely asserting widespread problems and Wikipedia guidelines without relating them to content of the section. As the content of section is still in the process of attaining consensus through gradual additions and discussion of verifiability and neutrality, Richard Keatinge has taken upon himself to enter into that discussion at a late stage, state that deletions must occur and that other contributors should contribute to his personal user sandbox instead of the article itself. Subsequently replacing the content of his sandbox with that of the article despite many attempts to ascertain precisely what his problems are in relation to the content.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page, previous dispute resolution.

How do you think we can help?

By clarifying precisely what Richard Keatinge's problems are with the content so as to reach consensus about any possible deletion of content for the sake of brevity or encyclopaedic language, instead of deletion in toto without providing any specific reasoning other than mere assertion.

Three editors, SabreBD, Camerojo, and myself, have come to a consensus that this edit is a good idea, an improvement in itself, and offers promise of further progress. This follows very extensive discussion on the Talk page, from here onward, which has produced agreement that anti-Catholic feeling was some slight support to the Clearances and that in the widespread misery the Catholic population may have suffered disproportionately. The edit removes quite a lot of explanatory material better located (and better expressed) on Roman Catholicism in Scotland, verbosity, and a small amount of OR and POV pushing (to the effect that anti-Catholic feeling was a major element in the Clearances, deserving extensive and discursive discussion in the article. 94.173.7.13 simply isn't getting the point. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

From the start, at the commencement of first dispute resolution, there has been an attempt to characterise my input as giving more weight to anti-Catholicism than the words that I use state. The precise words I gave in my initial addition: 'One of the results of the Clearances was the near extinction of Roman Catholicism in Scotland, and there remains debate amongst historians as to how much this was a factor in thoughts of those who were responsible for the clearances.'[[28]] As such, I do not give any weight to anti-Catholicism, merely that there is debate about how much it was a factor in The Clearances. The current content of the section, content that Richard Keatinge wishes to delete, is not my contribution only. A number of contributors made additions to the point that the section looks like it does. These contributions are the result of discussion about content, verifiability, and neutrality that Richard Keatinge was largely absent from. Despite many attempts asking where there is OR or POV problems, Richard Keatinge has merely made an assertion that they are there without giving any examples of it. Similarly, in asserting that material is 'better located (and better expressed)' in another article, Richard Keatinge has been ignorant of the fact that the material has been the addition of a number of contributors through the process of consensus building, talks about verification, and neutrality, built upon my initial contribution to the article. If they were 'better located (and better expressed)' elsewhere, why was there an addition of the content at all? The vast majority of it is from other users than myself. Again, what precisely Richard Keatinge thinks is not relevant and 'better located (and better expressed)' elsewhere, isn't forthcoming. Merely an assertion of lack of relevance along with a subsequent deletion.

I would also like to note, specifically, that Richard Keatinge is guilty of WP:CANVAS for employing use of his sandbox instead of the talk page or the article itself to make edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.7.13 (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This is part of what is now a very extensive and at times frustrating dispute over the content of the page (by my count it is now more than 23,000 words of discussion). The "deleted text" is not as the IP implies of long standing (as tacitly accepted by them here). The other editors on the page would have preferred to have agreed the content in the talkpage first, but accepted the idea of editing down the section to something more balanced and concise later. There was a process of negotiation and compromise that then produced a shorter and balanced text. Everyone involved then agreed to the change except the IP who then reverted the new version and continues to do so. I admit this may be a difficult dispute to now fully comprehend, not least because the IP talks the talk of NPOV, consensus and compromise, but then essentially uses the revert as a veto and then templates as a mechanism for WP:POINT editing, as here and here.--SabreBD (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Since his appearance on this page, a number of editors have crossed swords with the IP editor - not just myself and Richard Keatinge and SabreBD. In particular User:Andrew_Gray, User:Brianann_MacAmhlaidh, User:Shipsview. I know that is off topic of this particular dispute but I think it is relevant because it shows a clear pattern of behaviour. All editors have found it impossible to collaborate with him. In this particular matter, we have a clear agreement among the rest of us on content, but the IP editor insists that his view must prevail and strenuously resists any attempts at compromise.

I would like to add that I have been continuously involved in this larger dispute from the beginning - here, and the IP editor's claim that the content being deleted is the result of previous consensus of several editors is misleading - as evidenced by the talk page and the page history. I have contributed some content which no longer appears but I have no problem with the proposed new content. I agree with the other editors that what is being proposed is an acceptable compromise that we can build on. --Camerojo (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I am considering being the volunteer who would open, and moderate this case. I'd feel better about leading the discussion if the filing part, who appears as an IP, would consider creating a WP account and user name. I think this would benefit this discussion, the IP and the WP project in general. This is not a requirement for DRN, just my personal preference and request. Would the filing party consider this?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Is there a way we can confirm that I am the former IP, or are all contributors happy with that? FelisRead(talk) 18:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be valuable and appropriate to post a note on your user page indicating that you formerly edited under the xxx IP address and that in future you will edit only under your WP account, FelisRead, to avoid any future accusations that you have two accounts for a less than productive purpose. And thank you for honoring my request. IP's are supposed to be treated with them same respect as account users but in spite of this 'policy' I find that there is some IP bias amongst the community. I think this will work better all around.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• DRN discussions are not binding. Future discussions and/or talk page consensus may contradict conclusions or agreements made here at DRN. At the same time we should give proper respect and due consideration to the DRN process, its conclusions and its good intentions.
• Not everyone will be 100% happy, no matter what the outcome of this moderated discussion.
• We will discuss content only. We are not here to discuss anyone's behavior. If you feel an editor's behavior has violated a WP guideline then open a case at WP:ANI after this DRN case has been closed.
• Stay in the present. We are not here to discuss things that happened in the past or to re-enact detailed discussions that have already taken place on the talk page.
• We are here in an attempt to find some common ground and/or compromise that will enable the involved editors and the article to move forward in a productive manner.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that there has been a lot of discussion on the talk page about making significant changes to the article. An editor recently made a bold edit [29] which both removed and reorganized content in the article, based on what they felt was consensus from the talk page. The bold edit was reverted and then reinstated by a second editor [30]. However, editor FelisRead (IP 94.173.7.13) objects to this reorganization of the article and has filed this DRN case as a result of these recent changes. Is that a fair summary?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The substance of what you say true, some of the details are not.

There was discussion about the process of changing the article, with my position being of gradual development and then subsequent reorganisation once it was clear what was still in dispute following discussion about verification and neutrality [31]). This was because development of the article was proving controversial, and there was a number of disagreements about precisely what a number of given sources say.

First, Camerojo gave his consent to this [32], then Richard Keatinge (though stipulating that his preference was deletion and starting from scratch) [33], and finally, Sabrebd also gave his consent to this process [34].

Despite this, deletion of the content by Richard Keatinge took place [35], after SabreBD's change of mind[36], and then Camerojo [37].

This was done via Richard Keatinge's sandbox (where if anything there was several other deletions), after an invite to add content, there, to an already drastic reduction in content of a section of the article [38]. This, I will state again, because it was at the source of my annoyance, was in violation of WP:CANVAS, after asking all users who agree with him to edit the sandbox instead of the article itself. The sandbox was simply the consensus of those who agree with Richard Keatinge.

The specific reasons why such a large chunk of the content was suitable for deletion were not given. Richard Keatinge merely asserts it was because of 'prolixities, irrelevancies, and original research', whilst stating that my opposition to deletion was not relevant opposition [39], and then '[p]robably because it's long winded, most of it is of peripheral relevance to the article and best placed elsewhere, and the rest goes well beyond its sources to exude strong hints of POV and original research.'[40]. This 'probably' was the sum total of his reasoning. There has since been a refusal to link any of these assertions to the content itself. All the other users simply state they agree with Richard Keatinge's changes, yet they too are not linking any of these assertions to the content.

After reverting to the original content because of a lack of consensus on the article talk page (and not Richard Keatinge's sandbox), [41], I then took care to revert the content for a second and final time, [42], whilst asking that any users who wish to enter into the dispute resolution process (that was then on file) nominate themselves on the talk page. Despite this, there was a subsequent revert by Richard Keatinge[43].

That sums up my basis for seeking dispute resolution. Please don't ask me to write anything like that again! That was torture! :) FelisRead(talk) 22:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Keithbob, that's a fair summary of the central point. I have not ventured to refactor your comments, but I think your first diff should be this one. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've corrected that. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That's the first revert of Richard Keatinge's initial deletion by Camerojo, however, that first revert by Camerojo came after filing The Dispute Resolution. There was then a second revert of Richard Keatinge's initial deletion by Richard Keatinge himself.

The other users in The Dispute Resolution were subsequent additions , so I think it was a good idea to restate the Dispute Overview in relation to all the users and not merely Richard Keatinge, who was, at the time of writing the original Dispute Overview, the only user other than myself given involvement. FelisRead(talk) 09:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks FelisRead for filling in some of the details concerning the timeline. Any comments from others?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Rather than repeating and commenting on the edit histories, I'd think it most useful to respond to any comments you may choose to pose. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Richard Keatinge. Responding to comments about content is the most conducive way of settling the dispute.FelisRead(talk) 21:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Since Keithbob mentions the timeline I have to point out that I did not change my mind with the edit listed. I suggested we needed a more concise section as far back as this edit. Also I reiterate that in reluctantly agreeing that text could be added to the article and then edited down I clearly was not signalling my agreement to that text and it clearly indicates that the text was provisional. That cannot be used as an argument that the added text has the status of a status quo anti. The process of editing this into something concise on the sandbox is exactly the sort of task I anticipated when I agreed to that. That all said, I would no rather move on to discussing what is essential in the text.--SabreBD (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I accept that Sabredbd was reluctantly agreeing. And I appreciate that he would like to discuss content now. Thank you. FelisRead(talk) 08:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, now that we have identified the core of the dispute, I'll have a deeper look at the talk page and then share my comments and observations (as suggested by the participants) and we can proceed from there.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Any comments or discussion on my observations as stated above?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't comment on the way the article is at the minute. It wasn't my intention to overhaul the article completely, as was done by Richard Keatinge, very recently, under the pressure of this dispute resolution. I wouldn't say that the goal of rearrangement that he is pursuing is in anyway wrong. The article does need rearrangement. And the consensus of all the contributors (not just myself, by any means) usually gives a good faith rearrangement the depth that is being sought-after. It would seem to me that any rearrangement built upon consensus would be a good thing in itself. But there are aspects of the rearrangement I agree with.

I can comment on the section that was my concern, that was built around a contribution, of my own, to the article. A contribution that I did not think was as controversial as it would turn out to be. For the sake of clarity, that is the admittedly incomplete section that went under the title Roman Catholicism as it appears in the negative column in the Revision as of 16:39, 4 March 2014 in this diff.

First of all, I accept that in that section there is WP:OVERCITE. Intially, I was adding citations because of the challenge to my addition, and at that stage I was unfamiliar with elements of the Wikipedia guidelines. As for WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, I can't accept that there is any WP:SYNTH or WP:OR in my reading of that section. If anyone could give me an example of it, I would gladly see to it that we reach agreement on a rearrangement of the wording or delete anything that is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. There are certain things that are implicit in amongst the sources in the WP:OVERCITE that has been drawn out on the talk page, and not (yet!) the article, that may seem to be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, but I could point to direct quotes if necessary. I don't need to add what is rough "talk page" back-and-forth answers in the format that it actually is at the moment.

I will say this, Richard Keatinge's comment that there is undue weight in relation to the section that is my concern is accurate. And when I say that, what is meant is that, it is not in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published material. My acceptance of that fact was unequivocal. Yet it looks like that for two reasons...

One, because of contributions that are not merely my own. Where contributors were challenging my points, with counterpoints, then suddenly both point and counterpoint disappear... there is potential that there has been a deletion of valuable material. If point and counterpoint are actually now seen by the contributors not to be, then they should say so. Then brevity is not only valuable, it is necessary.

Two, because, proportionately, the social and cultural reasons for The Clearances other than anti-Catholicism were not written in a section under a comparable title. And economics wasn't under a title at all. It is throughout the article in different sections under a number or weird and wonderful titles. That it why I agree with rearrangement of the article. FelisRead(talk) 01:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree in general with Keithbob's points and feel that they offer useful ways forward. I might quibble about the account by Donald McLeod being excess weight, it was a central part of the public presentation of the Clearances at the time and since. (I recall my father showing me the green mounds in Strathnaver and paraphrasing McLeod from memory.) If it's really felt to be too much for the article perhaps we should link to another Wikimedia version of the account.I apologize for the overciting, which does need fixing; in the middle of contentious reorganizations I've found it useful to keep all the citations temporarily. I have made very much a first cut at rearrangement, an attempt in response to User:Ehrenkater's Essay template, at putting both incidents and themes into rough chronological order, and I realize that there is much more to be done. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with Keithbob's points. Thank you for your input. --Camerojo (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion then is to return to the article talk page and sort out any remaining issues concerning the new content in the Religion section as I have the impression that most parties would be open to some discussion on tweaking that content.

Good luck, and thanks for your willingness to participate in dispute resolution and for your continued civility and your patience with the sometimes frustrating collaborative process. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

As such I am noting my disagreement with your decision. Yet I am moving on. Though I can see, in their lack of reasoning, a future dispute resolution on file if the other users continue with their behaviour. The primary cause of the dispute as given in the Dispute Overview has been totally swept aside. It suggests to me that the users do not intend to discuss changes, and therefore they will cause another dispute by their actions. I hope they will change their behaviour, yet I do not see any reason to suggest that will happen. FelisRead(talk) 20:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved dispute resolution volunteer) I agree with Keithbob's suggestion. Please keep in mind that anyone involved can file a new DRN case if the talk page discussion isn't working -- but please give it time and your best effort. Reading WP:CONSENSUS may help. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not challenging the decision. I disagree with it, but I understand that it was a good faith decision. I wish to thank Keithbob for donating his time. FelisRead(talk) 21:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note that my role is as a moderator and normally I don't give my opinions but since I was asked by parties on both sides of the fence I did so. It is not a 'decision', as I am not a 'judge'. But as an uninvolved third party those were my observations and assessments. Hopefully they will give some perspective to the situation and allow for further discussion and collaboration on the talk page. If future issues arise then please return or avail yourself of other tools in the WP:Dispute resolution tool box. Thanks to everyone for their civility and good faith contributions. Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:10, 11 March 2014 (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

• 2014 Ukrainian revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Vapour (talk · contribs)
• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)
• LokiiT (talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I added content from Harrez newspaper reporting incidents of attack on jews and synagogues. The paper also note rise of far right antisemitic party in the new Ukraine government. I also added that these are used by Putin as a justification for intervention.[44] This was swiftly removed by VolunteerMark as a POV edit. Since he is not disputing Harrez's reliability or that such incident took place, I really don't see his argument has any merit. Whether one agree with Russia's argument is a separate matter from whether such argument is raised by Russia.

I have subsequently listed several major news source which also reports existence of far right element in the revolution but it appear that VoluteerMark is adamant that this is a POV edit. I believe inclusion of content about attack on minority or rise of far right in ongoing volatile situation deserve somewhat speedier resolution. I should also mention that I and Loki welcome VolunteerMark adding further contents into this matter. However, Mark seems intent on just removing the issue all together.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Told Mark that content is sourced from a legitimate source. Plus, reminded him that attack on jews and synagogue is a factual account and not really an opinion. Loki also told Mark that he could be more helpful by adding and expanding the contents rather than removing the issue/section all together. Yet, Mark is repeating that the edit is a POV so I feel being stonewalled.

How do you think we can help?

Could you remind everyone about wikipdia policy of sourcing contents and differentiating facts and POVs.

As was seen below we have sources which say there has been no increase in anti-semitic attacks in Ukraine. Cherry picking and distorting a source are not on. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the section is neutral, no one has disputed the fact that anti-Semetic incidences have taken place according to reliable sources. But actually adding this information to the article seems next to impossible, despite the fact that only Volunteer Marek and a drive-by reverter have issue with the content in question.

Marek has repeatedly claimed that he is not opposed to including factual information regarding anti-Semetic activity, and only has issue with its supposed lack of neutrality. However, when I attempted to expand the section with more content/different sources and fix a few of the POV issues[45][46] (including adding a POV template and including incidences implicating the other side) my edits were met with full reverts and hostile comments such as this: [47]. Marek is citing WP:NPOV as reason for his blanking [48], which I noted is not in line with wikipedia policy (especially since it's contested). He and Darkness Shines seem to be trying their hardest to be uncooperative.

Also it's worth noting that Darkness Shines had no prior history editing in that article, or any related articles, and did not even attempt to properly justify his position on the talk page.

Quick question. Vapour says: I have subsequently listed several major news source which also reports . Ummm... AFAICT, it wasn't Vapour that added "several major news source", it was LokiiT, who showed up a little later to back up Vapour on this edit. Of course these "several major news source" were like the "Kiev synagogue" being discussed below. But nm that, I'm just confused about what Vapour is referring to here.

Anyway. Look at the talk page. It's pretty clear Vapour quoted selectively from a source, omitting a very relevant part with an ellipsis (the "..."). That source was also an opinion piece, and not, as he claims a report. Finally, not that it matters but I'm getting a little tired of pointing it out, it's "Haaretz" not "Harrez" or "Harrtez". Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

24-hour closing notice: I'm of the opinion that this isn't quite ripe for dispute resolution in light of the state of flux of the article and the failure of the three additional editors to clarify their positions here, so could use additional discussion at the article talk page and/or a RFC before coming to mediated dispute resolution. Unless the three editors clarify their positions and someone disabuses me of that notion by 14:00 UTC on 13 14 Mar 2014, I'm going to close this listing for those reasons at or after that time. You may edit below to respond to this notice (only). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I do not have chance to visit and discuss it everyday so could you give me a bit more time. My point is that attack and jews and synabogue taking place seem to be facts and well sourced. Whether that amount to antisemetic attack is disputed among several chief rabbi. One can, of course, put perspective on both side, simply censor one side as "propaganda" or to eliminate the mention of the fact that attack on jew and synagogue took place is not "kosher". Vapour (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm extending the closure another 24 hours per your request, but you have to remember that all we can do here is to try to help editors come to consensus. When some of them do not even care to come to the table — as is their right, no one is ever required to participate in mediated dispute resolution if they do not care to do so — there's no point in making the attempt. Request for Comment is about the only possibility for dispute resolution in that situation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:07, 13 March 2014 (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

• Marian Dawkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• DrChrissy (talk · contribs)
• Johnuniq (talk · contribs)
• Drmies (talk · contribs)
• CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk · contribs)
• timelezz (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I'd like to draw your attention to the sockpuppetry related to a COI/OR/OWN editor DrChrissy and her gang. In summary:

-There were COI/OR case of DrChrissy on the notice boards -DrChrissy admitted she has a gang and ask other to join -CYl7EPTEMA777 identified Johnuniq as a sockpuppets -Many editors had similar negative experience with her, Drmies told other editors that she has a sockpuppet farm -Johnuniq, Drmies and other similar accounts has been follow, harass, defame editors who want to correct the POV/OWN/OR/COI problem of DrChrissy. -The gang have censor illegitimately other editors talk pages: -My edits are repeated blocked by the gang. They also revert my comments that expose their misconducts on noticeboards and other places around the site (such as edit summary). -You can see some of their censorship in the recent history of two users talk pages: CYl7EPTEMA777 and timelezz. You can also find evidence of censorship in recent edit history of 'animal welfare'. They removed normal editing summary. -The comments they censored are considered normal by multiple editors. You can see the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=597722520#What_to_do.3F -They blocked indefinitely another major editor who tried to add balance to the articles, user CYl7EPTEMA777. The reason of block was problematic. They said they found CYl7EPTEMA777's edits from IPs (without login). So they block CYl7EPTEMA777 for sockpupetry etc. -The gang is best at confounding black and white. They accuse editors for exactly what they did to others. A transparent/open discussion of the issues on wikipedia website is very difficult. Because, one side of opinions are constantly censored. The gang is in de facto control of many animal related articles. Their activity undermine the neutrality and collaboration of Wikipedia.

Links of evidences: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DESiegel&oldid=598986273

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed extensively on the talk pages of related articles (such as animal welfare, pain in animals, Marian Dawkins). Tried to put on noticeboards too.

How do you think we can help?

Restore the transparency of discussion. Remove sock-puppets and illegitimate censorship

A "gang"? That's news to me. This complaint would be too ridiculous to respond to if it didn't involve the continuous defamation of Dr. Chrissy by a POV warrior who, besides being unable to write proper English, can't seem to follow basic guidelines of Wikipedia editing. I'll wait and see if any of the other gang members think this is worthy of spending more time on; when we're done, we'll look at installing a big, fat rangeblock, for instance. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• At least four editors had similar negative experience with DrChrissy and her gang. Me, timelezz, CYl7EPTEMA777 and PraetorianFury. See their recent talk pages.
• Drmies don't have enough knowledge of science, but she always meddle her finger into scientific contents. She also like to lie, see my past message on her talk page for her past lies, she told other editors that she has a sockpuppet farm
• 'a big, fat rangeblock'? See, the only thing she can do and want to do when losing an debate is censorship. 124.170.231.48 (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Whatever. "Racist liar" my foot. Look carefully to see my meddling finger and guess which one it is. Drmies (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

This dispute resolution was opened by a block evading IP hopper who has been engage in personal harassment of DrChrissy and general disruption of Wikipedia for some time now. As Drmies‎ points out above, an appropriate resolution of this conflict would be an immediate range block of the IP hopper. I am One of Many (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• @I am One of Many: thanks. I opened an ANI thread. As a racist liar, it wouldn't be right for me to block this IP and, at any rate, a range block is necessary, yes. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2014 (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

• Blue Army (Poland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• COD T 3 (talk · contribs)
• Faustian (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I'd like to ask for third party assistance on several issues regarding the Blue Army article. In particular the greatly over-expanded Controversies section, which was significantly enlarged to include big chunks of text dedicated to subject matter not directly associated with the Blue Army. Also, I would like to point out that most Wiki article admins control the size of content as not to have one user come-in and dump larger amounts of text in one section, and in the process completely shift the balance of the article, by creating un-due weight issues by simply over expanding one section.

Redundant statements re-emphasize similar points: (the two phrases are only one sentence apart).

• many ethnic Ukrainians and Jews generally see its conduct during the war in a negative light.
• As a result, Jews perceived Haller's Army as particularly harmful to their interests.

Overstating wrongful claims; as those made by historian William W. Hagen. If his claims were soundly disproven, why include them? More importantly why does the paragraph go into such detail about the events of the pogrom when the Blue Army was not even there in the first place? Also, as noted by historian Edward Goldstein, the Blue Army was accuse of several pogroms; that they had nothing to do with, so Hagen's wrongful accusation is nothing unusual. Finally, other editors proposed to remove the text in the past.

Over emphasizing individuals not directly linked to the Blue Army. The entire paragraph about Hugh S. Gibson, and his opinions about the Jews are completely irrelevant to our topic. Also, the American envoy was not sent to Poland to look after Haller's troops, yet his prominence in the text is overblown. Finally, his reporting on the "food riots" is also not directly related to this article, as the events primarily occurred during civilian unrest, and not done by the army.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to contact other editors who contributed in the past to the article.

How do you think we can help?

Please, look over the disputed Controversies section; which contains issues of neutrality, un-due weight, puffery, and a general unencyclopedic tone.

The article had been stable with a consensus version for a long time until recent disruptions, which are designed to whitewash anti-Jewish crimes committed by this military unit. The editor was caught dishonestly presenting sources twice. One example is here: COD T 3 wrote: " Also, I had a chance to read the "sourced" text on Google Books, and found that nowhere is Gibson called an anti-semite, or that he held a personal hostility towards jews." Diff: [53]. He admits being this IP: [54].

Here was from the source: Ideology, Politics, and Diplomacy in East Central Europe Mieczysław B. Biskupski, Piotr Stefan Wandycz University Rochester Press, 2003 [55] Direct quote from the book: "He [Gibson] stood out for his antisemitism even in an era when genteel disdain for things Jewish pervaded the clublike atmosphere of the foreign service. Upon their arrival in Warsaw, the Yankee diplomats [including,. of course, Gibson] found their prejudices confirmed by an almost physical repugnance towards the city's exotic Orthodox Jewry...to Gibson and his colleagues, the Jews represented antagonists and also a source of sport, and ridicule of Jewish traits, customs, and appearance became the favorite expression of camaderie within the legation." Page 67.

So his claims ought to be viewed with a grain of salt.

A discussion about the article's intro is here: [56].Faustian (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer (and the current coordinator here). It appears to me that the listing editor has limited this request to the Controversies section, so we will not be dealing with the introduction. As for the Controversies section, just the length of it seems UNDUE in relationship to the rest of the article. Information should be included in articles in relationship to its importance to the subject of the article. The BA's antisemitism is clearly important, but it is not the most important thing about the BA in comparison to the general information about what the BA was and did and how it played a part in history. That's not to say that it does not need to be included, but it does need to be included proportionately. Fortunately, it also appears to me that the section's length may be cut down by removal of what appears to be inappropriate material. Let's start this discussion with the Gibson material. I've read through the section a couple of times now and for the life of me cannot figure out what the paragraph beginning "The United States sent an envoy" about Gibson has to do with the Blue Army. The only connection between Gibson and the BA would seem to be in the sentence, "General Józef Haller himself issued a proclamation demanding that his soldiers stop cutting off beards of Orthodox Jews, and complained about the violent antisemitism of the Polish-American units to the American envoy Hugh S. Gibson." (Emphasis added.) When you look at the source for that comment here, it does not go on to say that Gibson was involved with the BA or had any authority or responsibility over the BA. Even the idea that it was a "complaint" seems to overstate the source material, which only says at page 276, "General Haller told me that he was greatly annoyed with his troops because they were violently anti-Semitic and that although he had given the strictest orders to keep them in line they were hounding Jews at every opportunity." That same source does mention that Gibson made several negative reports back to Washington about the antisemitic actions of the Polish-American soldiers in the BA and also says that Louis Marshall, Chairman of the Committee of Jewish Delegations at the Paris Peace Conference, criticized Gibson for (among other things) brushing off the antisemitic actions of the BA as "minor persecution". Again, though, I simply cannot see how any of that justifies that paragraph of material about Gibson in this article about the BA, but perhaps I'm not seeing or am misunderstanding something. Faustian can you explain how and why that material should be in this article about the BA? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

One of the reasons for this section's length is that some pro-BA editors disputed the existence, prevalence or scope of antisemitic violence, resulting in proofs and counter-proofs and a necessity to back up the claims about such violence with numerous sources. If I recall correctly, someone used Gibson as a source trying to exonerate the Blue Army, so in response the fact that Gibson was an antisemite (rendering his exoneration non-objective) was included. I don't oppose removing Gibson completely, or reducing that part to a sentence. The controversy section can also be trimmed by removing or reducing the Hagen paragraph. I felt it would be useful because Hagen was wrong, the info might come up somewhere, and here we have evidence that Hagen made a mistake; perhaps another reductrion to one sentence with proof in a note rather than the article body. Another possible place to trim would be the part about Jews in Haller's Army, which does not seem to be based on a very academic source: [57].Faustian (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that getting rid of Gibson altogether is a good idea. Also, the Hagen paragraph should be removed completely. The reason for this, is that the BA was accused several times of pogroms they did to commit, so no need to single out this particular claim over others. As for the Edward Goldstein research into Jews serving in the BA; I'm not sure how to approach this issue. His research is not truly academic, but does provide some valid claims; one solution is to maybe separate this paragraph, and make it into a separate sub-section?? Also, as noted above I would like to address the quality of the text itself, simply because of the piecemeal nature of how the section was created; and finally discuss the issues of redundancy, and puffery in the text. --COD T 3 (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're at least in agreement that we can get rid of the references to Gibson and I'm going to implement that change. Let me look at the Hagen paragraph and I'll get back to this discussion later today or tomorrow. Let's put Goldstein on hold for the moment. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Faustian, in this discussion and this edit at Lwów pogrom (1918), you pretty much conceded that the Hagen reference to the Blue Army's involvement at Lwów was a clear error and could be taken out altogether. Have you changed your mind? I see no reason for it to be included at all just to avoid the possibility that it might come up again and to do so could impinge on our policy against editorial comments in mainspace. We can certainly put a note on the talk page about it, of course, for future reference. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to take the silence as a "no" and also remove the Hagen material from the paragraph. Feel free to revert if I'm mistaken. Does anyone want to continue on Goldstein? Unless I get two "yesses" by 14:00 UTC on 14 March, I'm going to close this as "Stale/resolved" and the discussion can go back to the talk page and be refiled here later if you stall out again. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss additional neutrality issues found in the text, and request that this thread continue until all the issues are discussed in this forum; as previous tries to resolve any neutrality disputes on the Talk Page, ended up being dismissed by user Faustian, and since the article attracts a relatively minor editor following, no other editors participated or provided significant input in the latest round of discussion. So, the issue remains that some of the phrases are poorly structured, and the message they convey may create bias. In the 4th paragraph in the Controversies section, I do question the legitimacy of this statement:

• In cases when Polish sources couldn't deny the existence of anti-Jewish violence, the authorities alluded that Jews charged too much for food during food shortages, or claimed that the violence was a result of "food riots" rather than pogroms, and blamed "German agents" for inciting the violence.[18]

The reason I think this text is bias and should be removed, is because it refers to "Food Riots" and "German Agents". I don't think (and, I could be wrong) that this particular example can be blamed on BA. These claims seem more to do with civilian lawlessness, than military abuses. Also, the statement seems to try and discredit the sentence just before it about "willful disinformation", regarding newspaper reports about alleged anti-jewsih violence committed by the BA. But, those claims of false propaganda are legitimate and proven; and to automatically try and play them down with a questionable statement like the one in question seems out of place. To summarize; yes there were anti-Semitic outbursts committed by the troops serving in the BA, but there were also grossly exaggerated and false accounts published in the press, perfect example was the Lviv pogrom. So, I don't think that a statement that highlights those issues should be followed with a sentence that tries to discredit it. Also, as noted earlier the claims about "Food Riots" and "German Agents" appears to be connected with civilian matters not those of the BA. Finally, regarding the Goldstein issue, I would recommend creating a separate sub-section and place the text there, as it this was not a "controversial" issue that some Jews served in the BA, but a noteworthy item. --COD T 3 (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave this open for a bit longer (probably until Monday since I don't ordinarily edit much on weekends), but nothing can be achieved here without Faustian's participation. If he doesn't choose to return (and I note that he hasn't edited WP at all in the last couple of days), there's nothing else we can do here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that user Faustian's editing tactics border on sabotage (I don't say that to be disruptive, or rude); but, he is quick to revert any changes to the text opposed to his view, and tries to block the new editor with exaggerated claims of "disruptive behavior". Now, that we have an opportunity to include a neutral observer in the discussion, and discuss the text at length, Faustian conveniently removes himself from the discussion. I'm not sure if there is another step that can be taken to have a larger group of mediators look at the content of the article, and assess it's objectivity; because when this threat closes I'm afraid that the dispute will start back up again. --COD T 3 (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2014 (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

• Khojaly Massacre Memorial in Berlin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Interfase (talk · contribs)
• LGA (talk · contribs)
• Hablabar (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Users LGA and Hablabar without any consensus redirected[58][59] the article about Khojaly Massacre Memorial in Berlin to the article Khojaly Massacre Memorials. The articles about this monument we have in Azerbaijani, German and Russian Wikipedias. As a result a lot of information about this memorial was just deleted. Also the image of this monument is unused and is going to be deleted. I didn't see any argumented and normal reason for redirecting. There were a lot of useful information about this monument based on independent and reliable sources. I think that the article about this memorial in Berlin must be restored. We can have both articles about the list of memorials and about each memorial (from this list) itself.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page: Talk:Khojaly Massacre Memorials

How do you think we can help?

I'd like an outsider to judge matters from the viewpoint of Wikipedia policies and conventions: are separate articles warranted, or not?

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.